New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
The Question of Pluto Why is the scientific community having such a hard time trying to define what Pluto is?
First it's a planet, then it's not, then again maybe it is. 
There's new debate going on about its very nature; SPACE.com Space.com Staff
space.com – Thu Feb 18, 8:49 am ET Pluto was discovered 80 years ago today, and astronomers are still arguing over what it is. The oddball world, downgraded from planet to dwarf planet status in 2006 and then later reclassified, is really out there. Scientists aren't sure exactly what Pluto's made of, how it formed, or why it orbits so oddly compared to the eight primary planets. And there are at least two camps of astronomers when it comes to defining Pluto. Some just think of it as a planet, others call it a dwarf planet or a plutoid. While NASA has a spacecraft en route to Pluto and slated to make close-up images in 2015, the best images of Pluto so far, taken this year by the Hubble Space Telescope, are mere smudges. Studies in 2003 showed that despite an almost nonexistent atmosphere, Pluto has wind and seasons and appears to have recently gone through a phase of global warming. The leading theory for the formation of Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, is a wild one: A nascent Pluto was struck by another Pluto-sized object. Imagine a glancing blow and a lot of cosmic Silly Putty getting stretched and repacked into new spheres with new rotations. Observational evidence for this collision theory remain thin, however. Full story HERE 
I don't know why the scientific community doesn't just own up to the facts and admit that they know more than they do. Pluto is actually the Death Star. 
Come on now. It all makes sense now, doesn't it? May the force be with you, b*tches. By St. Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of Purgatory! | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Cuz the scientific community grows the best herb and then they test it too
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Because scientists like to make claims that get them noticed.
The "is" or "isn't" arguments are the bane of the science world today. The science world just seems to love "there doesn't exist such a thing as [x]" or "you thought it was [x], but in fact, it really isn't!" -type of arguments. In the end, they don't really describe too much of what is really at stake. People are more interested in forcing the objects of their study to fit certain classification criteria, instead of just studying the object. Next thing they'll tell us is that there is a genetic disposition somehow related to Pluto. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Mach said: Cuz the scientific community grows the best herb and then they test it too
goddess, you're good!! A working class Hero is something to be ~ Lennon |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderator
Pluto originally lost its planet status because it was found to be that Pluto doesn't dominate its orbit. Perhaps new information has arisen.
This debate over Pluto is what makes science so great. The science community doesn't come to a conclusion one day and claim that it is the truth til the end of time. The work of a scientist is never done. The knowledge available today may lead to one conclusion, but new info may come about tomorrow that causes scientists to re-examine previous conclusions. Keep examining! I abdicated the throne in Ithaca, but now I am...
Albany's Number 1 Prince Fan | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |