Brent, I've either never heard of it (Very possible) or forgotten what it was (highly likely). Named after Charles Kowal, I'm guessing? What I wanted to say is that apparently Dr. Bromley's criteria seem heavily skewed in favor of defending the "classical" planetary definition. Once you start tossing-in formation criteria then the whole thing is blown wide-open, unnecessarily. I'd be willing to bet that there are thousands of ways that planets are made; thus my reluctance to take a stand this early in the evolution of human understanding. Especially when you use only one detailed example to build your model from. --- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then, how about Object Kowal? (It may have a different name now, but that is what it was called when it was discovered.)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover