Definition of a planet

Eric Chomko wrote:
Brad Guth ) wrote:

: Brad Guth wrote:
: Eric Chomko,
: Did you ever accomplish the 'once upon a time' icy proto-moon bouncing
: off of Earth thing?
: -
: Brad Guth

: I guess our "Eric Chomko" is once again dumbfounded.

No, I responded. Did you give me a chance?

: Too bad that our once upon a time icy proto-moon and of it salty
: remainder that's so hard Van Allen like and thus having become so gosh
: darn gamma and hard-X-ray prone, as such can't be honestly discussed
: because of all the incest cloned and two-faced borgs like yourself that
: would much rather remain as fully brown-nosed than the least bit
: honest, much less open box minded.

No, I think I pegged you well as being Occum's razor-challenged, as you
tend to want more assumptions and like to increase your premises.

: Too bad that the much older than Earth existence of Mars is such an
: ongoing drain on our talents and resources, while the fairly newish and
: extremely nearby Venus that's so nicely geothermally toasty (like early
: Earth) is being kept sequestered.

Venus sequesters itself due to the ongoing planetological chaos of 450 C
degrees and 90 bars atmospheric pressure at the surface.

I see that you're still proud of being snookered and summarily
dumbfounded, performing as a good little brown-nosed minion to your
Third Reich, meaning that your pagan worth of denial is in denial, and
that your intellectual bigotry is badly showing in spite of your tight
status quo or bust butt-crack.

Of what's not a viable planet by way of any God, random happenstance or
having been assisted by way of other ET/4H creators, is one of anything
having the likes of yourself, Art Deco or Hitler as continually
performing as it's incest cloned bigots encharge, as that's nothing but
an extremely brown-nosed world that's merely representing a cesspool of
your incest mutated DNA that's shaped like an orb.

At least Venus has absolute loads of nifty geothermal energy and raw
elements to spare, and having just 90.5% gravity along with 65+ kg/m3
worth of buoyancy to share and share alike, thus having unlimited
green/renewable energy at your command, by which to burn whatever or as
to making anything good happen. Those intelligent/artificial looking
structures and of the township like community of perfectly rational
infrastructure is simply as large and imposing because it can be, and
should be. That toasty environment is not even all that humanly
insurmountable, other than to a true bigot like yourself which insist
upon going to such places butt-naked and totally dumbfounded to boot.

Is all of your famly tree as arrogant, dumbfounded and as such as
incest bigoted as yourself?

How many lose cannon shots shall I continue to deliver?

I'm giving you folks a chance to contribute as to doing something
that's of meaning and of much greater value than of the mainstream
crapolla you've been involved with, and yet you're without remorse and
without a freaking clue as to why we village idiots think of folks like
yourself as being so absolutely evil.
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: It is about probability. Why do you choose as true the things that tend to
: be of low probablity? Just to be different?

: Yes, it is entirely probable that our moon arrived along with Venus,
: and so what?

Not really as Venus and Earth are in different orbits. The moon and Earth
are 1/100th the distance that Venus is from the Earth when they are at
their closest.

: Reinvention and thinking outside the box is good but not constantly and
: continuously.

: What's to "reinvent", as I believe in most everything that's Einstine
: and totally accept the regular laws of physics, of which you obviously
: do not because it would obviously ruin your whole rusemaster day after
: day pathetic existence.

Brad, Einstein never claimed that Venus has life on it or that Sirius and
our sun share a baricenter.

: : Or don't you believe that we're existing as a solar system that's still
: : associated and/or in orbit about anything other?
:
: The sun does orbit the center of the Milky Way. Of that we are certain.
: OK, then being that our sun is entirely wussy in mass compared to the
: nearby massive Sirius star system; where's the big insurmountable
: problem?

: Obviously you don't even believe in the new and improved stellar
: motions as having been far better recorded and charted by others that
: show the 225 million year cycle of our home galaxy. Why is that?

I never claimed that there isn't a Cosmic Year. Why claim I do?

: : If so, can you explain how it is that we're the one and only such
: : independent solar system (somewhat wussy mass at that) that's been
: : drifting free of all other gravity and energy influnces?
:
: I never said we're alone or unique. Just that the best case scenario is
: that the earth and moon were created together, with th earth getting the
: lion's share of the mass.

