Pluto - Planet or Asteroid?
Charles Vegman
My brother in law told me recently that Pluto is now considered by most
astronomers to be an errant asteroid. True? Hmm...I recall discussions
a few years back about Pluto being a small planet, perhaps having a satelite
of its own, and other minor details, but I don't recall this revelation....
Vegman
Lloyd Johnson
It is not an asteroid. Many astronomers argue that being a sphere and
having a moon makes it a planet. Many other astronomers, like me,
don't want to call it a planet anymore and want some new word for it.
http://michele.gcccd.cc.ca.us/~ljohnson/johnson.html
Michael Varney
Charles Vegman wrote:
>
> My brother in law told me recently that Pluto is now considered by most
> astronomers to be an errant asteroid. True? Hmm...I recall discussions
> a few years back about Pluto being a small planet, perhaps having a satelite
> of its own, and other minor details, but I don't recall this revelation....
>
Pluto is cataloged as one of the solar systems planets. It is a binary
system with a companion called Charon (Pronounced care-ron.)
Some physical data on Pluto:
Mass: 0.0018 Earth Masses
Radius: 1140 Km at the equator. (Spherical shape.)
Average Distance from sun: 39.44 Au
Sidereal period. 248.6 years.
Rotation rate: 6.439 days.
Data on Charon:
Distance from Pluto (center of planet): 19.7x10^3 km
Orbital period: 6.39 days
Radius: 600 km
Mass: 0.1 pluto masses
Pluto is theorized to be not an asteroid, but a chunk from the Kupier
(Sp?) disk. Both Pluto and Charon are composed of ice/rock very similar
to a comet, only much larger.
Mike
--
Michael Varney
Department of Physics
Colorado State University
*************************************************************************
If as*holes could fly, it would be perpetually dark!
Of course, one kind person will lift the darkness.
*************************************************************************
mcva...@holly.colostate.edu
Jeff Foust
In article <50onnn$j...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Lloyd Johnson <joh...@mintaka.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>>My brother in law told me recently that Pluto is now considered by most
>>astronomers to be an errant asteroid. True? Hmm...I recall discussions
>>a few years back about Pluto being a small planet, perhaps having a satelite
>>of its own, and other minor details, but I don't recall this revelation....
>
>having a moon makes it a planet. Many other astronomers, like me,
>don't want to call it a planet anymore and want some new word for it.
Of course, since there's no widely-accepted definition of a planet, one can
define the term in such a way to have the desired number of planets in the
solar system, from zero on up. In other words, it's a debate with very
little value.
--
Jeff Foust |
EAPS Dept., MIT | "God is really just a grad student from another
je...@astron.mit.edu | universe who created our universe for his thesis.
jfo...@mit.edu | Probably going to get a D, too." -- Larry Klaes
http://reudi.mit.edu/ |
SpaceViews newsletter: http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/
Rolf Meier
>It is not an asteroid. Many astronomers argue that being a sphere and
>having a moon makes it a planet. Many other astronomers, like me,
>don't want to call it a planet anymore and want some new word for it.
Are you an astronomer?
How many astronomers do you know of that want to have a new word for it?
Just curious.
__________________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier usual disclaimer applies
twitch
Charles Vegman <veg...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote in article
<50od9v$4...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>...
> My brother in law told me recently that Pluto is now considered by most
> astronomers to be an errant asteroid. True? Hmm...I recall discussions
> a few years back about Pluto being a small planet, perhaps having a
satelite
> of its own, and other minor details, but I don't recall this
revelation....
>
> Vegman
>
I highly doubt that "most astronomers" give a dip! There are a few very
vocal advocates of calling it other than a major planet. Most of the
astronomers that I have talked to say why bother causing all the confusion
over a name change, give Clyde his due and work on real problems.
And that attitude seems reasonable to me.
Lloyd Johnson
>Some physical data on Pluto:
>Mass: 0.0018 Earth Masses
Where did you get tha? I calculate a mass of 0.002460 Earth Masses,
based on the orbit of Charon.
http://michele.gcccd.cc.ca.us/~ljohnson/johnson.html
Lloyd Johnson
>>It is not an asteroid. Many astronomers argue that being a sphere and
>>having a moon makes it a planet. Many other astronomers, like me,
>>don't want to call it a planet anymore and want some new word for it.
>Are you an astronomer?
Yes.
>How many astronomers do you know of that want to have a new word for it?
I haven't taken a poll, but I know I'm not the only one. I guess I
exagerated when I said, "many other astronomers."
http://michele.gcccd.cc.ca.us/~ljohnson/johnson.html
Lloyd Johnson
>> My brother in law told me recently that Pluto is now considered by most
>> astronomers to be an errant asteroid. True? Hmm...I recall discussions
>> a few years back about Pluto being a small planet, perhaps having a
>satelite
>> of its own, and other minor details, but I don't recall this
>revelation....
>>
Probably true.
>There are a few very
>vocal advocates of calling it other than a major planet. Most of the
>astronomers that I have talked to say why bother causing all the confusion
>over a name change, give Clyde his due and work on real problems.
Calling Pluto something else does not diminish Clyde Tombaugh's
accomplishment. He discovered the first of a new class of object.
That is more important than finding another planet.
>And that attitude seems reasonable to me.
I agree. There is no reason to get into a long, heated debate.
However you pronounce it, it's still Pluto.
http://michele.gcccd.cc.ca.us/~ljohnson/johnson.html
Jeff Wilson
Michael Varney wrote:
>
>
> Pluto is theorized to be not an asteroid, but a chunk from the Kupier
> (Sp?) disk. Both Pluto and Charon are composed of ice/rock very similar
> to a comet, only much larger.
>
How readily accepted is this? I've read in many modern texts that
Pluto is more likely a moon from one of the gas giants that was
catastrophically disrupted some time ago.
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Jeff Wilson | In space, no one can |
| jdwi...@nortel.com | hear you scream!! |
| Richardson, TX - my opinions are...MINE. | |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
george_...@email.mot.com
veg...@aztec.asu.edu (Charles Vegman) wrote:
>My brother in law told me recently that Pluto is now considered by most
>astronomers to be an errant asteroid. True? Hmm...I recall discussions
>a few years back about Pluto being a small planet, perhaps having a satelite
>of its own, and other minor details, but I don't recall this revelation....
