Thanks for the clarification Chuck. -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards [mailto:chuckhards@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 9:33 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Comet picture Hi Kim: --- Kim Hyatt <khyatt@smithlayton.com> wrote:
Regarding the comment, "things that small should not be spherical": I understand that the mass is not sufficient to compel a spherical geometry, but why shouldn't they be spherical? Isn't a spherical shape as likely as any other shape? Anyone have a thought?
A spherical (or more precisely, spheroidal) shape is quite possible, but statistically very unlikely for a small object. I think too since activity on cometary surfaces isn't thought to be uniform over the entire surface, the comet's shape should become even more "random" over time, and I think this is what was implied. Not an outright rejection of the possibility of a spheroidal shape, but the chances are very, very slim. C. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 http://search.yahoo.com/top2003 _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com