Going by NASA's previous announcements it'll be something that will have scientists jumping for joy but will leave Joe Public saying "So what? It's not aliens and it's not going to hit the earth so it doesn't matter."
Unless it's a huge black monolith...
Going by NASA's previous announcements it'll be something that will have scientists jumping for joy but will leave Joe Public saying "So what? It's not aliens and it's not going to hit the earth so it doesn't matter."
Unless it's a huge black monolith...
Maybe a sign saying - We are not a dwarf and demand equal status with other planets, signed C Tombaugh.
Seriously, it is much more interesting than Mercury so maybe it deserves that anyway.
I've always wondered whether NASA isn't giving the full information they've got on Pluto or any other planet.
Maybe they're withholding all the good stuff for the Government's own nefarious ends? - as in, they're forced to keep certain things to themselves rather than reveal them to the public?
I've always wondered whether NASA isn't giving the full information they've got on Pluto or any other planet.
Maybe they're withholding all the good stuff for the Government's own nefarious ends? - as in, they're forced to keep certain things to themselves rather than reveal them to the public?
I would think it would be well nigh impossible for NASA to withhold information given that some twerp on the net will scrutinise everything and find an alien pigeon behind a rock somewhere (aka a shadow).
Aside from utterly improbable discoveries such as alien life (for which there is indeed a set protocol and would not be announced in a NASA press call) then what meaningful data which would serve the interests of the US could come from covering up the hard science data readings from a world years away from Earth by fastest rocket?
If what we are getting now is not what you call 'good stuff' (as I think it is scientifically amazing) then what qualifies on your definition?
I've a feeling that it's likely to be some sort of geological activity, perhaps active volcanoes (or the icy planet equivalent).
Any (major) news conference announced by NASA tends to lead to rampant speculation these days.
Anyway it was really good to see Pluto up close, after years of the blurry blob picture.
It's not necessarily more interesting than Mercury, it's just that it's currently big news.
For the life of me, I don't understand why Pluto's "planet/not planet" status gets people so worked up.
I think from what we know of the two already it is much more interesting. We have had years of reasonable observations of Mercury and it is not really very different from expected models. Pluto is revealing new unexpected things every week and is probably one of the most interesting objects - geologically speaking - in the solar system.
People get worked up because to them a planet is special as there are so few of them. To have that status stripped seems to have demoted Pluto to the status of also ran. And given what we know now, it is certainly not that.
Good job scientists don't use the same thought process.
Even if you have this strange sentimental attitude towards a few lumps of icy rock, what's wrong with being the first known and most interesting of the dwarf planets?
Good job scientists don't use the same thought process.
Even if you have this strange sentimental attitude towards a few lumps of icy rock, what's wrong with being the first known and most interesting of the dwarf planets?
Most scientists I know have the odd sentimental or romantic thought.
It is hardly life or death, but the decision as to whether it should be termed a planet or a dwarf planet is not exactly based on immutable facts.
I bet if it went to a public vote then Pluto would be a planet again!
Most scientists I know have the odd sentimental or romantic thought.
It is hardly life or death, but the decision as to whether it should be termed a planet or a dwarf planet is not exactly based on immutable facts.
I bet if it went to a public vote then Pluto would be a planet again!
Our knowledge of the solar system is astounding. We've sent probes all over the place and discovered things about the Universe that we might never have imagined. Most scientists could talk for hours about specific planets, moons, comets or whatever, including what we currently understand and how we've arrived at that point. Their eyes would light up as they explained how mankind's assumptions have been slowly replaced with deep understanding, why that's important, and what it might all mean...
And you think reinstating an outdated label is important, based on nothing more than sentimentality?!
Well, this is why putting things to a public vote is not part of the scientific method: If we define 'planet' in such a way that ensures Pluto is a planet then there are many more planets (Kuiper belt objects) that we would have to include, and the definition would be quite useless. Moreover, on the whole the public are woefully ignorant, and if scientists put any value on people's sentimental or romantic thoughts we'd still be in the dark ages.
Our knowledge of the solar system is astounding. We've sent probes all over the place and discovered things about the Universe that we might never have imagined. Most scientists could talk for hours about specific planets, moons, comets or whatever, including what we currently understand and how we've arrived at that point. Their eyes would light up as they explained how mankind's assumptions have been slowly replaced with deep understanding, why that's important, and what it might all mean...
And you think reinstating an outdated label is important, based on nothing more than sentimentality?!
Well, this is why putting things to a public vote is not part of the scientific method: If we define 'planet' in such a way that ensures Pluto is a planet then there are many more planets (Kuiper belt objects) that we would have to include, and the definition would be quite useless. Moreover, on the whole the public are woefully ignorant, and if scientists put any value on people's sentimental or romantic thoughts we'd still be in the dark ages.
Very well said.
There is no room for sentiment in science.
Pluto is but one of many, many Kuiper belt objects - it's no longer classified as a planet for a very good reason.
Apart from anatomy/medicine, which ought to be poetic! They should get rid of all that Latin boll*cks and bring back arbitrary names like 'scrofula'. Cancers should go by more traditional names, rather than categorizing them all as 'cancer'. Who cares if it hinders future researchers when the old names roll off the tongue so beautifully? :cool:
It's not necessarily more interesting than Mercury, it's just that it's currently big news.
For the life of me, I don't understand why Pluto's "planet/not planet" status gets people so worked up.
Because the not-planet side have only offered arguments defining what makes a dwarf planet, and very little to nothing arguing why said objects shouldn't be considered to simply be a class of official planets too.
