Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.astronomy > #290933 > unrolled thread

Killer asteroids

Back to article view | Back to alt.astronomy

Contents

  Killer asteroids The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-25 09:46 -0700
    Re: Killer asteroids The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-27 13:50 -0700
      Re: Killer asteroids The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-27 13:58 -0700
        Re: Killer asteroids The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-27 21:17 -0700
      Re: Killer asteroids Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-28 08:14 -0500
        Re: Killer asteroids "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 13:23 -0400
          Re: Killer asteroids Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-28 20:28 +0200
            Re: Killer asteroids Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-05-28 13:00 -0600
              Re: Killer asteroids Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-29 01:03 +0200
            Re: Killer asteroids Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-28 16:17 -0500
              Re: Killer asteroids Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-29 01:12 +0200
          Re: Killer asteroids Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-29 07:23 -0500
        Re: Killer asteroids The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-28 11:15 -0700
          Re: Killer asteroids Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-29 07:38 -0500
        Re: Killer asteroids The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-29 10:54 -0700
          Re: Killer asteroids Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-29 18:14 -0500
            Re: Killer asteroids Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-05-29 19:25 -0600
              Re: Killer asteroids jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-30 02:37 +0000
              Re: Killer asteroids Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-30 14:08 +0200
                Re: Killer asteroids The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-30 10:35 -0700
                  Re: Killer asteroids 21blackswan@gmail.com - 2017-05-30 11:22 -0700
                  Re: Killer asteroids Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-31 00:39 +0200
                    Re: Killer asteroids The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-30 16:14 -0700
                      Re: Killer asteroids Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-31 22:17 +0200
                        Re: Killer asteroids The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-31 13:52 -0700
                          Re: Killer asteroids Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-01 02:12 +0200
            Re: Killer asteroids The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-29 22:35 -0700
              Re: Killer asteroids Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-30 17:01 -0500
                Re: Killer asteroids The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-30 15:43 -0700
                  Re: Killer asteroids The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-30 17:08 -0700
    Re: Killer asteroids tesla sTinker <truecatholicstaff@truecarpentry.org> - 2017-05-28 20:40 -0700
      Re: Killer asteroids Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 06:59 +0200
        Re: Killer asteroids tesla sTinker <truecatholicstaff@truecarpentry.org> - 2017-05-29 21:29 -0700
          Re: Killer asteroids benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-30 17:01 -0400
        Re: Killer asteroids tesla sTinker <truecatholicstaff@truecarpentry.org> - 2017-05-29 21:52 -0700
    Re: Killer asteroids Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-30 20:17 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#290933 — Killer asteroids

Now that Trump is President..

don't expect to hear from NASA

"Killer Asteroids is Coming!!!!".

If NASA tries to ask for money
to kill Killer Asteroids..
Trump would tell NASA "Get The Fuck Out of Here!!!"

So why bother with killer asteriods if there is no money in it?

That's a democratic scam.


Next, they should just shut down NASA completely. They serve no purpose.


Get rid of all their 'fake science' and what do you have left????


They might start searching for water on earth...do you think
NASA can find liquid water on earth?

You can go to a 7-11 store and ask for "water ice" and they will give you a double look!

Where on earth is anyone going to find "water ice"??? Maybe the underground "water ice" oceans...

You're going to wait maybe 4 or 8 years before you hear "killer asteroids" again.


Now is the time to stick a 'water ice' hose down NASA's throat and let them drown in it!

I'll stick it myself. 


Let those motherfuckers...drown.


and their children too in their swimming pools...


"Come on in, the liquid water is fine..."

"Honey, can you get me some water ice from the refriderator?"

GETTHEFUCKOUTOFHERE!!!!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#291018

Did you know that in the history of the earth, not one asteroid ever landed on earth?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291019

Dioretsa?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291028

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Dioretsa?


some retard must've speled it backwards..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291030

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Did you know that in the history of the earth, not one asteroid
> ever landed on earth?

That's right. There have been many.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291036

In article <slrnoilj95.l6b.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>, 
nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz says...
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Did you know that in the history of the earth, not one asteroid
> > ever landed on earth?
> 
> That's right. There have been many.