: But you have absolutely no such hard-science and not even a working
: conjecture of soft-science that's outside of whatever's NASA certified.

Soft science? Your head?!

: Isn't that simply more of your drippin brown-nosed infomercial-science
: that's hard at work, or what?

No. just things that have been demonstarted as being true, or no reason to
not believe as true. You, OTOH, are so sceptical that if the idea doesn't
come from within your own mixed up head, the you deem it false. You should
doubt your own parents as they could be clone minions simply acting as mon
and dad...

: Where's the CRAY or other supercomputer expertise and dedicated work
: that equally gives the necessary processing time to the alternatives?

Replaced by Beowulf Clusters...

: : There's certainly no hard-science or that of any other believable
: : evidence that our rather unusually salty moon is made of Earth. Lots
: : of naturally deposited moon rocks available on Earth that'll more than
: : tend to prove (via lead dating and other chemical/element composition
: : means), that's the truth and nothing but the truth.
:
: Many of the moon's components are in the earth's crust. Sorry Brad, but if
: you reduced the earth to the size of the moon, then it would appear like
: the moon, and if you increased the moon to the size of the earth, then it
: would appear like the earth.

: That's another butt ugly lie and otherwise absolute infomercial based
: crapolla of untruth that you haven't the hard-science to back up. Our
: Earth is not that of a salty orb worth of a salty bedrock or salty
: crust surrounding our iron core, which by the way our moon hasn't all
: that much of an iron core to work with. The vast bilk of salt upon
: Earth has been derived from ET deposits, including the salty oceans,
: salty ice and even of the mostly basalt rock deposites from that nearby
: moon of ours.

What proof do you have that salt is not innate to the earth? Look here and
tell me what suggests ET orgin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt

I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Now support your claim or stifle!

: : I also "don't believe that the Moon was ever a comet before settling
: : down to its current state", as it may have simply arrived at a much
: : slower velocity along with it's own planet, namely Venus, as having
: : merged from the same or at least sufficiently similar rotational field,
: : and having unavoidably bumped into us (at least something icy-moon
: : sized had delivered such a glancing blow up North). Just like there's
: : no good rime nor reason(s) why Mars is a little older than Earth, but
: : then it obviously is (it sure as hell isn't and less older than Earth).
:
: : It's getting a little tough being such a multi-faced wizard, isn't it?
:
: Not when you don't introduce things that have no place being there.

: You're obviously talking about yourself. Very good move on your part.

You are the one that throws false premises around like a moneky does
****...

: : I obviously don't believe in the one and only God like singular event,
: : whereas we've seen all sorts of near misses and unavoidable impacts or
: : significant mergers that pretty much proves there were multiple events
: : and even cycles of such events within events, which obviously can't
: : happen if all is starting out from and forever expanding from a given
: : singular point of creation, and I do believe that's exactly what
: : Einstein thought was the case, that such a singular event is unlikely
: : if not impossible.
:
: So you like the Steady-State Theory as to the Big Bang Theory?

: There you go again, as per rusemaster and status quo borg usual,
: putting words into my dyslexic mouth. There's nothing all that
: "Steady-State" about lots and lots of creation crap that's continually
: running into itself. The 225 million year galactic cycle or master
: clock of our realm is not without a great deal of unfortunate
: collateral damage and the demise of other worlds and of those souls
: unable to fend for themselves. My God and Christ almighty on another
: stick, you folks actually are quite the pagan heathens without remorse,
: arnt you. If you were any more boxed, self-centered and closed
: mindset, you'd become a black hole exactly like our resident LLPOF
: warlord(GW Bush).

You said you were (are?) a Mennonite, right? Why do I picture you like
those two young Amish boys that a decade or so ago were caught smoking
crack? Something about a reaction (over) to being repressed for so long or
something...

Eric

: -
: Brad Guth

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
I'd say, "I give up" but I clearly already have. :-)

If you were a complex diatom microbe, as such your planet could rather
easily be a relatively minor block or small sphere of salty ice, or
better yet being that of a fairly active and somewhat newish planet of
such terrific geothermal activity like Venus.