>Vegman
I'm not an astronomer, nor do I know what 'most' of them think about
Pluto, but as I recall, there are 2 criteria for being called a planet
... 1) in orbit around the sun ( vs being in orbit around another
planet ) and 2) enough mass to have assumed a spherical shape ( vs
the 'potato shaped' Gaspra ). I think Pluto meets both of these
criteria, even though it's moon ( Charon ) is close enough in size
that many call it a 'binary system'. So far, it's still classified as
a planet.
george c
Michael Varney
The mass as quoted in the CRC 1983 - 1984 on page f-165 is ~ 0.002?
The text Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics #rd Edition by Zeilik
Gregory and Smith Gave the value I quoted in the previous post.
I am wondering, did you use approximations of the mass of the sun and
the average distance of Pluto when using Keplers Harmonic Law?
Mike.
Michael Varney
Jeff Wilson wrote:
>
> Michael Varney wrote:
> >
> >
> > Pluto is theorized to be not an asteroid, but a chunk from the Kupier
> > (Sp?) disk. Both Pluto and Charon are composed of ice/rock very similar
> > to a comet, only much larger.
> >
>
> How readily accepted is this? I've read in many modern texts that
> Pluto is more likely a moon from one of the gas giants that was
> catastrophically disrupted some time ago.
Let us say that Pluto was once a moon of one of the gas giants.
The force and energy needed to rip Pluto from such an orbit to an orbit
farther away from the sun is astounding. The pull of the orbited gas
giant would make it very difficult to achieve this type of orbit.
Pluto also has a companion, Charon, that orbits Pluto. I wonder at
the type of mechanics needed to assure the orbit of Charon around Pluto
as Pluto was ripped away from the gas giant.
Pluto and Charon are made of the same material as comets and objects
from the Kuiper disk.
I thinks it is a better model to have Pluto a body from the Kuiper Disk
than a rogue satellite from a gas giant.
DAVID WILLIAMS
-> My brother in law told me recently that Pluto is now considered by
-> most astronomers to be an errant asteroid. True? Hmm...I recall
-> discussions a few years back about Pluto being a small planet,
-> perhaps having a satelite of its own, and other minor details, but I
-> don't recall this revelation....
Pluto is the smallest of the nine "planets". Yes, it does have a
satellite, Charon, which is so large, that Pluto-Charon might better be
considered a kind of binary planet than a planet and its satellite.
It is now known that, outside the orbit of Neptune, there is a belt of
small objects, vaguely similar to the asteroid belt, but consisting
of icy things, rather than rocky ones. Some of these objects are of the
order of a hundred kilometres in diameter, and quite a few of them have
been seen. Sometimes these objects are perturbed by the planets and fall
into the inner solar system, where they appear as *comets*. Pluto,
because of its small size and its orbital charcteristics, is now
considered by many astronomers to be the largest member of this belt,
which is called the Kuiper Belt. So, according to them, it is neither a
planet nor an asteroid, but a very large proto-comet!
However, this is a slippery slope. Should we use the same logic to argue
that Mars is the largest asteroid? By conventional definition, a planet
is anything orbiting the sun that has a diameter of 1000 kilometres or
more. By this definition, Pluto is a planet.
dow
DAVID WILLIAMS
-> Pluto, but as I recall, there are 2 criteria for being called a
-> planet ... 1) in orbit around the sun ( vs being in orbit around
-> another planet ) and 2) enough mass to have assumed a spherical
-> shape ( vs
Several of the largest asteroids, e.g. Ceres, satisfy both of these
criteria, yet are still called asteroids.
A third criterion is having a diameter of 1000 kilometres or more. This
neatly excludes Ceres and all the other conventionally-called asteroids,
but includes all the objects we know as planets - including Pluto.
The truth is, of course, that there are no clear physical divisions
between planets, asteroids and Kuiper-belt proto-comets. Which objects
are included in each category is purely a matter of convention. This is
a discussion about words, rather than about any significant astronomical
facts.
dow
Michael Varney
DAVID WILLIAMS wrote:
>
> -> Pluto, but as I recall, there are 2 criteria for being called a
> -> planet ... 1) in orbit around the sun ( vs being in orbit around
> -> another planet ) and 2) enough mass to have assumed a spherical
> -> shape ( vs
>
> Several of the largest asteroids, e.g. Ceres, satisfy both of these
> criteria, yet are still called asteroids.
Ceres is not spherical, and does not have near enough mass to assume a
spherical shape.
Regards,
Robert Casey
This is really just a semantics word game (how do you define "planet"
precisely anyhow? And why should I buy your defination insted of mine?
It doesn't change anything about the object anyhow.) BESIDES, Congress
might decide to not fund the Pluto Express spaceprobe mission, if they
thought Pluto was "demoted" from planet to asteroid. To Congressmen,
words are the entire ballgame. And that an asteroid, being a "minor
planet" isn't worth the money, where if that same object is called
a "major planet" let's do it. Why make it harder to convince Congress
to give us enough $ for this mission!!
Walter E. Shepherd
Ahhh yes... but with Charon you get two for the price of one... that's a
50 percent discount... surely Congress can't pass that up?
BTW: Please let's not start up this "is it or isn't it a planet" routine
again. The last one was quite boring.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_ /| DISCLAIMER: Disclaimant is a hireling who speaks for himself.
\'o.O' He is as bothered and bewildered as you, and he
=(___)= Ack! probably didn't mean or say what you might have
U Thppft!! thought he meant or said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh Gibbons
>
> >My brother in law told me recently that Pluto is now considered by most
> >astronomers to be an errant asteroid. True? Hmm...I recall discussions
> >a few years back about Pluto being a small planet, perhaps having a satelite
> >of its own, and other minor details, but I don't recall this revelation....
>
> It is not an asteroid. Many astronomers argue that being a sphere and
> having a moon makes it a planet. Many other astronomers, like me,
> don't want to call it a planet anymore and want some new word for it.
>
planette?
planetling?
baby planet?
plasteroid?
subplanetviceplanetasssistantplanetdeputyplanet
Erik Max Francis
Robert Casey wrote:
> This is really just a semantics word game (how do you define "planet"
> precisely anyhow? And why should I buy your defination insted of mine?
> It doesn't change anything about the object anyhow.)
