[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: An uncomplicated question
- To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
- Subject: Re: An uncomplicated question
- From: JJSwaim <terrafirma@ibm.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1987 18:49:52 -0500
- Old-X-Envelope-To: <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
- References: <l03102802b0ed58f5875a@[128.111.108.96]>
- Reply-To: jjswaim@ibm.net
- Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 18:52:55 -0500 (EST)
- Resent-From: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"hdRHPC.A.NJC.3t9x0"@mu.pair.com>
- Resent-Sender: meteorite-list-request@meteoritecentral.com
If we assume all of the known planets came into being 'all at once',
you are probably correct. I rather picture the formation of the solar
system as having had at first 2 or 3 planets before the rest completed
coalescence. Therefore, can we rule out the notion that the planet that
became the asteroid belt (with a little help from its friends) is not in
fact older than Jupiter therefore eliminating any such influence? jj
Apologies. I sent this to Frank Spera and not the list.