|
Yep Carl …
Cool words.
After thinking through some of the questions posed by David Higgins recently, I'm starting to form a view that scientists' leaning towards classifying objects not yet understood, should come with a set of rules. The first rule would seems to be something like:
"Don't let the classification of an observed object become the primary driver for origin theory"
I mean, its hard to distinguish between, from either an origin, (or even a composition perspective), an Asteroid or a Comet, is it ?
Further, could I get away with saying that at the moment, the primary difference between a comet and an asteroid, is its orbit ?
Cheers
|