Of course not. In fact the discussions is even less than an argument about
semantics. Planets are not defined with any specific size limit or
relationship to other bodies; they are defined by example. As such, Pluto is a
planet, pure and simple.
Arguing that Pluto is not a planet is something like arguing that an apple is
not a fruit.
--
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE http://www.alcyone.com/max/ m...@alcyone.com
San Jose, California ICBM 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W R^4: the 4th R is respect
"Out from his breast/his soul went to seek/the doom of the just." -- _Beowulf_
Jonathan Silverlight
Isn't it too late ? I thought NASA had decided not to ask for
funds for Pluto Express. In "Mining the Oort" Fred Pohl refers to
"plutons" as a generic name - I don't know if this is generally
accepted.
In article <wa2iseDx...@netcom.com>, Robert Casey
(wa2...@netcom.com) writes:
>This is really just a semantics word game (how do you define "planet"
>precisely anyhow? And why should I buy your defination insted of mine?
>It doesn't change anything about the object anyhow.) BESIDES, Congress
>might decide to not fund the Pluto Express spaceprobe mission, if they
>thought Pluto was "demoted" from planet to asteroid. To Congressmen,
>words are the entire ballgame. And that an asteroid, being a "minor
>planet" isn't worth the money, where if that same object is called
>a "major planet" let's do it. Why make it harder to convince Congress
>to give us enough $ for this mission!!
>
Save the International Ultraviolet Explorer !
Greg Hennessy
In article <3234695E...@alcyone.com>,
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> Arguing that Pluto is not a planet is something like arguing that an apple is
> not a fruit.
Fruits have a much better definition than planets.
And remember, a tomato is a fruit. Except for tax purposes in New
York.
Paul Schlyter
In article <8C7E2A6.24F7...@westonia.com>,
DAVID WILLIAMS <david.w...@westonia.com> wrote:
>> Pluto, but as I recall, there are 2 criteria for being called a
>
> Several of the largest asteroids, e.g. Ceres, satisfy both of these
> criteria, yet are still called asteroids.
>
> neatly excludes Ceres and all the other conventionally-called asteroids,
> but includes all the objects we know as planets - including Pluto.
km, which according to your definition would make Ceres a "planet"...
> The truth is, of course, that there are no clear physical divisions
> between planets, asteroids and Kuiper-belt proto-comets. Which objects
> are included in each category is purely a matter of convention. This is
> a discussion about words, rather than about any significant astronomical
> facts.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se p...@home.ausys.se
Jeff Foust
In article <6...@portugal.win-uk.net>,
Jonathan Silverlight <jsi...@portugal.win-uk.net> wrote:
>Isn't it too late ? I thought NASA had decided not to ask for
>funds for Pluto Express.
No. Pluto Express hasn't progressed yet to the point where it becomes a
line item in the budget. Given current budgetary pressures that may not
happen for a few years, either. :( See:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/pluto/PFFinfo.html
for more info.
>In "Mining the Oort" Fred Pohl refers to
>"plutons" as a generic name - I don't know if this is generally
>accepted.
Cute name, but no, not in general usage.
--
Jeff Foust |
EAPS Dept., MIT | "Asking female officers for their clothing could
je...@astron.mit.edu | lead to misunderstanding."
jfo...@mit.edu | -- Tuvok, "Star Trek: Voyager"
Dave Tholen
Paul Schlyter writes:
> DAVID WILLIAMS wrote:
>> Several of the largest asteroids, e.g. Ceres, satisfy both of these
>> criteria, yet are still called asteroids.
>>
>> A third criterion is having a diameter of 1000 kilometres or more. This
>> neatly excludes Ceres and all the other conventionally-called asteroids,
>> but includes all the objects we know as planets - including Pluto.
> Some sources have given the diameter of Ceres as slightly above 1000
> km, which according to your definition would make Ceres a "planet"...
Such sources are woefully out of date. There is a very reliable
occultation diameter determination for Ceres that puts it at 933 km.
The ellipticity is only a few km either way from that figure; doesn't
put it over 1000 km.
Bill Owen
In article <3230B4...@holly.colostate.edu>, Michael Varney <mcva...@holly.colostate.edu> writes:
> Lloyd Johnson wrote:
> >
> > >Some physical data on Pluto:
> >
> > >Mass: 0.0018 Earth Masses
> >
> > Where did you get tha? I calculate a mass of 0.002460 Earth Masses,
> > based on the orbit of Charon.
> >
> > http://michele.gcccd.cc.ca.us/~ljohnson/johnson.html
>
> The mass as quoted in the CRC 1983 - 1984 on page f-165 is ~ 0.002?
>
> The text Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics #rd Edition by Zeilik
> Gregory and Smith Gave the value I quoted in the previous post.
>
> I am wondering, did you use approximations of the mass of the sun and
> the average distance of Pluto when using Keplers Harmonic Law?
You gotta be careful here. Kepler's Third Law gives the *sum* of the masses
of Pluto and Charon -- if you plug in 19640 km for Charon's semimajor axis
and 6.387246 days for Charon's orbital period, the system GM turns out to be
985 km^3/sec^2, or 0.00247 times Earth's.
In order to break this figure into Pluto's mass and Charon's mass separately,
you have to observe the two bodies orbiting around their barycenter well enough
to get the ratio of (Pluto minus barycenter) / (Charon minus Pluto). Given
that the two bodies are never separated by more than 1", this is a rather
tricky observation to make. It's possible with Hubble, but there are all sorts
of distortions in the optics (both the main telescope and WF/PC) to contend
with. It's been tried from the ground too, where the big technical difficulty
is in separating the blended images.
In any case, the Charon/Pluto mass ratio seems to be converging on a value of
about 1/8, so Pluto has about 8/9 of the mass of the system, and thus Pluto
itself has about 0.0022 of the Earth's mass.
References include:
G.W. Null and W.M. Owen, Jr. 1996. AJ 111,1368
L.A. Young et al. 1994. Icarus 108, 186
D.J. Tholen and M.W.Buie 1996. Icarus, in press
-- Bill Owen, w...@wansor.jpl.nasa.gov
Paul Schlyter
In article <51hq2u$k...@news.hawaii.edu>,
Yes I know these sources are out of date, nevertheless they've appeared.
Which means that if one sets a limit of 1000 km between "planet" and
"asteroid", then Ceres would have been a planet a few decades ago, and
then switched to being an asteroid....
