Re: Why Pluto can only be a planet
- From: gb6726 <gb6726@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:09:44 -0700
On Jul 4, 11:51 am, gb6726 <gb6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 4, 11:48 am, gb6726 <gb6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Basically what they are removing if they are removing Saturn with it's
moons, is they are removing a planet. (given Saturn's orbit would
cross paths with Jupiter's)
They are removing a planet. The sentence in itself uses the word
planet.
Pluto has it's own self-defined course around the Sun. Pluto is a
large round object with Moons, a course that crosses with Neptune's
orbit.
That's all a definition of a planet needs.
The word Planet is round.
You know and I go with this over to sci.astro.research and they say I
have no scientic basis, no references, no scientific research
materials. It happens that they would rather kill than be susseptible.
It can only mean one thing: There is corruption in the high-academic
institutions, not like that's an old things. Beaurocracy where it
shouldn't be, I am not talking of the politburo sci.astro.research
group.
.
- References:
- Why Pluto can only be a planet
- From: gb6726
- Re: Why Pluto can only be a planet
- From: gb6726
- Re: Why Pluto can only be a planet
- From: gb6726
- Re: Why Pluto can only be a planet
- From: gb6726
- Re: Why Pluto can only be a planet
- From: gb6726
- Why Pluto can only be a planet
- Prev by Date: Re: Why Pluto can only be a planet
- Next by Date: johnreed 1st addendum to "johnreed Catch 22" modified July 5, 2007
- Previous by thread: Re: Why Pluto can only be a planet
- Next by thread: johnreed 1st addendum to "johnreed Catch 22" modified July 5, 2007
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|