Note the tricky wording there.  "In the history", which if one is being 
pedantically technical, means "since the invention of writing".  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291041

J. Clarke wrote:

> […] nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz says...
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> >
>> > Did you know that in the history of the earth, not one asteroid
>> > ever landed on earth?
>> 
>> That's right. There have been many.
> 
> Note the tricky wording there.  "In the history", which if one is being
> pedantically technical, means "since the invention of writing".

Nonsense.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291042

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> […] nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz says...
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Did you know that in the history of the earth, not one asteroid
>>> > ever landed on earth?
>>> 
>>> That's right. There have been many.
>> 
>> Note the tricky wording there.  "In the history", which if one is being
>> pedantically technical, means "since the invention of writing".
>
>Nonsense.

So you disagree with "JC" on what "prehistoric" means.  From here, JC
seems to be supporting his argument better.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291051

Greg Goss wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>J. Clarke wrote:
>>> […] nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz says...
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> > Did you know that in the history of the earth, not one asteroid
>>>> > ever landed on earth?
>>>> That's right. There have been many.
>>> Note the tricky wording there.  "In the history", which if one is being
>>> pedantically technical, means "since the invention of writing".
>>Nonsense.
> 
> So you disagree with "JC" on what "prehistoric" means.

No.  "JC" did not define the term “prehistoric” in the first place.

> From here, JC seems to be supporting his argument better.

He is committing the fallacy of equivocation, and so are you:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation>

Because there is not one meaning, but several possible meanings, for the 
term “history (of sth./so.)”.  For example:

<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/history>
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/history>
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history#Noun>

In the natural sciences, such as astronomy, the term “the history of Earth” 
is to be understood as equivalent to “the past of Earth”: the set of 
events – whether recorded or not – whose spatial components specify a 
location on the planet of Terra or – I would go that far – on an object 
related to said planet (for example, I would consider an asteroid that 
potentially delivered life-enabling molecules to the planet a part of the 
latter’s history), and whose temporal components range from including the 
formation of Terra up to excluding the time of wording the statement in 
which the term is used.  The only matter that is in question then is when 
said planet can be considered to have been formed.

However, a semantic complication to assess the truth value of the OP’s 
statement is the use of the word “landed”, because that word is not usually 
used for an object such as an asteroid that actually *collides* with another 
object so that its relative motion is only stopped by an *impact*.  By 
contrast, “(to) land” is usually associated with a slow, manual approach, a 
comparably soft contact between the landing object and the one being landed 
on, and a slow deceleration of the former to come to a relative stop on the 
latter.  Compare “the airplane landed on the airport” with “the airplane 
crashed into the ground”; in order to say that a soft landing was attempted 
but that was impossible to do without damage, one has to use the word 
“crash-land”.  Insofar it is fair to say that, indeed, very likely no 
asteroid has ever *landed* on Earth – but probably for other reasons that 
the trolling OP may assume.

<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/land>
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/land>
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/land#Verb>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291046

On 5/28/2017 1:28 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> 
>> […] nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz says...
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Did you know that in the history of the earth, not one asteroid
>>>> ever landed on earth?
>>>
>>> That's right. There have been many.
>>
>> Note the tricky wording there.  "In the history", which if one is being
>> pedantically technical, means "since the invention of writing".
> 
> Nonsense.
> 

so the anchaint indians that did not know how to write, would tell the 
tail to their sons for generations that "no asteroids ever landed on the 
earth".

Hmmm, that is stupid from both sides.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291052

Serg io wrote:

> On 5/28/2017 1:28 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> […] nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz says...
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you know that in the history of the earth, not one asteroid
>>>>> ever landed on earth?
>>>>
>>>> That's right. There have been many.
>>>
>>> Note the tricky wording there.  "In the history", which if one is being
>>> pedantically technical, means "since the invention of writing".
>> Nonsense.
> 
> so the anchaint indians that did not know how to write,
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Assuming that is true, they would obviously not be the only ones. (SCNR)

> would tell the tail to their sons for generations that "no asteroids ever
                 ^^^^
> landed on the earth".

They might have, for they certainly knew what “(to) land” is, having it 
observed with birds.
 
> Hmmm, that is stupid from both sides.

Straw man.

Also, you are in violation of RFC 5536, § 3.1.2.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291058

J. Clarke wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Did you know that in the history of the earth, not one asteroid
> > > ever landed on earth?
> >
> > That's right. There have been many.
>
> Note the tricky wording there. "In the history", which if one
> is being pedantically technical, means "since the invention
> of writing".

