Re: Likeliness of Pluto discovery
tholen_at_antispam.ham
Date: 03/01/05
- Next message: Michael Baldwin Bruce: "Re: digest, volume 2453430"
- Previous message: Michael Baldwin Bruce: "Re: digest, volume 2453426"
- In reply to: bigbomber_at_socal.rr.com: "Re: Likeliness of Pluto discovery"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Likeliness of Pluto discovery"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Likeliness of Pluto discovery"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:59:07 GMT
bigbomber@socal.rr.com writes:
> Bob Kolker wrote:
>> The classification of Pluto as a planet was probably a mistake
> I disagree. The way I see it, if it's round and orbits the Sun, it's a
> planet! And if that means classifying other objects in the solar
> system as planets (like Quaoar), then so be it.
Quaoar is already classified as a planet. A minor planet. At issue
is the dividing line between major and minor planet. I wonder how
many people argue over the dividing line between stream and river,
rock and boulder, town and city.
- Next message: Michael Baldwin Bruce: "Re: digest, volume 2453430"
- Previous message: Michael Baldwin Bruce: "Re: digest, volume 2453426"
- In reply to: bigbomber_at_socal.rr.com: "Re: Likeliness of Pluto discovery"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Likeliness of Pluto discovery"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Likeliness of Pluto discovery"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|