Re: Justice For Pluto

In article <djurf2t9gpjvm975ul16en2cs6lub2t0bp@xxxxxxx>,
Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:26:22 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <jk6rf2t56cdiqk02i9cud8fn0n2muua1ja@xxxxxxx>,
Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 00:31:08 GMT, "*** T. Winter" <***.Winter@xxxxxx>
wrote:

In article <rrnof2d9btsnvs8k7pm9p7qf01tjg0apjn@xxxxxxx> Lester Zick
<dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
...
No but I rather expect the astronomers who sought to explain
gravitational perturbations in the orbits of what they considered
planets did. I'll go with them. For that matter why call trans jovian
planets planets? They're obviously just gas balls more akin to proto
stellar masses than the actual planets.

And so is Jupiter.

I think that's what I said. What should I have said: trans martian?

One would usually interpret "trans jovian" to mean on the far side of
Jupiter, specifically excluding Jupiter from the trans jovians.
So for planets trans matian would be needed.

I was aware of the interpretive problem but thought I could get away
with the inclusive sense of "trans" which admittedly I didn't specify.

If one allows dwarf planets or asteroids, I suppose one needs to go with
something like trans Ceres.

It might be a little more difficult with comets.

Or all the smaller-than-Ceres debris in the orbital gap between Ceres
and Jupiter.
.

Quantcast