Fiven a writer who isn't subliterate, yes. But this is a Starmajer
thread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291039

Ned Latham wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Did you know that in the history of the earth, not one asteroid
> > ever landed on earth?
> 
> That's right. There have been many.


Can you name at least one time an asteroid has landed on earth?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291059

The Starmaker wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Did you know that in the history of the earth, not one asteroid
> > > ever landed on earth?
> >
> > That's right. There have been many.
>
> Can you name at least one time an asteroid has landed on earth?

"Name"? Don't be ridiculous.

Indicate now...

How about the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. Take a look at the
Yucaran peninsula. Immediately west of it is a big semicircular
coastline, the outline of the southern half of its crater.

Or if you'd like something a little closer in time, how about the
one that created Meteor Crater in Arizona. Only 49,000 years afo.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291062

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> 
> W dniu niedziela, 28 maja 2017 15:14:19 UTC+2 użytkownik Ned Latham napisał:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Did you know that in the history of the earth, not one asteroid
> > > ever landed on earth?
> >
> > That's right. There have been many.
> 
> Rather not.
> 
> https://www.universetoday.com/36398/what-is-the-difference-between-asteroids-and-meteorites/
> 
> If it landed, it's not an asteroid.


give that man a kewpie doll!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291069

The Starmaker wrote:
> The dumb polack, mlwozniak, wrote:
> > Ned Latham wroteL
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Did you know that in the history of the earth, not one asteroid
> > > > ever landed on earth?
> > >
> > > That's right. There have been many.
> > 
> > Rather not.
> > 
> > https://www.universetoday.com/36398/
> > what-is-the-difference-between-asteroids-and-meteorites/

"While we know that some asteroids pass very close to Earth's orbit
around the Sun, we've been lucky in the history of humanity that we
haven't had a large asteroid hit Earth in the past several thousand
years. It wasn't until satellite imagery of Earth became widely
available that scientists were able to see evidence of past asteroid
impacts.?

> > If it landed, it's not an asteroid.

Wrong again, idiot. You should read your source *before&
using it.

> give that man a kewpie doll!

I see you didn't check. You're as stupid as he is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291074

Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

>> > https://www.universetoday.com/36398/
>> > what-is-the-difference-between-asteroids-and-meteorites/
>
>"While we know that some asteroids pass very close to Earth's orbit
>around the Sun, we've been lucky in the history of humanity that we
>haven't had a large asteroid hit Earth in the past several thousand
>years. It wasn't until satellite imagery of Earth became widely
>available that scientists were able to see evidence of past asteroid
>impacts.?
>
>> > If it landed, it's not an asteroid.
>
>Wrong again, idiot. You should read your source *before&
>using it.

Where is the cut-off between "Asteroid" and "Meteor"?  We have
Tunguska, Riyadh, and somewhere in the Amazon (in the thirties?) as
major impacts in the past 140 years.  Fortunately, each of them hit in
pretty thinly (or non- in the case of the Saudi one) populated areas.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291075

In sci.physics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
> Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
> 
>>> > https://www.universetoday.com/36398/
>>> > what-is-the-difference-between-asteroids-and-meteorites/
>>
>>"While we know that some asteroids pass very close to Earth's orbit
>>around the Sun, we've been lucky in the history of humanity that we
>>haven't had a large asteroid hit Earth in the past several thousand
>>years. It wasn't until satellite imagery of Earth became widely
>>available that scientists were able to see evidence of past asteroid
>>impacts.?
>>
>>> > If it landed, it's not an asteroid.
>>
>>Wrong again, idiot. You should read your source *before&
>>using it.
> 
> Where is the cut-off between "Asteroid" and "Meteor"?  We have
> Tunguska, Riyadh, and somewhere in the Amazon (in the thirties?) as
> major impacts in the past 140 years.  Fortunately, each of them hit in
> pretty thinly (or non- in the case of the Saudi one) populated areas.

A meteor is an asteroid or meteoroid that enters the Earth's atmosphere.

