Planet Mercury (was "Lesbian bodies")

In article <fIxm7.2485$lk6.886317@orpheusnews>, Ginevra M. Longbottom
wrote:
> > What are your reasons for excluding Mercury?
>
> Too small, and to be controversial.
>
> > Or, for that matter, Chiron?
>
> Cant remeber if its biger or smaler than Mercury.
>
Without checking, ISTR that Chiron is relatively small - OK, I
checked - "Estimates of Chiron's diameter range from 148 to 208 km, and
lightcurve studies give a rotational period of 5.9 hrs." ; Mercury is
about 4900km diameter.
Looking at data on the rotational (?) lightcurve of Chiron, it
varies by around 7%, which would suggest that it's vaguely like 7% off
from spherical, which I'd put as being "close to spherical". It's a
matter for debate and quantification whether I'd consider it as a
planet or not (first time I've really addressed this issue in numbers),
but it'd be close to the dividing line. I'd have to consider the
implications of Chiron being in a (potentially ?) Saturn-crossing orbit
in addressing that point.
Geologically (Hermetically?), Mercury is a fine planet. It's
possible that it's lost a significant amount of it's "mantle", leading
to a high overall density.

I don't know what you're considering to be controversial about
Mercury.
Vulcan? - no reputable astronomer supports the alleged existence of
this puff of smoke and mirrors.
Retrograde rotation? that's a stochastic character for planets. Would
you also exclude Venus and Uranus?
Precession of the argument of perihelion? Einstein explained this
nearly a century ago - it's a feature of gravity and mass, not whether
a particle is a planet or not.

--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: +57d10' , -02d09' (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Written at Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:24 +0100

Aidan wrote:

> Ginevra M. Longbottom wrote:

>> Too small, and to be controversial.

>>> Or, for that matter, Chiron?

>> Cant remeber if its biger or smaler than Mercury.

> Without checking, ISTR that Chiron is relatively small - OK, I
> checked - "Estimates of Chiron's diameter range from 148 to 208 km, and
> lightcurve studies give a rotational period of 5.9 hrs." ; Mercury is
> about 4900km diameter.

Well there you go then, thaat's why I didn't even think of Chiron.


> Looking at data on the rotational (?) lightcurve of Chiron, it varies by
> around 7%, which would suggest that it's vaguely like 7% off from
> spherical, which I'd put as being "close to spherical".

I don't know about %'s, but planets hav to LOOK circliar, like Earyh does.


> It's a matter for debate and quantification whether I'd consider it as a
> planet or not (first time I've really addressed this issue in numbers),
> but it'd be close to the dividing line. I'd have to consider the
> implications of Chiron being in a (potentially ?) Saturn-crossing orbit
> in addressing that point.

Yap and Pluto is Neptune=crossing, not that it can hit.


> Geologically (Hermetically?), Mercury is a fine planet. It's
> possible that it's lost a significant amount of it's "mantle", leading
> to a high overall density.

I'm thinking that it's a lot smaller thaan the biger moo ns, yes?


> I don't know what you're considering to be controversial about Mercury.

No no dear Aidan, me being controversial, not poor ickle mercury.


> Vulcan? - no reputable astronomer supports the alleged existence of
> this puff of smoke and mirrors.

Course not.


> Retrograde rotation? that's a stochastic character for planets. Would
> you also exclude Venus and Uranus?

Have you forgetten my list already? They was on it.


> Precession of the argument of perihelion? Einstein explained this
> nearly a century ago - it's a feature of gravity and mass, not whether
> a particle is a planet or not.

I thought long and hard about this issue, then decided it soundes 2 much
like an episode of East enders, so I gave it to the cat to play with.


Ginevra

--