Kylie's Pluto Challenge

[Astrophile]

I came across this fellow who claimed that if we went personally to Pluto we would be groping around in almost total darkness. In fact, he claimed that an approaching astronaut would not be able to detect Pluto with the naked eye because of the dimness of sunlight reaching it. That the only reason we see those bright landscapes is because they are artificially enhanced. Is this true?

No, it isn't. If we could go to Pluto at its present distance from the Sun, the solar illumination would be nearly 400 times as bright as the Full Moon. It would still be too dark for plants to generate energy by photosynthesis, but it would be more than a million times brighter than the limit for human vision.

Second, if the astronaut had good eyesight, he or she would be able to see Pluto with the naked eye at a distance of about 80 million kilometres, or about 50 million miles. At that distance Pluto would look like a star of magnitude 5.5; the astronaut would need a small telescope to be able to see its disk.

 

[Radrook]

No, it isn't. If we could go to Pluto at its present distance from the Sun, the solar illumination would be nearly 400 times as bright as the Full Moon. It would still be too dark for plants to generate energy by photosynthesis, but it would be more than a million times brighter than the limit for human vision.

Second, if the astronaut had good eyesight, he or she would be able to see Pluto with the naked eye at a distance of about 80 million kilometres, or about 50 million miles. At that distance Pluto would look like a star of magnitude 5.5; the astronaut would need a small telescope to be able to see its disk.

Thanks for the info. glad t know we aren't being misled.

 

[Kylie]

Actually, I am.

IN YOUR OPINION, how many times was Adam placed into the Garden in Genesis 2?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Well done, you've found another inconsistency!

 

[AV1611VET]

Well done, you've found another inconsistency!

You're really not interested in learning anything, are you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're really not interested in learning anything, are you?

It appears to be the other way around.

 

[Kylie]

You're really not interested in learning anything, are you?

Given that the only thing you are interested in teaching is your own worldview, and also given that I have explained many times how your worldview is inconsistent with reality, I don't see how you have anything of value to teach me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that the only thing you are interested in teaching is your own worldview, and also given that I have explained many times how your worldview is inconsistent with reality, I don't see how you have anything of value to teach me.

Why do you keep asking me questions then?

 

[Ophiolite]

Why do you keep asking me questions then?

In order to highlight your passive-aggressive style, reveal your ignorance of many topics, expose your closed mind and undermine your agenda.

 

[AV1611VET]

In order to highlight your passive-aggressive style, reveal your ignorance of many topics, expose your closed mind and undermine your agenda.

Wow!

I didn't know I was that good!

 

[rjs330]

Well, they knew enough to disqualify it as a regular planet and demote it to the dwarf status.

Not really they just made a definition that they wanted. It was only disqualified because it didn't fit a made up definition. It's no big deal really. But it's not because we were so smart or knew well enough about anything.

 

[rjs330]

Um, no they were not.

God made Adam in Genesis 2:7. God didn't make the animals until Genesis 2:19. The only way you can get around that is to claim that IN YOUR OPINION, the passages are not arranged chronologically in Genesis 2. And if you are basing it off your opinion rather than a literal reading of the Bible, then you aren't exactly a Biblical literalist, are you?

Actually you misread it. The verbs used indicate that God had already made the animals. Genesis 2 doesn't specify. Genesis 1 does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually you misread it. The verbs used indicate that God had already made the animals. Genesis 2 doesn't specify. Genesis 1 does.

Genesis 2 tells a different story. But then they are just that, so why worry?

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis 2 tells a different story.

As it should.

Genesis 2 is a frame story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As it should.

Genesis 2 is a frame story.

No, it describes a different creation. But that is common among many ancient tribes. They will have more than one creation story.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it describes a different creation.

No, it doesn't.

It's called a frame story.

How many times did God put Adam into the Garden in Genesis 2?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it doesn't.

It's called a frame story.

How many times did God put Adam into the Garden in Genesis 2?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

You are merely quoting out of context. Try again.

 

[Astrophile]

On 24 August 2006, the International Astronomical Union created a clear definition of what constitutes a planet. (Before this, there was no clear definition of what an object needed to count as a planet or not.)

The definition stated that a planet:

1. is in orbit around the Sun,
2. has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
3. has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.

By this definition, Pluto (which had long been considered a planet) was no longer counted as a planet. Instead, it was placed into a category called "Dwarf Planet", since it fit only the first two criteria.

My challenge is this:

Does reclassifying Pluto to be a dwarf planet change our scientific understanding of Pluto in any way? If so, what way?

So far as I can see, the re-classification of Pluto emphasises that it is a member of the Kuiper belt. The statement that Pluto has not 'cleared its orbit' means that total mass of the Kuiper belt objects that it can collide with is of the same order of magnitude as the mass of Pluto itself, whereas the total mass of the objects that the major planets can collide with is much less than the mass of these planets.

In addition, the re-classification may emphasise that it is the shared properties of solar system bodies (e.g. planets, satellites, asteroids, comets, Kuiper-belt objects and Centaurs) that are interesting and important, rather than whether they are called planets. The book The Pluto Files, The Rise and Fall of America's Favorite Planet by Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the controversy and its implications very well.

 

[Kylie]

Actually you misread it. The verbs used indicate that God had already made the animals. Genesis 2 doesn't specify. Genesis 1 does.

I find that hard to believe.

In Genesis two, it is stated that God decides to make animals BECAUSE Adam was alone. That only makes sense if Adam already existed when God decided to make the animals. It is ridiculous to claim that God made a decision to do something AFTER he had already done it. That would be like me saying, "My daughter did well in her test at school today, so I will make her favorite meal for dinner. Oh, how lucky! I've already started making it! How very fortunate!"

 

[Kylie]

No, it doesn't.

It's called a frame story.

How many times did God put Adam into the Garden in Genesis 2?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

And I will once again point out that this is yet ANOTHER inconsistency in the Bible and does not help your position in the slightest.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

As it should.

Genesis 2 is a frame story.

One of the coolest things about the BIble is the textual analysis that finds the different "authorship styles" (J,P,E). The styles showing different authorships for different rhetorical ends is fascinating. The various couplets in the OT that are the same basic story but told with greatly different details each with a different aim for the reader is absolutely fascinating to me.

I love how it shows some indication of how multiple traditions could be woven together in order to deal with the various different political/religious ends that the people who crafted these documents had to deal with to maintain a cohesive society by winding in each sub-groups' own mythos in a coherent manner.

It really does look like a wonderful thing to analyze.

I know this sort of idea is so anathema to many believers that it cannot be allowed to stand, the horrific concept that the Bible is written by humans for largely human ends (with an appreciation that the authors themselves actually believed their stories or believed the metaphors they represent, but still an attempt to cohere their knowledge and their society).