> In a message dated 7/3/2001 8:26:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> << I don't get it. I thought that Pluto's existence, like Neptune's,
> had been deduced by pertubative effects on the other planets. But
> if so, then why with our much greater precision of measurement,
> and our immensely greater calculation resources, haven't all
> bodies "of Pluto's size" and approximate distance been located
> before this?
> Lee Corbin>>
> If the Kuiper Belt objects are in a trans-neptunian orbit, the rest of these
> iceballs are in an eliptical orbit as well and less likely to affect and
> disturbance on other planets, except perhaps sending something big and ugly
> Earth's 250 million years ago, to initiate the age of the Dinosaurs.
Note also that Pluto is still the largest trans-neptunian object, at a
couple thousand miles diameter, and crosses Neptune's orbit, while most
of the other objects remain outside its orbit. There are a few objects a
couple hundred miles across that are in similar resonant orbits, but
most remain outside, and are not influenced much at all (and don't
influence Neptune) due to the distance...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:41 MDT