Because the not-planet side have only offered arguments defining what makes a dwarf planet, and very little to nothing arguing why said objects shouldn't be considered to simply be a class of official planets too.
You can still call Pluto a planet if you like. A dwarf planet. You can call it a wandering star too, if you like, and group it with shooting stars and actual stars. I can't see why not. Can you?
It's incredible that we have the chance to see such landscapes on a world almost unimaginably far from the Earth.
...and here's a reason why those weirdling landscapes could have arisen so far from the Sun's warmth and so far from any other potential tidal heating body such as the planet Neptune:
Comments
"Pluto has vast mountainous dune fields, a multicoloured surface, and a number of other mysterious features that have not been explained by science."
"not been explained by science" Oh, no! Science, it broked.
especially this 8,000 x 8,000 pixel image of the planet
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-rich-color-variations-of-pluto
It would have to be a gigantisaurus fossil, surely given the resolutions of the images?
That I think we can rule out!
Unless it's a huge black monolith...
Maybe a sign saying - We are not a dwarf and demand equal status with other planets, signed C Tombaugh.
Seriously, it is much more interesting than Mercury so maybe it deserves that anyway.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/610748/NASA-announcement-Pluto-Horizons-probe-life
Oh darn, no aliens.
Now that just proves there's a cover-up!
And was obviously wrong to do so. The blue haze is stunning. Wow!
Maybe they're withholding all the good stuff for the Government's own nefarious ends? - as in, they're forced to keep certain things to themselves rather than reveal them to the public?
I would think it would be well nigh impossible for NASA to withhold information given that some twerp on the net will scrutinise everything and find an alien pigeon behind a rock somewhere (aka a shadow).
Aside from utterly improbable discoveries such as alien life (for which there is indeed a set protocol and would not be announced in a NASA press call) then what meaningful data which would serve the interests of the US could come from covering up the hard science data readings from a world years away from Earth by fastest rocket?
If what we are getting now is not what you call 'good stuff' (as I think it is scientifically amazing) then what qualifies on your definition?
It's not necessarily more interesting than Mercury, it's just that it's currently big news.
For the life of me, I don't understand why Pluto's "planet/not planet" status gets people so worked up.
Any (major) news conference announced by NASA tends to lead to rampant speculation these days.
Anyway it was really good to see Pluto up close, after years of the blurry blob picture.
I think from what we know of the two already it is much more interesting. We have had years of reasonable observations of Mercury and it is not really very different from expected models. Pluto is revealing new unexpected things every week and is probably one of the most interesting objects - geologically speaking - in the solar system.
People get worked up because to them a planet is special as there are so few of them. To have that status stripped seems to have demoted Pluto to the status of also ran. And given what we know now, it is certainly not that.
It deserves to have the name of planet back imo.
Even if you have this strange sentimental attitude towards a few lumps of icy rock, what's wrong with being the first known and most interesting of the dwarf planets?
Most scientists I know have the odd sentimental or romantic thought.
It is hardly life or death, but the decision as to whether it should be termed a planet or a dwarf planet is not exactly based on immutable facts.
I bet if it went to a public vote then Pluto would be a planet again!
Our knowledge of the solar system is astounding. We've sent probes all over the place and discovered things about the Universe that we might never have imagined. Most scientists could talk for hours about specific planets, moons, comets or whatever, including what we currently understand and how we've arrived at that point. Their eyes would light up as they explained how mankind's assumptions have been slowly replaced with deep understanding, why that's important, and what it might all mean...
And you think reinstating an outdated label is important, based on nothing more than sentimentality?!
Well, this is why putting things to a public vote is not part of the scientific method: If we define 'planet' in such a way that ensures Pluto is a planet then there are many more planets (Kuiper belt objects) that we would have to include, and the definition would be quite useless. Moreover, on the whole the public are woefully ignorant, and if scientists put any value on people's sentimental or romantic thoughts we'd still be in the dark ages.
Very well said.
There is no room for sentiment in science.
Pluto is but one of many, many Kuiper belt objects - it's no longer classified as a planet for a very good reason.
People should move on.
Apart from anatomy/medicine, which ought to be poetic! They should get rid of all that Latin boll*cks and bring back arbitrary names like 'scrofula'. Cancers should go by more traditional names, rather than categorizing them all as 'cancer'. Who cares if it hinders future researchers when the old names roll off the tongue so beautifully? :cool:
;-)
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-horizons-returns-first-of-the-best-images-of-pluto
More detail about each image:
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-mountainous-shoreline-of-sputnik-planum
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/mosaic-of-pluto-s-craters-mountains-and-glaciers
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/plutos-layered-craters-and-icy-plains
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/pluto-s-badlands
It's incredible that we have the chance to see such landscapes on a world almost unimaginably far from the Earth.
Because the not-planet side have only offered arguments defining what makes a dwarf planet, and very little to nothing arguing why said objects shouldn't be considered to simply be a class of official planets too.
You can still call Pluto a planet if you like. A dwarf planet. You can call it a wandering star too, if you like, and group it with shooting stars and actual stars. I can't see why not. Can you?
...and here's a reason why those weirdling landscapes could have arisen so far from the Sun's warmth and so far from any other potential tidal heating body such as the planet Neptune:
After the New Horizons spacecraft zoomed past Pluto on July 14, scientists were stunned at what it sent back. Photos show the dwarf planet dotted with icy mountains and smooth plains of ice, suggesting the surface may be younger than expected. If Pluto was the dead world everyone thought it was, it probably would have been flatter and pockmarked with craters.