BENJAMIN_H. ZELLNER
In <526fs7$o...@electra.saaf.se> pau...@electra.saaf.se writes:
> >> Some sources have given the diameter of Ceres as slightly above 1000
> >> km, which according to your definition would make Ceres a "planet"...
> Yes I know these sources are out of date, nevertheless they've appeared.
> Which means that if one sets a limit of 1000 km between "planet" and
> "asteroid", then Ceres would have been a planet a few decades ago, and
> then switched to being an asteroid....
In 30 years of planetary astronomy, I've never heard of any such criterion
being seriously applied.
What you call things is arbitrary. After all, the old Indo-European word
"planet" just means something that roams or wanders.
But if you want to find a genuinely significant distinction, it might be
an object which chemically differentiated after formation, versus one
that did not. In that case Mercury through Neptune, but also Vesta and
the parent bodies of some other differentiated asteroids would be planets,
but Ceres and Pluto probably not.
Ben
Dave Tholen
Paul Schlyter writes:
>>> DAVID WILLIAMS wrote:
>>>> Several of the largest asteroids, e.g. Ceres, satisfy both of these
>>>> criteria, yet are still called asteroids.
>>>>
>>>> A third criterion is having a diameter of 1000 kilometres or more. This
>>>> neatly excludes Ceres and all the other conventionally-called asteroids,
>>>> but includes all the objects we know as planets - including Pluto.
>>> Some sources have given the diameter of Ceres as slightly above 1000
>>> km, which according to your definition would make Ceres a "planet"...
>> Such sources are woefully out of date. There is a very reliable
>> occultation diameter determination for Ceres that puts it at 933 km.
>> The ellipticity is only a few km either way from that figure; doesn't
>> put it over 1000 km.
> Thanks for posting something that's NOT a discussion with "Nancy".... :-)
I've posted several items that don't involve Nancy. I've posted items that
involve you. In fact, you got so upset, you made a big stink about putting
me in your kill file. Yet here you are.
DAVID WILLIAMS
-> > Which means that if one sets a limit of 1000 km between "planet"
-> and > "asteroid", then Ceres would have been a planet a few decades
-> ago, and > then switched to being an asteroid....
-> In 30 years of planetary astronomy, I've never heard of any such
-> criterion being seriously applied.
->
-> What you call things is arbitrary. After all, the old Indo-European
-> word "planet" just means something that roams or wanders.
->
-> But if you want to find a genuinely significant distinction, it might
-> be an object which chemically differentiated after formation, versus
-> one that did not. In that case Mercury through Neptune, but also
-> Vesta and the parent bodies of some other differentiated asteroids
-> would be planets, but Ceres and Pluto probably not.
If it's implausible to use a 1000-km-diameter criterion to distinguish
planets from other stuff, then it's certainly implausible to use a
criterion that depends on the internal structure of the body. Without
rather extensive study, how does one know whether an object has
chemically differentiated? Until the studies have been done, what does
one call it?
In the case of our own solar system, it is probably enough just to have
a list of (presumably nine) objects, and say "By convention, these are
the planets." But the science of planetary astronomy is now extending to
objects in orbit around other stars. Sooner or later, presumably, small
objects will be found out there which, like our solar-system asteroids,
etc., will be felt to be too small to be called planets. It would be
nice to have a set of simple criteria for distinguishing planets from
these smaller objects that could be applied soon after discovery,
without awaiting the results of studies that might take decades to
complete. Then, when some super-telescope detects a pinprick of light
orbiting a star, we could say fairly quickly, "This is a planet.", or,
conversely, "This is an asteroid."
I suppose only the apparent brightness of the object, relative to its
distance from its parent star, is a usable criterion. Which boils down,
pretty well, to its size....
dow
Paul Schlyter
In article <528r5f$c...@news.hawaii.edu>,
>
> I've posted several items that don't involve Nancy.
weren't they? Did you count them? Well, someone else counted them for you:
# the fools that they are. These 6 fools are:
#
# Marc Sisson: msi...@dnaent.com
# 59 Nancy posts since January, 96
# Dave Tholen: tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
# 49 Nancy posts since April, 96
# Garret: vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
# 35 Nancy posts since April, 96
# Eric Kline: <emk...@acs.tamu.edu>
# 25 Nancy posts since April, 96
# Henry Warwick: <hwar...@macromedia.com
# 15 Nancy posts since January, 96
# Bob Garwood: <bgar...@nrao.edu>
# 10 Nancy posts since January, 96
You're not #1 on this list, but if this guy had counted your messages
all the way back to Jan 96, you might very well have made it #1....
> I've posted items that involve you. In fact, you got so upset,
> you made a big stink about putting me in your kill file.
teenager. Did it upset you very much that not everybody wanted to
see all your responses to Nancy?
> Yet here you are.
Sure! From time to time I clean up my killfiles. As I noticed my
count of killed files went down dramatically, I decided to clean up
my killfiles. Nancy is gone for the moment, which means your
responses to her should be gone too. But if you continue with
posts like this, I'll killfile you again very soon.
Dave Tholen
Paul Schlyter writes:
>>> Thanks for posting something that's NOT a discussion with "Nancy".... :-)
>> I've posted several items that don't involve Nancy.
> Yeah, a few -- but most of your posts were responses to "Nancy",
> weren't they?
If you really want to know, Paul, be my guest to count them.
> Did you count them?
I don't care to. I'm not interested in keeping a scorecard.
> Well, someone else counted them for you:
Yeah, an anonymous person named "Foofy", who admitted to being a fool,
and who did lousy research. I didn't see any count of the several items
I posted that didn't involve Nancy, so the count is useless.
> You're not #1 on this list,
Irrelevant, Paul. I wasn't trying to be any number on the list.
> but if this guy had counted your messages
> all the way back to Jan 96, you might very well have made it #1....
Or you might have, given that you also responded to Nancy. Seems you
don't care to discuss your own involvement, only mine. I'm not
surprised, but I still don't understand your motivation.
>> I've posted items that involve you. In fact, you got so upset,
>> you made a big stink about putting me in your kill file.
> How old are you?
Irrelevant, Paul.
> Here you act as if you were no older than a teenager.
What you think is irrelevant, Paul. The fact that all you want to
discuss right now is Nancy speaks volumes. Note who brought up Nancy:
you, not me.
