Re: Planet Definition revised
- From: simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg)
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:05:44 GMT
On 23 Aug 2006 22:53:49 +0200, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
<jimdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
Eric Chomko wrote:
Never? You are aware that during 1979-1999 Pluto was
actually closer to the Sun than Neptune was, right?
Eric, how long have you had this reading comprehension
problem?
Do you honestly believe that Neptune and Pluto can never get
within 20 AU of each other, while their orbits have been shown
to cross?
One theory has it that Pluto was once a moon of Neptune.
The argument of perihelion is not a fixed point even though it
moves slowly. Think 10 to 100 thousand years Jimbo and then
tell me that Pluto and Neptune NEVER come within 20 AU.
*Now* you get it, Eric. My congratulations. Keep up the good work.
I agree. A (rare) cogent argument from him is to be praised. Too bad
that he couldn't do it on the earlier attempt.
.
- References:
- Planet Definition revised
- From: steve
- Re: Planet Definition revised
- From: James Nicoll
- Re: Planet Definition revised
- From: Eric Chomko
- Re: Planet Definition revised
- From: Jim Davis
- Re: Planet Definition revised
- From: Eric Chomko
- Re: Planet Definition revised
- From: Jim Davis
- Planet Definition revised
- Prev by Date: Re: BILDR
- Next by Date: Re: The Dangerous Liberty of Engineering vs. Lukewarm Dominionism
- Previous by thread: Re: Planet Definition revised
- Next by thread: Re: Planet Definition revised
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|