Re: I'm not convinced that the new definition excludes Pluto...
- From: brian@xxxxxxx (Brian Tung)
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
SkySea wrote:
If Pluto and several other KBOs have orbits influenced by Neptune (I
assume, rather than Neptune's orbit having been influenced into
resonance by the KBOs), then perhaps these orbits should be considered
as around Neptune. It's not a classical orbit (centered around a
massive body), but it seems that these are all part of a single
system.
That would only make sense if the resonance were 1:1. I don't think
that's very likely for an object not in one of the stable Lagrange
points (L4 or L5). I'm pretty sure that such an object would get
ejected if it weren't massive enough, and if it were massive enough, it
would probably do something like the event that created our Moon.
I think intuitively, we think of a satellite as an object that is always
near the parent planet, not something that could, at times, be all the
way on the other side of the Sun.
--
Brian Tung <brian@xxxxxxx>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- I'm not convinced that the new definition excludes Pluto...
- From: Mark Smith
- Re: I'm not convinced that the new definition excludes Pluto...
- From: Per Erik Jorde
- Re: I'm not convinced that the new definition excludes Pluto...
- From: SkySea
- I'm not convinced that the new definition excludes Pluto...
- Prev by Date: Re: Sky Scout - 2nd Night
- Next by Date: Re: Will astro software now be revised .....
- Previous by thread: Re: I'm not convinced that the new definition excludes Pluto...
- Next by thread: Re: I'm not convinced that the new definition excludes Pluto...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|