IAU was: Mainframe vs. Supercomputer
- From: eugene@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eugene Miya)
- Date: 28 Aug 2006 09:51:56 -0700
In article <gKadnZjlQtN9LW_ZnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bill Todd <billtodd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jan Vorbrüggen wrote:Neptune
Yes, that bit about "cleared its neighbourhood" is going to cause a lot
of problems.
I was wondering about that too, especially after seeing an earlier
reference suggesting that Pluto was being disqualified because its orbit
overlapped a larger planet's (Uranus's). But with the final wording, if
Pluto is not considered to have 'cleared its neighborhood' because ofNeptune
the presence of Uranus, then doesn't Uranus have the same problem due to
the presence of Pluto?
Then you are going to have to explain its accertion. Capture is a much
easier explanation for it.
How did Charon get to be where it is, anyway? And the Trojans
of some of the undisputed planets are going to be another problem.
The latter seemed to be a rather embarrassing oversight for that
particular body: perhaps they consider Trojan-point occupants as being
evidence that the planet has control over its orbital neighborhood,
despite the poor wording of the definition in that area.
The problem is natural language.
The IAU has been discussing this since the 1930s when it was found.
--
.
- References:
- Mainframe vs. Supercomputer
- From: Chris Barts
- Re: Mainframe vs. Supercomputer
- From: jsavard
- Re: Mainframe vs. Supercomputer
- From: Jan Vorbrüggen
- Re: Mainframe vs. Supercomputer
- From: Bill Todd
- Mainframe vs. Supercomputer
- Prev by Date: Re: Mainframe vs. Supercomputer
- Next by Date: Re: Admired designs / designs to study
- Previous by thread: Re: Mainframe vs. Supercomputer
- Next by thread: Off-topic: definition of planet
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|