> Did it upset you very much that not everybody wanted to
> see all your responses to Nancy?
It didn't upset me at all, Paul.
>> Yet here you are.
> Sure! From time to time I clean up my killfiles.
Why? To remove the desired effect?
> As I noticed my
> count of killed files went down dramatically, I decided to clean up
> my killfiles. Nancy is gone for the moment, which means your
> responses to her should be gone too.
They are. But you had to make sure that Nancy would be brought up again.
Do you have some obsession with Nancy?
> But if you continue with
> posts like this, I'll killfile you again very soon.
Go right ahead, Paul. At least it would prevent you from bringing
up such useless topics again.
Paul Schlyter
In article <52r2vf$1...@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tho...@newton.ifa.hawaii.edu> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter writes:
>
>>>> Thanks for posting something that's NOT a discussion with "Nancy".... :-)
>>> I've posted several items that don't involve Nancy.
>> Yeah, a few -- but most of your posts were responses to "Nancy",
>> weren't they?
>
> If you really want to know, Paul, be my guest to count them.
>
>> Did you count them?
>
> I don't care to. I'm not interested in keeping a scorecard.
>
>> Well, someone else counted them for you:
>
> Yeah, an anonymous person named "Foofy", who admitted to being a fool,
> and who did lousy research. I didn't see any count of the several items
> I posted that didn't involve Nancy, so the count is useless.
on subjects not related to Nancy, or what? In your case it wouldn't make
much difference btw since at least 80-90% of your posts were "Nancy"
posts before I decided to killfile you several moons ago....
>> You're not #1 on this list,
>
> Irrelevant, Paul. I wasn't trying to be any number on the list.
or near #1 on such a list!
>> but if this guy had counted your messages
>> all the way back to Jan 96, you might very well have made it #1....
>
> Or you might have, given that you also responded to Nancy.
> Seems you don't care to discuss your own involvement, only mine.
> I'm not surprised, but I still don't understand your motivation.
refuse to realize yours....
>>> I've posted items that involve you. In fact, you got so upset,
>>> you made a big stink about putting me in your kill file.
>> How old are you?
>
> Irrelevant, Paul.
>> Here you act as if you were no older than a teenager.
>
> What you think is irrelevant, Paul. The fact that all you want to
> discuss right now is Nancy speaks volumes. Note who brought up Nancy:
> you, not me.
"Thanks for posting something that's NOT a discussion with "Nancy".... :-)"
responded to that sooooooo eagerlyyyyy.......
>> Did it upset you very much that not everybody wanted to
>> see all your responses to Nancy?
>
> It didn't upset me at all, Paul.
>>> Yet here you are.
>
>> Sure! From time to time I clean up my killfiles.
>
> Why? To remove the desired effect?
>> As I noticed my
>> count of killed files went down dramatically, I decided to clean up
>> my killfiles. Nancy is gone for the moment, which means your
>> responses to her should be gone too.
>
> They are. But you had to make sure that Nancy would be brought up
> again. Do you have some obsession with Nancy?
many of her posts, and if someone should mention her in passing, you
respond to that soooooo eagerly.....
>> But if you continue with posts like this, I'll killfile you again
>> very soon.
>
> Go right ahead, Paul. At least it would prevent you from bringing
> up such useless topics again.
topics....
Mika-Petri Lauronen
I haven't been following the whole thread, but I'd like to point
out some methods of determining whether an object is a planet or not:
1. It has a mass big enough to compress the body into a sphere.
This criteria is fulfilled with Pluto but not with asteroids.
2. If a body has its own satellites, it could be called a planet.
Unfortunately, not all of the current planets fulfill this one...
(Mercury and Venus lack satellites). And of course, there's at
least one known case of an asteroid having a satellite...
I think the 1st criteria is a very good definition of a planet
in addition to the fact that a planet orbits a star and doesn't
have its own fusion mechanism (there can be an inner source of
energy, but not nuclear reactions). By this definition we have
nine planets at the moment (or actually 7 planets - Mercury,
Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune AND two double
planet systems - Earth/Moon and Pluto/Charon).
--
*******************************************************************
* " You can point your finger at the moon, but the finger is not *
* the moon" - Old Zen saying *
*************************** Mixu Lauronen, mpla...@paju.oulu.fi **
Henry Warwick
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>Even you ought to realize that it's somewhat embarassing to be #1
or near #1 on such a list!<<
I don't feel embarrassed at all, actually. Rather than deal with
her idiocy on a scientific basis, I simply resorted to satire and
ridicule, and frankly I thought my stuff was usually quite an
entertaining response to someone so bend on clogging sci.astro
with brain drool.
From my end, I have found net kooks very interesting, and have
tried several times to get her elected kook of the month.
However, I also have a love of astronomy and matters most
cosmological, and when she started spewing here in sci.astro,
I felt some action had to be taken, hence, the responses
I posted.
Arguing points of science with her were a waste of time, and I
don't know why people bothered. I always felt it was sufficient
to say to her "You take orders from WHO? You're a loony!" and
then write a flame/satirical commentary which was not only
entertaining, but may have also contributed to her going away.
Interestingly enough, she is now on AOL (something oddly
appropriate about that....) zeta...@aol.com.
But Nancy is a certifiable bonehead, bless her empty little
skull. Her worst problem (which is actually very common
among net kooks) is that she is not a very interesting writer.
Her prose is flat, her vocabulary limited, and her concepts
are not so scintillatingly bizarre that they might make
up the deficit in her stylistics.
Now, Archy's another case. His idiot ideas are SO ridiculous,
(the universe a giant Plutonium atom? puleeez...) that
they stand alone in their legendary stupidity. His tenacity
and stubborness are equally well known, and so the only thing
we can do is hope for carpal tunnell syndrome to strike
him, or that he suddenly wakes up one day and realises
"Gee, I've been making an ass of myself for so long now,
perhaps I should stop and let these people get on with
their business- lord knows I have nothing of significance to
contribute."
As that is not likely, I'm afraid all we can do is urge
Archy to slouch and not use wrist pads. The worst part is,
like Nancy, he's prone to bombast instead of wit and verifiable,
repeatable evidence, and all of it is written so blandly...
\ | /
o o
O
( m )
Uff da!
But my job is not to get into a sparring match with Mr Pu,
there are others out there much more capable of keeping him
at bay than I.