Unfortunately, the all-knowing likes of yourself and David Knisely are
essentially Jewish Muslims of this naysay Usenet from hell, meaning
that whenever it comes to a given photograph or CCD image, unless that
image 100+% supports your one and only mindset, whereas it simply can't
otherwise be in any way interpreted and much less utilized as evidence
in support of anything else.

The same can be said of most others that'll knowingly topic/author
stalk, bash and wherever possible banish others for whatever's their
freedom of thought, and especially nailing that path of free thought to
the nearest cross if having been thinking outside their status quo box.

Of course, we have those Usenet naysay folks insisting that whatever
religion and politics has had absolutely no impact and of nothing to do
with their truth and honesty of astronomy, nor of their related fields
of physics and science as having accomplished their research pertaining
to other worlds, moons and of whatever's much further away is
supposedly nothing short of being the word of their God (OOPS! most of
these folks don't believe in any stinking God or any other form of
planetology/biology capable creators). If you're one of those that
believe in such, whereas then you also are most likely to believe in
all of those Iraq WMD, and you'll most likely believe in absolutely
anything else our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has to say.
-
Brad Guth

Eric Chomko wrote:
Brad Guth ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: It is about probability. Why do you choose as true the things that tend to
: be of low probablity? Just to be different?

: Yes, it is entirely probable that our moon arrived along with Venus,
: and so what?

Not really as Venus and Earth are in different orbits. The moon and Earth
are 1/100th the distance that Venus is from the Earth when they are at
their closest.

: Reinvention and thinking outside the box is good but not constantly and
: continuously.

: What's to "reinvent", as I believe in most everything that's Einstine
: and totally accept the regular laws of physics, of which you obviously
: do not because it would obviously ruin your whole rusemaster day after
: day pathetic existence.

Brad, Einstein never claimed that Venus has life on it or that Sirius and
our sun share a baricenter.

: : Or don't you believe that we're existing as a solar system that's still
: : associated and/or in orbit about anything other?
:
: The sun does orbit the center of the Milky Way. Of that we are certain.
: OK, then being that our sun is entirely wussy in mass compared to the
: nearby massive Sirius star system; where's the big insurmountable
: problem?

: Obviously you don't even believe in the new and improved stellar
: motions as having been far better recorded and charted by others that
: show the 225 million year cycle of our home galaxy. Why is that?

I never claimed that there isn't a Cosmic Year. Why claim I do?

: : If so, can you explain how it is that we're the one and only such
: : independent solar system (somewhat wussy mass at that) that's been
: : drifting free of all other gravity and energy influnces?
:
: I never said we're alone or unique. Just that the best case scenario is
: that the earth and moon were created together, with th earth getting the
: lion's share of the mass.

: But you have absolutely no such hard-science and not even a working
: conjecture of soft-science that's outside of whatever's NASA certified.

Soft science? Your head?!

: Isn't that simply more of your drippin brown-nosed infomercial-science
: that's hard at work, or what?

No. just things that have been demonstarted as being true, or no reason to
not believe as true. You, OTOH, are so sceptical that if the idea doesn't
come from within your own mixed up head, the you deem it false. You should
doubt your own parents as they could be clone minions simply acting as mon
and dad...

: Where's the CRAY or other supercomputer expertise and dedicated work
: that equally gives the necessary processing time to the alternatives?

Replaced by Beowulf Clusters...

: : There's certainly no hard-science or that of any other believable
: : evidence that our rather unusually salty moon is made of Earth. Lots
: : of naturally deposited moon rocks available on Earth that'll more than
: : tend to prove (via lead dating and other chemical/element composition
: : means), that's the truth and nothing but the truth.
:
: Many of the moon's components are in the earth's crust. Sorry Brad, but if
: you reduced the earth to the size of the moon, then it would appear like
: the moon, and if you increased the moon to the size of the earth, then it
: would appear like the earth.

: That's another butt ugly lie and otherwise absolute infomercial based
: crapolla of untruth that you haven't the hard-science to back up. Our
: Earth is not that of a salty orb worth of a salty bedrock or salty
: crust surrounding our iron core, which by the way our moon hasn't all
: that much of an iron core to work with. The vast bilk of salt upon
: Earth has been derived from ET deposits, including the salty oceans,
: salty ice and even of the mostly basalt rock deposites from that nearby
: moon of ours.

What proof do you have that salt is not innate to the earth? Look here and
tell me what suggests ET orgin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt

I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Now support your claim or stifle!