A meteoroid is a small chunk of something in space. There is no definitive
definition based on size or anything else that distingues an asteroid
from a meteroid other than a meteoroid is smaller than an asteroid.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291082

Greg Goss wrote:

> Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
>>> > https://www.universetoday.com/36398/
>>> > what-is-the-difference-between-asteroids-and-meteorites/
>>
>>"While we know that some asteroids pass very close to Earth's orbit
>>around the Sun, we've been lucky in the history of humanity that we
>>haven't had a large asteroid hit Earth in the past several thousand
>>years. It wasn't until satellite imagery of Earth became widely
>>available that scientists were able to see evidence of past asteroid
>>impacts.?
>>
>>> > If it landed, it's not an asteroid.
>>
>>Wrong again, idiot. You should read your source *before&
>>using it.
> 
> Where is the cut-off between "Asteroid" and "Meteor"?

That is like asking “Where is the cut-off between ‘apples’ and ‘oranges’?”

I could not find a normative definition specifically for “asteroid”, but 
search results on the IAU Web site suggest that it is equivalent to “minor 
planet”:

,-<https://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/>
| 
| Pluto and the Developing Landscape of Our Solar System
| =======================================================
| 
| […]
| 
| The final resolution
| ---------------------
| 
| The first draft proposal for the definition of a planet was debated 
| vigorously by astronomers at the 2006 IAU General Assembly in Prague and a 
| new version slowly took shape. This new version was more acceptable to the 
| majority and was put to the members of the IAU for a vote at the Closing 
| Ceremony on the 24 August 2006. By the end of the Prague General Assembly, 
| its members voted that the resolution B5 on the definition of a planet in 
| the Solar System would be as follows:
| 
|   A celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient 
|   mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it 
|   assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has
|   cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
| 
| […]
| 
| Planets, Dwarf Planets and Small Solar System Bodies
| ----------------------------------------------------
| 
| Questions and Answers
| 
| […]
| Q: How many dwarf planets are there? 
| A: Currently there are five objects accepted as dwarf planets. Ceres, 
| Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Haumea. 
| 
| […]
| Q: What is Ceres? 
| A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km 
| across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. […]
| 
| Q: Didn't Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet? 
| A: Historically, Ceres was called a planet when it was first discovered in 
| 1801, orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and 
| Jupiter. In the 19th century astronomers could not resolve the size and 
| shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the 
| same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, 
| Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet. 
| 
| […]
| Q: What is a [“small Solar System body”]? 
| A: The term "small Solar System body" is a new IAU definition to encompass 
| all objects orbiting the Sun that are too small (not sufficiently massive) 
| to satisfy the definition of planet or dwarf planet. 
| 
| Q: Is the term [“minor planet”] still to be used? 
| A: The term "minor planet" may still be used. But generally the term 
| [“small Solar System body”] will be preferred. 

,-
<https://www.iau.org/static/science/scientific_bodies/commissions/f1/meteordefinitions_approved.pdf>
| 
| Definitions of terms in meteor astronomy
| =========================================
| 
| […]
| *Meteor* is the light and associated physical phenomena (heat, shock, 
| ionization), which result from the high speed entry of a solid object from
| space into a gaseous atmosphere.
| 
| *Meteoroid* is a solid natural object of a size roughly between 30 
| micrometers and 1 meter moving in, or coming from, interplanetary space.
| 
| […]
| *Meteorite* is any natural solid object that survived the meteor phase in
| a gaseous atmosphere without being completely vaporized. 
| 
| […]
| The explanatory remarks, comments and secondary definitions (in bold)
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| 
| Remarks to */meteor/* 
| 
| The meteor phenomenon can be caused by a meteoroid, an asteroid, a comet
| or any solid matter with the appropriate combination of velocity, mass and
| mean-free-path in a planetary atmosphere. 
| 
| […]
| This document was approved by the majority of members of IAU Commission F1
| participating in the electronic voting completed on April 30, 2017. 

Please learn how to use Usenet and stop the mindless crossposting across 
alt.ALL and the Big 8 without Followup-To.

F'up2 sci.astro

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291089

according to yous peoples definition of an asteroid, it was a planet that killed the dinosaurs...


and planets landing on earth everywhere, many times.


even a lady was once hit by a planet.


I'm going to have to make something clear to yous people...

GET YOUR FUCKIN DEFINITIONS RIGHT!


