Skip to comments.
10 Planets? Why Not 11?
NY Times ^
| August 23, 2005
| KENNETH CHANG
Posted on 08/23/2005 4:39:11 PM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
To: Doctor Stochastic; All
21
posted on
08/23/2005 5:34:54 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: neverdem
Planet or not planet? I think the category "planet," like Bode's Law, is good as far as it goes, and has gone as far as it's going to go. Like Bode's Law, it's neat, but reality is messy, and sooner or later we discover that.
So, let's not call anything-else-we-find-past-Pluto a planet.
(Unless of course it's big, has moons, and a tidy orbit on the same plane as everybody else.)
I say if it causes silly arguments, it's NOT a planet.
To: neverdem
2005FY9 is Easter Bunny? I thought that was 2004JFnK.
To: neverdem
Drop it, Dr. Brown- we've already got too many planets.
24
posted on
08/23/2005 5:53:40 PM PDT
by
fat city
("The nation that controls magnetism controls the world.")
To: neverdem
The failure of NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope to see infrared light indicated a diameter of less than 2000 miles. But the telescope was mistakenly pointed in the wrong direction. If the telescope was pointed in the wrong direction, the lack of infrared light would not be an indication of anything.
To: Izzy Dunne
Mercury should be a moon of Venus. Once this is done the plan will be complete to perfection as intended.
26
posted on
08/23/2005 6:22:36 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and open the Land Office)
To: Prime Choice
Pluto was obviously placed there to occupy our limited intellects so we won't have leisure time to seriously challenge the greater perfection.
27
posted on
08/23/2005 6:25:24 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and open the Land Office)
To: RightWhale
Mercury should be a moon of Venus. Once this is done the plan will be complete to perfection as intended. Uhhhh, OK.
The fact that Mercury does NOT revolve around Venus is immaterial?
I would think one of the first requirements of a planet's moon is that it revolve around the parent planet.
Just whose "plan" are you referring to, anyway?
28
posted on
08/23/2005 6:27:07 PM PDT
by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: Izzy Dunne
Either that, or the principle of Dadaism should be brought out of the attic, dusted off, and launched into the universe at large.
29
posted on
08/23/2005 6:35:40 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and open the Land Office)
To: RightWhale
Pluto was obviously placed there to occupy our limited intellects That would be redundant. The female bosom accomplished that goal.
Heck, if 1/10th of 1% of the attention given to women's breasts were given to the space program, we'd have had hot dog stands on Mars 20 years ago.
30
posted on
08/23/2005 6:48:38 PM PDT
by
Prime Choice
(E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
To: Prime Choice
That's true. I would bet the reason we are concerned at all with outer space is what Veblen said about the leisure class.
31
posted on
08/23/2005 6:51:10 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and open the Land Office)
To: neverdem
"This Is Your Brain on Chocolate"
Yummy.
I'll post it as a separate thread, if you don't mind. I love chocolate threads. :)
To: HP8753
It is nice to see that what the engineers and astrophysicists built and launched back in the 1970's are still proving that science can do something right.
On a different topic I remember my father who was in the business back then referred to the plans for the space shuttle as the *flying brick*. He already had told me in the mid 70's that the shuttle would have major problems with the thermal tiles so it does not surprise me that Columbia went down. Unfortunately people had to die for the vanity of others.
33
posted on
08/23/2005 7:52:08 PM PDT
by
No2much3
(I did not ask for this user name, but I will keep it !)
To: Prime Choice
Heck, if 1/10th of 1% of the attention given to women's breasts were given to the space program, we'd have had hot dog stands on Mars 20 years ago.
Exactly. The solution, therefore, is to maidenform the surface of Mars. The rest will simply fall into place from there.
34
posted on
08/23/2005 9:37:15 PM PDT
by
Antoninus
(Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, Hosanna in excelsis!)
To: TitansAFC
"I would change the solar system models at this point. Especially with Xena...."
35
posted on
08/23/2005 9:46:12 PM PDT
by
Bratch
To: neverdem
This is just more men of science speculating about the sky with their ungodly viewing tubes. More than 9 planets? Total speculation. I remember real science with steam and pistons. Not this modern fantasy romance with the sky.
To: RightWhale; Izzy Dunne
"Mercury should be a moon of Venus." I have no plans to place Mercury in orbit around Venus. Any Terraforming plans for either will have to deal with their current orbits.
37
posted on
08/23/2005 10:59:16 PM PDT
by
NicknamedBob
(I am impervious to insult, being extraordinarily dense, rather like Superman.)
To: Paleo Conservative
Wow! How cool is THAT? I get a whole planet!
Now the trick is getting there.
38
posted on
08/24/2005 6:38:02 AM PDT
by
Xenalyte
(Lord, I apologize . . . and be with the starving pygmies in New Guinea amen.)
39
posted on
10/20/2006 11:46:31 AM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(Dhimmicrati delenda est! https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson