Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists introduce cosmochemical model for Pluto formation
Phys dot org ^ | May 23, 2018 | Southwest Research Institute

Posted on 09/30/2018 12:37:24 AM PDT by SunkenCiv

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last
To: SunkenCiv
Rick & Morty cartoon about Pluto
21 posted on 09/30/2018 8:32:53 PM PDT by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
The four rocky planets -- Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars -- obviously formed differently from the gas giants -- Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus -- hence, there is no astrophysical reasoning behind it, and as you said, more will be discovered, so why the rush? The ONLY reason for the reclassification was the blind panic over US planetary discoveries. Mike Brown, who agrees that Pluto "had to die", but who was thus denied discovery of a tenth planet, also saw the creep from Spain get off without censure or any other symbolic punishment for hacking and stealing Brown's research. Obviously the hacking and stealing was a real issue that should have been dealt with, and was ignored instead.

22 posted on 10/01/2018 5:27:49 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (www.tapatalk.com/groups/godsgravesglyphs/, forum.darwincentral.org, www.gopbriefingroom.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Actually the inner rocky planets formed similarly to the outer gas ones except that the inner ones were close enough to the sun for most of their lighter material—hydrogen and helium—to be forced outward during the sun’s T-Tauri phase of high solar winds. Otherwise, they all formed as small planetesimals coalescing into larger ones until there was no more raw material in their general orbits. There are regions of instability, however, where this process remained incomplete. Namely the asteroid belt and the later discovered Kuiper belt, of which Pluto is part.

Personally I’m not particularly worried about what “defines” a planet. Naming conventions are by nature often ambiguous to a degree, resulting in exceptions to the rule. There is no real difference between a mountain and a hill, for example, except some arbitrary height from base to summit. Originally, the term “planet” referred to a star that wanders instead of remains fixed. So under that definition, the earth isn’t even a planet.


23 posted on 10/01/2018 5:58:56 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
Thanks, the similarity of the process is what you obviously see, just have some problem with the materials used. There's no more reason to separate Pluto and planets further out than there is to separate the gas giants from the terrestrial planets.

24 posted on 10/01/2018 8:49:47 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (www.tapatalk.com/groups/godsgravesglyphs/, forum.darwincentral.org, www.gopbriefingroom.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson