thanks for the info. Er, unfortunately, I have to point out that after looking closely at the first several links under your suggested Google search that none of them actually state the origin of Pluto was by capture into the Solar system.
The IAU link (URI properly written: http://www.i
au.org/PlutoPR.html* - I managed to guess it! ) merely dismisses incorrect press speculation that Pluto was about to be demoted from 'planet status'. It doesn't discuss Pluto's origin.
The first link from Google is that second which you already give. This is a curious paper: printed in the Journal of Applied Statistics, I'm sure it was referreed, but probably not by any astronomer! The line you skipped in your quote from the abstract: "If the orbit of Pluto has a different origin to the other planets in the solar system, then there will be tremendous repercussions on modelling the spacecrafts for a mission to Pluto." suggests to me that the authors, while perhaps being mathematical experts, know nothing about planetary science! The origin of Pluto turning out to be different makes no difference to what orbit or instruments a spacecraft needs in order to fulfill a scientific mission.
The second link I got is Educational Psychology: Windows on Classrooms 5th Ed. Chapter 16
( http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubboo ... ntent.html
). This link is not about a formation theory of Pluto, it is about teaching about the psychology of teaching. In fact, the lecture example happens to use the now discredited solar tidal theory of Sir James Jeans (see Jeans-Jeffreys tidal hypothesis
( http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... tidal.html
). In fact, if you read the lecturer's teachings, he doesn't actually state what the origin of Pluto is, only that it's different (from being formed from a blob of gas from the sun). It does not say that Pluto was captured from outside the solar system. Possibly, it's meant to show an example of indoctrination of children rather than actual teaching by explanation.
The third link, The origin of Pluto
), discusses the origin of Pluto with regard to being a lost satellite of Neptune after a perturbing encounter with Triton. To quote the abstract: "It is shown that if Pluto originated as a satellite of Neptune an encounter with Triton could perturb it sufficiently to eject it from the Neptunian system to pursue a heliocentric orbit similar to that observed at the present day." This does not say that Pluto was captured from outside the solar system.
The fifth link merely states that the above theory and another theory stating Pluto came from an impact on Uranus don't work, but not that Pluto was captured from outside the solar system.
The sixth link only says that Pluto's orgin is unknown, but not that Pluto was captured from outside the solar system.
And the remaining ones seem to be one of:
- Origin of Pluto and Charon double body: how did it form?
- Origin of the name Pluto for the ninth planet.
- Origin of Pluto by divine creator, because God made everything - QED.
- Origin of Pluto's unusual orbit by being a Kuiper belt object perturbed by Neptune,
In general, I think astronomers are becoming more confident on that fourth one. After cataloguing 700 TNO's, many of which are in the same type of highly inclined, eccentric orbits having a 3:2 resonance with Neptune, it's become more apparent that Pluto (and Charon) are just Edgeworth-Kuiper belt objects and that all of them formed in the outer solar nebula.
Sorry to say, I think you've extrapolated in idea that isn't there!** It was such a surprise to hear about evidence or an extrasolar origin of Pluto, I had to check.
* Oh, I wish phpBB wouldn't autoformat URI's...!
** But we all make mistakes, or at least, I know I have