<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Object Found!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tomsastroblog.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=516</link>
	<description>Astronomy News, Notes and Observations.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:52:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=516&#038;cpage=1#comment-11767</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:21:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=516#comment-11767</guid>
		<description>I believe the IAU still has the final say.  I&#039;m with you, I don&#039;t really like those names too much, especially considering their source -- television.  Just doesn&#039;t seem right to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe the IAU still has the final say.  I&#8217;m with you, I don&#8217;t really like those names too much, especially considering their source &#8212; television.  Just doesn&#8217;t seem right to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zandperl</title>
		<link>http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=516&#038;cpage=1#comment-11759</link>
		<dc:creator>zandperl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2005 02:47:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=516#comment-11759</guid>
		<description>Man, why&#039;d they have to name it &quot;Buffy&quot;?  I really hope the IAU doesn&#039;t approve that one, or &quot;Xena.&quot;  I know with asteroids the discoverer gets to name it eventually, do you know if that&#039;s true for Kuiper Belt objects as well?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Man, why&#8217;d they have to name it &#8220;Buffy&#8221;?  I really hope the IAU doesn&#8217;t approve that one, or &#8220;Xena.&#8221;  I know with asteroids the discoverer gets to name it eventually, do you know if that&#8217;s true for Kuiper Belt objects as well?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=516&#038;cpage=1#comment-11746</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=516#comment-11746</guid>
		<description>Cool!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cool!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Homo Insapiens</title>
		<link>http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=516&#038;cpage=1#comment-11739</link>
		<dc:creator>Homo Insapiens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:07:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=516#comment-11739</guid>
		<description>Walking home from the pub last night it was clear to the lads that Buffy is in fact a double planetary system.  The twinned body has been named Biff by the darts team.  (Early sightings indicate that Biff has captured two small asteroids as moons and they will be called Ken and Barbie.)

The Astronomy Society at the Pig &amp; Whistle has ordered in more beer to ensure viewings can continue unabated.

Regards.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Walking home from the pub last night it was clear to the lads that Buffy is in fact a double planetary system.  The twinned body has been named Biff by the darts team.  (Early sightings indicate that Biff has captured two small asteroids as moons and they will be called Ken and Barbie.)</p>
<p>The Astronomy Society at the Pig &amp; Whistle has ordered in more beer to ensure viewings can continue unabated.</p>
<p>Regards.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary Leonard</title>
		<link>http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=516&#038;cpage=1#comment-11738</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary Leonard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:22:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=516#comment-11738</guid>
		<description>&quot;Buffy&quot; eeehhh.....
Must research this a while.......

Interesting........</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Buffy&#8221; eeehhh&#8230;..<br />
Must research this a while&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
<p>Interesting&#8230;&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Astroprof</title>
		<link>http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=516&#038;cpage=1#comment-11736</link>
		<dc:creator>Astroprof</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:34:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=516#comment-11736</guid>
		<description>A circular orbit out that far sort of seems to argue against this body having been thrown out there by the migration of Uranus and Neptune.  This suggests either some other interaction out there, or perhaps that this object may have formed in a different way.  We tend to get hung up on models that say that ALL planets form in the same way, and ALL KBOs form in the same way, and ALL galaxies form in the same way, etc.  This is a really big universe, and there are likely other ways to form these bodies.  Some are far less likely than others, but still...    There is pretty clear evidence that not all extrasolar planets form in the same way, and likewise that external factors can influence star formation.  So I am willing to bet that more than one mechanism can populate the Kuiper Belt.  So, this body may be one of the few that arrived there in some other manner.

Of course, the more things that we find that are near Pluto&#039;s size, the more argument there will be as to what constitutes the definition of a planet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A circular orbit out that far sort of seems to argue against this body having been thrown out there by the migration of Uranus and Neptune.  This suggests either some other interaction out there, or perhaps that this object may have formed in a different way.  We tend to get hung up on models that say that ALL planets form in the same way, and ALL KBOs form in the same way, and ALL galaxies form in the same way, etc.  This is a really big universe, and there are likely other ways to form these bodies.  Some are far less likely than others, but still&#8230;    There is pretty clear evidence that not all extrasolar planets form in the same way, and likewise that external factors can influence star formation.  So I am willing to bet that more than one mechanism can populate the Kuiper Belt.  So, this body may be one of the few that arrived there in some other manner.</p>
<p>Of course, the more things that we find that are near Pluto&#8217;s size, the more argument there will be as to what constitutes the definition of a planet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