As ever, I urge all to continue their search in the heavens,
and I remain your ob. srv.,
Mr Warwick
BENJAMIN_H. ZELLNER
In <52ts84$t...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi> mpla...@raita.oulu.fi writes:
> I haven't been following the whole thread, but I'd like to point
> out some methods of determining whether an object is a planet or not:
God, in the form of Brian Marsden, has spoken. See page 8 of the
November Sky and Telescope. Pluto is "King of the Kuiper Belt",
not a planet.
Ben
Jedidiah Whitten
Mika-Petri Lauronen (mpla...@raita.oulu.fi) wrote:
: I haven't been following the whole thread, but I'd like to point
: out some methods of determining whether an object is a planet or not:
: 1. It has a mass big enough to compress the body into a sphere.
: This criteria is fulfilled with Pluto but not with asteroids.
Okay, but you're going to have to consider Ceres and the other large
asteroids to be planets as well, since they are spherical.
: nine planets at the moment (or actually 7 planets - Mercury,
: Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune AND two double
: planet systems - Earth/Moon and Pluto/Charon).
Then there's this problem of how to define a double planet. The Moon
is more influenced by the Sun's gravity than the Earth's, but the
barycenter of the Earth-Moon system is inside the Earth. Charon is close
to Pluto's size but it is still a satellite of Pluto.
--
------------------------------------------
| Jedidiah Whitten |
| jswh...@ucdavis.edu |
| http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~whitten |
------------------------------------------
Dave Tholen
Paul Schlyter writes:
>>>>> Thanks for posting something that's NOT a discussion with "Nancy".... :-)
>>>> I've posted several items that don't involve Nancy.
>>> Yeah, a few -- but most of your posts were responses to "Nancy",
>>> weren't they?
>> If you really want to know, Paul, be my guest to count them.
>>> Did you count them?
>> I don't care to. I'm not interested in keeping a scorecard.
>>> Well, someone else counted them for you:
>> Yeah, an anonymous person named "Foofy", who admitted to being a fool,
>> and who did lousy research. I didn't see any count of the several items
>> I posted that didn't involve Nancy, so the count is useless.
> Why should he count them?
Paul, recall what you wrote above: "Well, someone else counted them for
you:". Now, your usage of "them" is quite ambiguous, given that above
you referred to both the "few" and the "most", so from the context, one
can conclude that "them" refers to both the alleged "few" non-Nancy
postings *and* the alleged "many" Nancy postings.
> Did you expect to see a list of the top posters
> on subjects not related to Nancy, or what?
You're the one making the claim about the alleged "few" non-Nancy
postings. On what are you basing your claim, Paul? Given your
claim that you kill-filed me, how would you know the extent of my
postings at all since that time?
> In your case it wouldn't make
> much difference btw since at least 80-90% of your posts were "Nancy"
> posts before I decided to killfile you several moons ago....
How would you know the percentage, Paul? Have you been keeping a
scorecard? Why are you so obsessed with a scorecard?
>>> You're not #1 on this list,
>> Irrelevant, Paul. I wasn't trying to be any number on the list.
> Even you ought to realize that it's somewhat embarassing to be #1
> or near #1 on such a list!
No, I don't, Paul. I'm not embarrassed to be any number on the list.
>>> but if this guy had counted your messages
>>> all the way back to Jan 96, you might very well have made it #1....
>> Or you might have, given that you also responded to Nancy.
> Not nearly as much as you did.
Irrelevant; you're trying to rationalize your responses while
criticizing others for their responses.
> But I admit it: I too was stupid then.
By using the word "too", you're implying that I've been stupid to
respond to Nancy, but I don't share that opinion. If you regret
your postings, that's your choice. I do not regret mine, and if
Nancy returns with more material that could affect what readers
think, I will respond again.
>> Seems you don't care to discuss your own involvement, only mine.
>> I'm not surprised, but I still don't understand your motivation.
> The difference is that at one point I realized my mistake.
If you want to consider your actions a mistake, that's your choice.
> You still refuse to realize yours....
There is no mistake on my part to realize, Paul. Or do you think you
can prove that it was a mistake?
>>>> I've posted items that involve you. In fact, you got so upset,
>>>> you made a big stink about putting me in your kill file.
>>> How old are you?
>> Irrelevant, Paul.
> Ok, let's say 16 years...
Why are you obsessed with age, and why do you choose an illogical one?
How would making up something illogical prove anything, Paul? It does
say plenty about you, however.
>>> Here you act as if you were no older than a teenager.
>> What you think is irrelevant, Paul. The fact that all you want to
>> discuss right now is Nancy speaks volumes. Note who brought up Nancy:
>> you, not me.
> Yeah - in one line, saying:
>
> "Thanks for posting something that's NOT a discussion with "Nancy".... :-)"
That's proof that you brought up Nancy, not me. Furthermore, who is
the one so interested in a scorecard of non-Nancy versus Nancy
postings? You, not me.
> (btw please note the smiley at the end)
Irrelevant; you still brought up Nancy, regardless of your intent.
> ... and you immediately responded to that sooooooo eagerlyyyyy.......
There was no eagerness on my part, Paul. However, using that line of
questionable reasoning, one could claim that you were even more eager to
bring Nancy up, given that you first to do so.
>>> Did it upset you very much that not everybody wanted to
>>> see all your responses to Nancy?
>> It didn't upset me at all, Paul.
> Then why do you respond as if you were upset?
I didn't respond as if I were upset.
>>>> Yet here you are.
>>> Sure! From time to time I clean up my killfiles.
>> Why? To remove the desired effect?
> If the effect is no longer needed, it need not be there, right?
Why would you think that the effect is no longer needed? Do you have
some reason to believe that Nancy will not return? Do you have some
reason to believe that I won't respond similarly if you once again
try to cover up the fact that you did not know the difference between
how to convert asteroid and star positions from B1950 to J2000?
>>> As I noticed my
>>> count of killed files went down dramatically, I decided to clean up
>>> my killfiles. Nancy is gone for the moment, which means your
>>> responses to her should be gone too.
>> They are. But you had to make sure that Nancy would be brought up
>> again. Do you have some obsession with Nancy?
> The one being obsessed with Nancy is you:
How ironic. You bring up Nancy and pretend that I'm the one obsessed
with her. Want to try a little experiment, Paul? Try not mentioning
Nancy in whatever followup you might make here and see if I do.
