Kurt, I'm assuming the accreted material referred to is the material gravitationally available to the enlarging protoplanetary mass, not 50% of the mass of the object itself, right? What is the justification for the 50% accretion cut-off? Assuming the in-situ accretion percentage makes or breaks a planet, what do you call those objects that look like planets, walk like planets, & quack like planets, but didn't form in the system you find them in or don't orbit a fusor at all? And what do you call a planet if it's star has evolved into a non-fusor over time, as opposed to a br And what nags at me is, WHY do scientists even WANT to make the "home-grown" distinction at all? It seems totally unnecessary and pathologically compulsive. Could there be a real, scientific reason for it? Seems easy enough to distinguish between natives and non-natives with a few words if and when required, without resorting to an entirely new object classification. --- Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:
A planet is (1) a non-fusor that orbits a fusor and (2) that has accreted more than 50% of the mass in its orbit.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com