Learn the english language.


Why is it you people cannot make up your fuckin mind???? yous acting like a bunch of fuckin retards!





Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Greg Goss wrote:
> 
> > Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
> >>> > https://www.universetoday.com/36398/
> >>> > what-is-the-difference-between-asteroids-and-meteorites/
> >>
> >>"While we know that some asteroids pass very close to Earth's orbit
> >>around the Sun, we've been lucky in the history of humanity that we
> >>haven't had a large asteroid hit Earth in the past several thousand
> >>years. It wasn't until satellite imagery of Earth became widely
> >>available that scientists were able to see evidence of past asteroid
> >>impacts.?
> >>
> >>> > If it landed, it's not an asteroid.
> >>
> >>Wrong again, idiot. You should read your source *before&
> >>using it.
> >
> > Where is the cut-off between "Asteroid" and "Meteor"?
> 
> That is like asking “Where is the cut-off between ‘apples’ and ‘oranges’?”
> 
> I could not find a normative definition specifically for “asteroid”, but
> search results on the IAU Web site suggest that it is equivalent to “minor
> planet”:
> 
> ,-<https://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/>
> |
> | Pluto and the Developing Landscape of Our Solar System
> | =======================================================
> |
> | […]
> |
> | The final resolution
> | ---------------------
> |
> | The first draft proposal for the definition of a planet was debated
> | vigorously by astronomers at the 2006 IAU General Assembly in Prague and a
> | new version slowly took shape. This new version was more acceptable to the
> | majority and was put to the members of the IAU for a vote at the Closing
> | Ceremony on the 24 August 2006. By the end of the Prague General Assembly,
> | its members voted that the resolution B5 on the definition of a planet in
> | the Solar System would be as follows:
> |
> |   A celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient
> |   mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it
> |   assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has
> |   cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
> |
> | […]
> |
> | Planets, Dwarf Planets and Small Solar System Bodies
> | ----------------------------------------------------
> |
> | Questions and Answers
> |
> | […]
> | Q: How many dwarf planets are there?
> | A: Currently there are five objects accepted as dwarf planets. Ceres,
> | Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Haumea.
> |
> | […]
> | Q: What is Ceres?
> | A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km
> | across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. […]
> |
> | Q: Didn't Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet?
> | A: Historically, Ceres was called a planet when it was first discovered in
> | 1801, orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and
> | Jupiter. In the 19th century astronomers could not resolve the size and
> | shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the
> | same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century,
> | Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet.
> |
> | […]
> | Q: What is a [“small Solar System body”]?
> | A: The term "small Solar System body" is a new IAU definition to encompass
> | all objects orbiting the Sun that are too small (not sufficiently massive)
> | to satisfy the definition of planet or dwarf planet.
> |
> | Q: Is the term [“minor planet”] still to be used?
> | A: The term "minor planet" may still be used. But generally the term
> | [“small Solar System body”] will be preferred.
> 
> ,-
> <https://www.iau.org/static/science/scientific_bodies/commissions/f1/meteordefinitions_approved.pdf>
> |
> | Definitions of terms in meteor astronomy
> | =========================================
> |
> | […]
> | *Meteor* is the light and associated physical phenomena (heat, shock,
> | ionization), which result from the high speed entry of a solid object from
> | space into a gaseous atmosphere.
> |
> | *Meteoroid* is a solid natural object of a size roughly between 30
> | micrometers and 1 meter moving in, or coming from, interplanetary space.
> |
> | […]
> | *Meteorite* is any natural solid object that survived the meteor phase in
> | a gaseous atmosphere without being completely vaporized.
> |
> | […]
> | The explanatory remarks, comments and secondary definitions (in bold)
> | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> |
> | Remarks to */meteor/*
> |
> | The meteor phenomenon can be caused by a meteoroid, an asteroid, a comet
> | or any solid matter with the appropriate combination of velocity, mass and
> | mean-free-path in a planetary atmosphere.
> |
> | […]
> | This document was approved by the majority of members of IAU Commission F1
> | participating in the electronic voting completed on April 30, 2017.
> 
> Please learn how to use Usenet and stop the mindless crossposting across
> alt.ALL and the Big 8 without Followup-To.
> 
> F'up2 sci.astro
> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy

csiph-web