> you respond to far too many of her posts,
Illogical; the motivation for responding has nothing to do with Nancy,
but rather to correct some errors or misconceptions that might be
believed by other readers. Feel free to blame me for being obsessed
with the truth.
> and if someone should mention her in passing,
As you did.
> you respond to that soooooo eagerly.....
You have no basis for claiming any eagerness. But if you insist on
that line of reasoning, then consider your greater eagerness to
bring her up in the first place. But of course, you don't want to
acknowledge that, for fear of admitting your own obsession with her.
I'm not surprised. After all, you also didn't want to admit not
knowing the difference between how to handle asteroids and stars
when converting from B1950 to J2000.
>>> But if you continue with posts like this, I'll killfile you again
>>> very soon.
>> Go right ahead, Paul. At least it would prevent you from bringing
>> up such useless topics again.
> Unfortunately it would not prevent you from following up on such
> topics....
Then why use a kill file in the first place? Sounds like you're trying
to use it to affect what other people do, but it doesn't work that way.
You'd be far more effective trying logical argument, but all you seem
to be interested in is rationalizing the fact that you brought up Nancy
first, scorecards of who has posted how many items, calling someone
else a 16-year-old teenager, childish spelling of "so eagerly", and
posting your article to sci.astro, while directing followups to
alt.peeves! Worried about seeing a response here, Paul? Why not
take your own material to alt.peeves in the first place?
Yes Paul, you've done a very good job of showing who the immature
one is here.
Paul Schlyter
In article <530upk$a...@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tho...@newton.ifa.hawaii.edu> wrote:
Paul Schlyter writes:
>>>>>> Thanks for posting something that's NOT a discussion with
>>>>>> "Nancy".... :-)
>>>>> I've posted several items that don't involve Nancy.
>>>> Yeah, a few -- but most of your posts were responses to "Nancy",
>>>> weren't they?
>>> If you really want to know, Paul, be my guest to count them.
>>>> Did you count them?
>>> I don't care to. I'm not interested in keeping a scorecard.
>>>> Well, someone else counted them for you:
>>> Yeah, an anonymous person named "Foofy", who admitted to being a fool,
>>> and who did lousy research. I didn't see any count of the several items
>>> I posted that didn't involve Nancy, so the count is useless.
>> Why should he count them?
>Paul, recall what you wrote above: "Well, someone else counted them for
>you:". Now, your usage of "them" is quite ambiguous, given that above
>you referred to both the "few" and the "most", so from the context, one
>can conclude that "them" refers to both the alleged "few" non-Nancy
>postings *and* the alleged "many" Nancy postings.
>> Did you expect to see a list of the top posters
>> on subjects not related to Nancy, or what?
>
>You're the one making the claim about the alleged "few" non-Nancy
>postings. On what are you basing your claim, Paul?
On my memory, which of course is not perfect.
> Given your claim that you kill-filed me, how would you know the
> extent of my postings at all since that time?
I removed you from my killfile perhaps a month ago. It's based on
what I've seen since then.
>> In your case it wouldn't make much difference btw since at
>> least 80-90% of your posts were "Nancy" posts before I decided
>> to killfile you several moons ago....
>
>How would you know the percentage, Paul?
I estimated it. Was I wrong? If so, please supply the correct
percentage, plus give an exhaustive description on how you
obtained it.
>Have you been keeping a scorecard?
No
>Why are you so obsessed with a scorecard?
N/A since I don't keep a scorecard.
>>>> You're not #1 on this list,
>>> Irrelevant, Paul. I wasn't trying to be any number on the list.
>> Even you ought to realize that it's somewhat embarassing to be #1
>> or near #1 on such a list!
>
>No, I don't, Paul. I'm not embarrassed to be any number on the list.
You ought to be embarrassed to be near the top of such a list. Perhaps
you and Nancy have several properties in common? Nancy seems not to
be easily embarrassed either....
>>>> but if this guy had counted your messages
>>>> all the way back to Jan 96, you might very well have made it #1....
>>> Or you might have, given that you also responded to Nancy.
>> Not nearly as much as you did.
>
>Irrelevant; you're trying to rationalize your responses while
>criticizing others for their responses.
Relevent: you claimed I could be #1, but since you responded so much
more to Nancy than I ever did, this is not possible. Yes, I would
be quite embarrassed to be #1 on such a list.
>> But I admit it: I too was stupid then.
>
>By using the word "too", you're implying that I've been stupid to
>respond to Nancy, but I don't share that opinion. If you regret
>your postings, that's your choice. I do not regret mine, and if
>Nancy returns with more material that could affect what readers
>think, I will respond again.
Self-insight seems not to be your strong point....
>>> Seems you don't care to discuss your own involvement, only mine.
>>> I'm not surprised, but I still don't understand your motivation.
>> The difference is that at one point I realized my mistake.
>
>If you want to consider your actions a mistake, that's your choice.
You haven't learnt the slightest bit....
>> You still refuse to realize yours....
>
>There is no mistake on my part to realize, Paul.
There was: you never convinced Nancy, and the others already knew her
posts were garbage. All you managed to do was to increase the noise
level here + encourage her to post even more!
>Or do you think you can prove that it was a mistake?
I won't even try .... to do that would be as futile as to try to
convince a flat-Earth-freak that the Earth is a globe....
>>>>> I've posted items that involve you. In fact, you got so upset,
>>>>> you made a big stink about putting me in your kill file.
>>>> How old are you?
>>> Irrelevant, Paul.
>> Ok, let's say 16 years...
>
>Why are you obsessed with age, and why do you choose an illogical one?
>How would making up something illogical prove anything, Paul? It does
>say plenty about you, however.
I was referring to your mental age ... apparently this was beyond
your ability to comprehend (which is evidence that I'm right here).
One characteristic of mentally young people is that they tend to take
every sentence literally - they just don't understand symbolism.
Go figure.
>>>> Here you act as if you were no older than a teenager.
>>> What you think is irrelevant, Paul. The fact that all you want to
>>> discuss right now is Nancy speaks volumes. Note who brought up Nancy:
>>> you, not me.
>> Yeah - in one line, saying:
>>
>> "Thanks for posting something that's NOT a discussion with "Nancy".... :-)"
>
>That's proof that you brought up Nancy, not me. Furthermore, who is
>the one so interested in a scorecard of non-Nancy versus Nancy
>postings? You, not me.
