|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
More proof Pluto is not a planet
So they've found another ice ball way out there. This should help
convince more people Pluto is an ice ball to, from a large collection of ice balls called the Kuiper belt. I hope this is use to bolster the argument against sending a probe to Pluto. We can learn more important and interesting things by concentrating NASA's meagre funds on the two planets that matter; Mars and Europa. Let the Europeans send a probe to Pluto if they want to. -Rich |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
More proof Pluto is not a planet
This old bone has got a lot of teeth marks on it, but,
I think Pluto should be the reference standard for a minimim Planetary size... Orion "Richard" wrote in message om... So they've found another ice ball way out there. This should help convince more people Pluto is an ice ball to, from a large collection of ice balls called the Kuiper belt. I hope this is use to bolster the argument against sending a probe to Pluto. We can learn more important and interesting things by concentrating NASA's meagre funds on the two planets that matter; Mars and Europa. Let the Europeans send a probe to Pluto if they want to. -Rich --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 3/11/2004 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
More proof Pluto is not a planet
On 15 Mar 2004 20:27:18 -0800, Richard wrote:
So they've found another ice ball way out there. This should help convince more people Pluto is an ice ball to, from a large collection of ice balls called the Kuiper belt. I hope this is use to bolster the argument against sending a probe to Pluto. We can learn more important and interesting things by concentrating NASA's meagre funds on the two planets that matter; Mars and Europa. Let the Europeans send a probe to Pluto if they want to. What an asinine thing to say. Regardless of whether or not Pluto should be called a planet, it's the largest such object out there that we've found. It's the best candidate for close examination (though Charon is included implicitly, I would think), which would tell us a great deal that we really don't know about Kuiper Belt objects. Some of the information collected over the course of the mission may even be of proximate practical value, given the fact that the next large object to strike earth (it's only a matter of time) stands a good chance of being a KBO. -- - Mike Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
More proof Pluto is not a planet
"Troller" Anderson wrote:
[snip] I hope this is use to bolster the argument against sending a probe to Pluto. [snip] To quote an all too frequent contributor to this newsgroup, "IMO, anyone who is human and has no desire to explore, no curiosity about things ... ought not to have been born." Regards, Bill Ferris "Cosmic Voyage: The Online Resource for Amateur Astronomers" URL: http://www.cosmic-voyage.net ============= Email: Remove "ic" from .comic above to respond |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
More proof Pluto is not a planet
jerry warner wrote in message ...
Europa a planet? You've been watching too much t.v. Jerry Richard wrote: So they've found another ice ball way out there. This should help convince more people Pluto is an ice ball to, from a large collection of ice balls called the Kuiper belt. I hope this is use to bolster the argument against sending a probe to Pluto. We can learn more important and interesting things by concentrating NASA's meagre funds on the two planets that matter; Mars and Europa. Let the Europeans send a probe to Pluto if they want to. -Rich How do you want to define "planet?" IMO, a round object not composed mainly of ice of a specific size. I think 1500 miles in diameter might be a good minimum, but planetary scientists will have to REALLY define what a planet is. -Rich |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
More proof Pluto is not a planet
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:27:47 GMT, John Steinberg wrote:
Would the eccentricity of the orbit of the newly found object further disqualify it from any consideration as a planet? I don't know how accurate the depiction of same was - BBC 4 am here - but the orbit looked a bit more like that of a comet than a planet. I'm not implying it's a comet, of course. It is interesting to imagine that we are from another star, exploring the Solar System for the first time. As we approach the Sun we would pass many large, orbiting bodies like Sedna, eventually reaching the gas giants and then the rocky interior objects. To my mind, there should be one word for all these objects- a "non-scientific" word perhaps, like "planet", defined by nothing more complex than orbiting the Sun and having enough gravity to be largely spherical. It is clear that such objects have many different properties and origins (consider just the terrestrial planets and the gas giants- vastly different yet all considered "planets"). Those differences will naturally lead to qualifiers and refined terminology, but there remains the convenience of a single word that generally describes them all. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
More proof Pluto is not a planet
Richard wrote:
(SNIP) We can learn more important and interesting things by concentrating NASA's meagre funds on the two planets that matter; Mars and Europa. Let the Europeans send a probe to Pluto if they want to. -Rich I must have missed an announcement of a planet called Europa.......??? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
More proof Pluto is not a planet
Hi Chris. You posted:
Any definition agreed upon is still going to be arbitrary. There is no _natural_ boundary between object types to make that definition clear. I think it is safe to assume the Europa would never qualify under any likely definition, since that definition is pretty sure to require that planets be in their own orbit around the Sun. Beyond that, it is going to come down to an arbitrary combination of size, shape, composition, and presumed origin. The definition isn't really important- the objects are as they are, after all. IMO, Pluto will continue to be considered a planet in any case, for historical reasons if nothing else. Actually, there was an attempt at coming up with a definition which wasn't all that arbitrary. It defined a planet as a "planetary body" in independent orbit around a star. A planetary body would be defined as a body which is large and massive enough so that its own gravity would be able to force its shape into a spherical one. Thus, while the largest moons in the solar system would be classified as planetary bodies in scale, they would not be classified as planets since they are bound to a larger planetary body (namely a a planet). This definition would be inclusive rather than exclusive, as it would include bodes such as Ceres and the very largest Kuiper belt objects, but would leave out most of the rest of the main-belt asteroids as well as the smaller bodies in the Kuiper belt (even if they happened to be spherical by some accident of formation). We would have more than 9 planets orbiting the sun, but we would also have a more consistent definition of what makes a planet and what does not. Clear skies to you. -- David W. Knisely Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/ ********************************************** * Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * * July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir * * http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org * ********************************************** |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
More proof Pluto is not a planet
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message ... It is interesting to imagine that we are from another star, exploring the Solar System for the first time. As we approach the Sun we would pass many large, orbiting bodies like Sedna, eventually reaching the gas giants and then the rocky interior objects. To my mind, there should be one word for all these objects- a "non-scientific" word perhaps, like "planet", defined by nothing more complex than orbiting the Sun and having enough gravity to be largely spherical. How about the word "planet"? I think it has a nice 'ring' to it. I remember asking Michelle Thaller at a lecture about Quaoar. I'm terrible at pronouncing words, since I've usually only read but not heard them. I'm glad that her pronunciation was just as bad as mine! Sedna is a refreshing change from the recent tongue-twisters. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next? | TKalbfus | Policy | 265 | July 13th 04 12:00 AM |
PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt | hermesnines | Astronomy Misc | 10 | February 27th 04 02:14 AM |
Pluto As A Planet or Not..... | Kevin Rehberg | Amateur Astronomy | 90 | December 28th 03 06:14 AM |
Astronomers Find Jupiter-Like Planet 90 Light Years Away | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 5th 03 04:19 AM |