: : I also "don't believe that the Moon was ever a comet before settling
: : down to its current state", as it may have simply arrived at a much
: : slower velocity along with it's own planet, namely Venus, as having
: : merged from the same or at least sufficiently similar rotational field,
: : and having unavoidably bumped into us (at least something icy-moon
: : sized had delivered such a glancing blow up North). Just like there's
: : no good rime nor reason(s) why Mars is a little older than Earth, but
: : then it obviously is (it sure as hell isn't and less older than Earth).
:
: : It's getting a little tough being such a multi-faced wizard, isn't it?
:
: Not when you don't introduce things that have no place being there.

: You're obviously talking about yourself. Very good move on your part.

You are the one that throws false premises around like a moneky does
****...

: : I obviously don't believe in the one and only God like singular event,
: : whereas we've seen all sorts of near misses and unavoidable impacts or
: : significant mergers that pretty much proves there were multiple events
: : and even cycles of such events within events, which obviously can't
: : happen if all is starting out from and forever expanding from a given
: : singular point of creation, and I do believe that's exactly what
: : Einstein thought was the case, that such a singular event is unlikely
: : if not impossible.
:
: So you like the Steady-State Theory as to the Big Bang Theory?

: There you go again, as per rusemaster and status quo borg usual,
: putting words into my dyslexic mouth. There's nothing all that
: "Steady-State" about lots and lots of creation crap that's continually
: running into itself. The 225 million year galactic cycle or master
: clock of our realm is not without a great deal of unfortunate
: collateral damage and the demise of other worlds and of those souls
: unable to fend for themselves. My God and Christ almighty on another
: stick, you folks actually are quite the pagan heathens without remorse,
: arnt you. If you were any more boxed, self-centered and closed
: mindset, you'd become a black hole exactly like our resident LLPOF
: warlord(GW Bush).

You said you were (are?) a Mennonite, right? Why do I picture you like
those two young Amish boys that a decade or so ago were caught smoking
crack? Something about a reaction (over) to being repressed for so long or
something...

Eric

: -
: Brad Guth

Not really as Venus and Earth are in different orbits. The moon and Earth
are 1/100th the distance that Venus is from the Earth when they are at
their closest.
They are now but may not have been as of hundreds of thousands of years
ago, or even since the last cycle, such as each tine we're orbiting
close to the Sirius star/solar system may have given the opportunity of
planetary and moons somewhat happenstance merging and.or bouncing into
new orbits.

Brad, Einstein never claimed that Venus has life on it or that Sirius
and our sun share a baricenter.
That's rather silly. Why or how would Einstein have had any clue as to
what I'm talking about?
The Magellan mission transpired more than 3 decades after Einstine had
died, and as far as we know of, Einstein had absolutely nothing to do
with the NASA/Apollo fiasco or having plaid any part in our perpetrated
cold-wars. As jewboys tend to go, Einstein wasn't naysay or otherwise
status quo mindset, and for the most part remained as a whole lot more
honest and seemingly having a touch of remorse to boot.

I never claimed that there isn't a Cosmic Year. Why claim I do?
You're the one claiming that our solar system orbits absolutely nothing
but the local cosmic GC of nothingness, and otherwise insisting that
it's impossible for our existence to have been affected by or in any
other way having benefited from the massive Sirius star/solar system.

: Where's the CRAY or other supercomputer expertise and dedicated work
: that equally gives the necessary processing time to the alternatives?

Replaced by Beowulf Clusters...
And the equal time of "Beowulf Clusters" that's working on behalf of
these viable alternatives that relate to the Sirius star/solar system
is taking place where or when, if ever?

What proof do you have that salt is not innate to the earth? Look here
and tell me what suggests ET orgin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt
Thanks for the "wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt" link. However, that nifty
link doesn't exclude anything ET origin worthy, and I never said nor
otherwise insisted that 100% of the 19+ forms of Earth's salt was
imported, just shared the opinion that other well respected physics
types (such as Isaac Asimov) have pointed out that the vast bulk of
ocean salt and similar formations of common sodium (halite/sodium
chloride) is that of a more recent geological deposit than what
otherwise makes up the vast bulk of Earth, of which it's having been
accepted that sufficient impacts of icy and thereby why the hell not
the likes of salty-ice meteor/asteroid/moon deposits would have managed
that task just fine and dandy. The other proof that our moon is in
fact salty (expending vast amounts of sodium) and had once upon a time
been covered with a thick and thereby surface protective layer of ice
isn't all that far off the mark as based upon the best available
remote-science and thereby soft-science that we've got available to
work with. What we need are a few of those physical JAVELIN or cone
shaped science probes as very economically stuck into our moon, and
perhaps even an optional mother-ship/transponder as efficiently
station-keeping itself within the interactive LL-1 zone.

