Kylie's Pluto Challenge

[AV1611VET]

That's an oxymoron. Murder is unlawful killing.

Science has a master that allows for exceptions:

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong; they couldn't get out because the pressure inside was too high.

Details ... details.

It all boils down to one principle:

Science gone wrong.

 

[HitchSlap]

Details ... details.

It all boils down to one principle:

Science gone wrong.

Is that like Girls Gone Wild?

 

[Ophiolite]

Details ... details.

It all boils down to one principle:

Science gone wrong.

You have a whole new world waiting for you. It's called engineering. It's different from science. Let me guess. Engineering can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have a whole new world waiting for you. It's called engineering. It's different from science. Let me guess. Engineering can take a hike.

I'm sure engineering uses scientific principles to do its work.

 

[Ophiolite]

I use potatoes to make Shepherd's Pie. That doesn't mean a Shepherd's pie is potatoes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Details ... details.

It showed how crucial it can be to get the details right. You criticize them for getting details wrong but you get the details wrong yourself... there's a name for that.

Science gone wrong.

The science was fine, it was the application (engineering) that was wrong; the price of riding the edge of technology. Fortunately they were able to correct the problems and successfully reach the moon and return safely, several times.

 

[AV1611VET]

The science was fine, it was the application (engineering) that was wrong; the price of riding the edge of technology. Fortunately they were able to correct the problems and successfully reach the moon and return safely, several times.

So it was worth it, then?

 

[quatona]

So it was worth it, then?

Playing Twenty Questions again?

 

[pgp_protector]

So it was worth it, then?

The people that went seem to think it was worth the risk.

 

[AV1611VET]

The people that went seem to think it was worth the risk.

What's with people pointing to others, when I ask a simple question?

Do you think this:

... was worth this:

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So it was worth it, then?

I guess it depends on your point of view - Grissom, White, & Chaffee, and others who've died in the same line of work, thought so - they volunteered, knowing the risks, and dedicated themselves to it, because they thought so.

How do you feel about all those who die playing sports and adventuring just for personal pleasure and entertainment (e.g. climbing Everest: ~ 4%) ?

 

[quatona]

What's with people pointing to others, when I ask a simple question?

Do you think this:

... was worth this:

I think it´s got nothing to do with the point about you tried to make and then silently abandoned.

 

[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?

I think that the re-classification of Pluto helped us to understand that there is no sharp division between true planets and asteroids/minor planets. Instead there is a transition between the two types of body, and the re-classification of Pluto recognises the existence of such transitional objects and defines their properties.

Inevitably the criteria used to distinguish between planets, dwarf planets and asteroids/minor planets are somewhat arbitrary. Some people might have preferred to classify any body with an atmosphere and with evidence of present-day internal and surface activity (besides impact cratering) as planets. If these criteria had been chosen, Pluto would be a planet and Mercury probably would not.

Also, since we have visited only one Kuiper-belt object (namely Pluto), we can't be sure that it is typical of the dwarf planets; Eris, Haumea and Makemake may turn out to be different.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that the re-classification of Pluto helped us to understand that there is no sharp division between true planets and asteroids/minor planets.

Does it bother you HOW it was done?

 

[Astrophile]

Does it bother you HOW it was done?

Slightly, although I'm not a member of the IAU and therefore have no right to vote on the question. However, the correctness of the classification of Pluto doesn't depend on the way in which the IAU reached its decision and voted on the matter; however you look at it, there have to be 'planetary bodies' that are transitional between classical planets and asteroids/minor planets.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

Does it bother you HOW it was done?

Here's a bigger question: WHY does it bother you so much? Honestly what difference does it make?

So we go from 9 planets to 8. SOMEONE had to make a decision and this is as good as any. If we left Pluto in there suddenly we'd be looking at many, many more "planets" in our solar system.

I honestly do not get why this is even an "issue" with you. I learned 9 planets as a child and I admit I really thought Pluto was wicked cool. But really, WHO CARES???

It's not like some gross injustice was done. It's not the "people of Pluto" are now forced to live out their days without healthcare because they got booted from the Gang of 9.

WHY is this such an issue for you? Why?

 

[AV1611VET]

By all means, my apologies. Please, enjoy the major advances available to you through numerology and its wonders.

Is there something I can help you with, aachen?