If you're not interested, why are you responding?
>> (btw please note the smiley at the end)
>
>Irrelevant; you still brought up Nancy, regardless of your intent.
You seem to completely lack any humor.
>> ... and you immediately responded to that sooooooo eagerlyyyyy.......
>
>There was no eagerness on my part, Paul.
Then why did you respond so quickly? You could have let it just pass,
couldn't you?
>However, using that line of questionable reasoning, one could claim
>that you were even more eager to bring Nancy up, given that you
>first to do so.
>>>> Did it upset you very much that not everybody wanted to
>>>> see all your responses to Nancy?
>>> It didn't upset me at all, Paul.
>> Then why do you respond as if you were upset?
>I didn't respond as if I were upset.
Can you prove to me you didn't ? <evil grin>
>>>>> Yet here you are.
>>>> Sure! From time to time I clean up my killfiles.
>>> Why? To remove the desired effect?
>> If the effect is no longer needed, it need not be there, right?
>Why would you think that the effect is no longer needed?
Because I noticed that the count of killed files in that newsgroup
went down.
>Do you have some reason to believe that Nancy will not return?
Did I ever claim that? I think not!
>Do you have some reason to believe that I won't respond
>similarly if you once again try to cover up the fact that you
>did not know the difference between how to convert asteroid and
>star positions from B1950 to J2000?
Dave, what pissed me really off that time was your near-total
unwillingness, or possibly inability, to explain these differences
in an understandable way. I still don't really know the exact
differences, but I've decided that I don't need to know since
I don't do these kinds of conversion. Should I ever need to
do it, and get it right, I can probably dig up the proper
procedure somewhere - but you would be the last person I would
ask for it.
>>>> As I noticed my count of killed files went down dramatically,
>>>> I decided to clean up my killfiles. Nancy is gone for the
>>>> moment, which means your responses to her should be gone too.
>>> They are. But you had to make sure that Nancy would be brought up
>>> again. Do you have some obsession with Nancy?
>> The one being obsessed with Nancy is you:
>
>How ironic. You bring up Nancy and pretend that I'm the one obsessed
>with her.
You are -- you've already declared than whenever she reappears, you'll
be here, ready to bite back!
>Want to try a little experiment, Paul? Try not mentioning Nancy in
>whatever followup you might make here and see if I do.
I've already failed that -- see above. But let's try another experiment:
When you respond to this, try to show you're not obsessed with Nancy
by not mentioning her in your response, then see if I do.
>> you respond to far too many of her posts,
>
>Illogical; the motivation for responding has nothing to do with Nancy,
>but rather to correct some errors or misconceptions that might be
>believed by other readers. Feel free to blame me for being obsessed
>with the truth.
And who do you think would take her seriously?
>> and if someone should mention her in passing,
>
>As you did.
>
>> you respond to that soooooo eagerly.....
>
>You have no basis for claiming any eagerness. But if you insist on
>that line of reasoning, then consider your greater eagerness to
>bring her up in the first place. But of course, you don't want to
>acknowledge that, for fear of admitting your own obsession with her.
>I'm not surprised. After all, you also didn't want to admit not
>knowing the difference between how to handle asteroids and stars
>when converting from B1950 to J2000.
You're fantasizing Dave -- I admitted I wasn't sure about the fine
details here back then, and you'll find a similar admittance earlier
in this post.
>>>> But if you continue with posts like this, I'll killfile you again
>>>> very soon.
>>> Go right ahead, Paul. At least it would prevent you from bringing
>>> up such useless topics again.
>> Unfortunately it would not prevent you from following up on such
>> topics....
>
>Then why use a kill file in the first place?
To not have to see garbage posts of course
>Sounds like you're trying to use it to affect what other people do,
>but it doesn't work that way. You'd be far more effective trying
>logical argument, but all you seem to be interested in is
>rationalizing the fact that you brought up Nancy first, scorecards of
>who has posted how many items, calling someone else a 16-year-old
>teenager, childish spelling of "so eagerly", and posting your article
>to sci.astro, while directing followups to alt.peeves! Worried about
>seeing a response here, Paul? Why not take your own material to
>alt.peeves in the first place?
Do you post there regularly, or what? If not, why do you want me
to post there? To not have to see my response? It's simpler to
killfile me....
>Yes Paul, you've done a very good job of showing who the immature
>one is here.
You have a very weird idea of maturity if you think being mature is
to interpret everything literaly because you don't understand
symbolism, or to eagerly respond to loons, or to bicker about each
small detail you encounter, or to bring up old arguments which ought
to have been put to rest long ago (I'd better point out that this
refers to that 1950-2000 stuff, otherwise you wouldn't know what I
meant), or ..... I could probably go on, but I'll stop here.
Stephen Mann
Pluto is a planet in the same sense that all other planets are- it rotates
around the Sun. I realize that Pluto is small and figure it to be a
leftover of the Solar System's formation- probably having once been a moon
of Uranus and/or Neptune.
Steve
quar...@well.com
BENJAMIN_H. ZELLNER
In <53a371$a...@filth.well.com> quar...@well.com writes:
Our best guess these days would be the other way around. Pluto is
"The king of the Kuiper-Belt objects", planetesimals which formed in
the outer solar system but never accreted into proper planets. Some
of the irregular satellites of the outer planets are probably captured
Kuiper-belt objects.
Ben
Edward A Gedeon
In article <53cccg$e...@eagle1.cc.GaSoU.edu>, ZEL...@GSVMS2.CC.GASOU.EDU (BENJAMIN_H. ZELLNER) writes:
> ... Some
> of the irregular satellites of the outer planets are
> probably captured Kuiper-belt objects.
> ^^^^^^^^
> Ben
>
FREE THE KUIPER BELT!
For too long have the peaceful inhabitants of the Kuiper Belt been
subject to the gravitational tyranny of the bloated imperialist gas
giants! All celestial objects have a natural right to free and
independent orbits!
Give now to the Kuiper Belt Freedom Fund!
Pokey the Planetoid sez: "Only YOU can prevent gravitational capture!"
--
Edward Gedeon / The opinions above are not my employers'. / Member DNRC O-
******************************
"I was put on Earth to raise other people's children."
Jody Lynne Gedeon, 1953-1996