Thus far, Mars has next to zilch worth of ET/imported or even local
salt that due to having sufficient gravity and of extremely cold
conditions should otherwise still be there to behold, especially if
having been locally created, and Venus may have only trace amounts of
local salt upon it's surface, whereas that mostly geothermal roasting
environment would have placed the vast bulk of any deposited or local
salts into various forms of salty sulfate acids that remain as rather
nicely sequestered within those thick clouds, that which we know almost
nothing about those absolutely terrific clouds, and of anything
emerging from the ESA Venus EXPRESS team of "FW Taylor/BAA" that's
anti-ET on almost all levels, in other words being much like yourself,
isn't willing to share upon a damn thing that might give the likes of
myself or even John Ackerman anything extra to work with. It's called
Wag-Thy-Dog to death if need be, and otherwise promoting such as
infomercial-science having the maximum possible hype, spin and
damage-control measures applied before and above all else.

Without involving the likes of WW-III, we can't even define the proper
origin of Earth, much less as to the diversity of certain composite
minerals (such as deep coal and oil that's anything but fossil) or the
vastness of complex life (of which humanity being by far the very least
important species) as having become deposited via panspermia or
otherwise having evolved via random happenstance from local elements as
sequestered upon this Earth, with any degree of hard-science that more
than 50% can agree upon without going postal, much less yet having
agreed upon that of our having nailed down the truth about our own
salty moon that's so physically dark plus more than a wee bit gamma and
hard-X-ray nasty. So what's the point of defining upon whatever other
sorts of nearby or distant items might represent themselves, as being
that of a planet or perhaps that of a complex binary/trinary or greater
populated planetary system (even to include such orbs large enough
[Jupiter+ sized] to have survived w/o their original star), or merely
as to that of appreciating as to what a singular captured moon like
ours, that which I believe was clearly once upon a time covered in a
thick layer of salty ice that contributed to our environment and at
least some of the complex DNA that we classify as being worthy, if not
for our being informed by the all-knowing lords and wizards of this
Usenet from hell that such DNA represents the one and only form of
intelligent and/or sub-intelligent life in the entire universe. In
other words, aren't we special and very much alone (although, because I
happen to think not, and as such is obviously why my topics and other
contributions get stalked, bashed and as much as possible banished).

Speaking about human space travel hazards and of a nearby orb that's
worth defining a whole lot better than we've been told thus far:
John Meglier; the radiation would make everyone get cataracts
and be blind in just a year. Cancer would skyrocket.
Actually, short term exposure is DNA doable (although you could still
go at least partially blind unless wearing a sufficiently thick leaded
helmet or at least having used a leaded visor), whereas on most any
given bad solar/cosmic/moon day or even via earthshine, that human/DNA
TBI limit might easily be accomplished within hours if not minutes.

Thus far we have no hard-science as proof or any other soft-evidence
that supports anything as having ever gone to the moon surface that
didn't summarily impact and/or sink out of sight.

Did you folks know that Kodak made it possible to process their film on
the fly, and others having made it possible to scan that processed film
on the fly, thus no conventionally exposed film was ever returned from
outside the Van Allen belts to Earth for subsequent developing that
wasn't radiated to the point of being damaged if not unusable.

Outside our Van Allen zone of death it's short term humanly survivable
as long as you're extremely well shielded and not being kept within
sight of our gamma/xray moon, our sun isn't having another bad day and
there's otherwise nothing in the cosmic realm of nasty gamma and
hard-X-ray events taking place. Therefore a few hours out of any given
month it's perfectly survivable, and even longer if you've damn lucky
and got that cash of banked bone marrow as your backup plan-B.

I suppose if there actually were such a fly-by-rocket lander (US or
Russian), as such there'd be all sorts of R&D prototypes that could
have been demonstrated right here on Earth, and subsequently utilized
ever since for the AI/robotic fly-by-rocket likes of accomplishing Mars
or other moons.

Do you know that our supposed landers had no primary
airframe/spacecraft momentum reaction wheels to speak of, other than
instrumentation.

Oddly, we still have nothing situated within LL-1 (roughly 58,500 km
from the moon). At a reaction fuel budget of perhaps a kg/tonne/month,
station-keeping within LL-1 or ME-L1 is quite doable. It may even
become as little as 0.1 kg/tonne/month of reaction fuel demand if using
an Xe--ion thruster that should be more than sufficient, and otherwise
I'm thinking a mg/tonne/month of using Ra--LRn--Rn--ion (Rn laser
cannon) thrust that might offer an interesting alternative usage of
Radium that Earth has too much of for our own good. Perhaps using up a
cash of U235 isn't such a bad idea, at least according to William Mook
there's nothing the least bit negative about utilizing such nuclear
energy for accomplishing that sort of task.

Of course we're still in the dark-ages of sequestered science, whereas
there has never been one frame of NASA/Apollo film, not even a given
16mm movie frame or of anything 35 mm, much less of any larger format
of any Kodak film that was ever been exposed outside of the Van Allen
expanse and having been made available for an independent review, not
even so much as a blank leader/trailer portion of such film. I wonder
why the hell not, especially since the modern micro-digital scanning
process is 100% nondestructive, and as such can even be accomplished
within any given security vault?

There's no technical reasons why not and only loads of perfectly honest
to God multiple reasons as to why each and every frame needs to get
re-scanned at much greater resolution and at least taken to a DR of 12
bit if not easily 16 bit level. Naturally that's going to be
impossible if that raw space and moon environment exposed film doesn't
actually exist.

BTW; we Mennonites merged with those freebasing Amish as of a century
ago. Perhaps Jews should try merging with the good, the bad and even
the ugly parts of humanity. Pick a group, such as any group that
wasn't collaborating with the Third Reich, whereas perhaps merging with
the Dogon along with the remainders of Cathars couldn't possibly hurt
the Jewish cause of imposing their ultra extreme superiority.
-
Brad Guth

On 13 Jun 2006 00:29:10 -0700, "steve" wrote:

With this set to be finalised fairly soon in September 2006 I think it
is essential that a few sensible parameters are added.

1) A body in orbit around a star.

2) Size must be larger than Pluto ( or another agreed specified size
and mass) to give a minimum size UNLESS extra-terrestial life is found
on the planet when a much smaller size would be allowed.

3) If the size of a moon is similar (to a stated percentage e.g. 80%)
to the larger body in its group it to can be called a planet if it
meets (1) and (2)
Thus it is possibe to have binary planets.

4) It would probably be necessary to specify a maximum distance from
the star in which the planet is in orbit to dis-allow wandering rocks.

If a Pluto sized object is in an orbit about a star such that it will not
escape from such star, I would call it a planet, no matter how far away it is!

On 13 Jun 2006 00:29:10 -0700, "steve" wrote:


With this set to be finalised fairly soon in September 2006 I think it
is essential that a few sensible parameters are added.

1) A body in orbit around a star.

2) Size must be larger than Pluto ( or another agreed specified size
and mass) to give a minimum size UNLESS extra-terrestial life is found
on the planet when a much smaller size would be allowed.

3) If the size of a moon is similar (to a stated percentage e.g. 80%)
to the larger body in its group it to can be called a planet if it
meets (1) and (2)
Thus it is possibe to have binary planets.

4) It would probably be necessary to specify a maximum distance from
the star in which the planet is in orbit to dis-allow wandering rocks.



If a Pluto sized object is in an orbit about a star such that it will not escape
from such star, I would call it a planet, no matter how far away it is!

Interesting, but why the cross-post to rec.music.classical?

Tim Bruening wrote:


On 13 Jun 2006 00:29:10 -0700, "steve" wrote:

With this set to be finalised fairly soon in September 2006 I think it
is essential that a few sensible parameters are added.

1) A body in orbit around a star.

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
Interesting, but why the cross-post to rec.music.classical?


Holst connection maybe?