Editing Talk:473: Still Raw
|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The explanation says: "... Pluto has been the ninth planet in our solar system until 2006 ...". | The explanation says: "... Pluto has been the ninth planet in our solar system until 2006 ...". | ||
| − | It should | + | It should says 'the tenth' isn'it? |
[[User:SioD|SioD]] ([[User talk:SioD|talk]]) 14:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC) | [[User:SioD|SioD]] ([[User talk:SioD|talk]]) 14:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| − | :Pluto was discovered in 1930, and has since | + | :Pluto was discovered in 1930, and has been since the ninth body to be discovered and classified as a "planet". The sentence is a temporal rather than spacial reference, if that clears up any confusion. [[User:Thokling|Thokling]] ([[User talk:Thokling|talk]]) 12:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
::Actually, no. Using the temporal definition, Pluto would be number 13. It was discovered after Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta, which were discovered, named and classified, but then quickly demoted, all about 120 years before Pluto. This was due to the fact that telescopes of the day were strong enough to see quite a bit of the asteroid belt in a relatively short time, unlike with the "previously mythical" Kuiper belt. | ::Actually, no. Using the temporal definition, Pluto would be number 13. It was discovered after Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta, which were discovered, named and classified, but then quickly demoted, all about 120 years before Pluto. This was due to the fact that telescopes of the day were strong enough to see quite a bit of the asteroid belt in a relatively short time, unlike with the "previously mythical" Kuiper belt. | ||
| − | ::Also, if any thing, the | + | ::Also, if any thing, the spacial discrepancy should be between eighth and ninth, as Pluto's orbit is squeezed enough to be inside that of Neptune, but long enough to extend outside it. Charon, Pluto's "moon" may cause additional worry, but is usually ignored. |
| − | ::Anonymous 01:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC) | + | :::Anonymous 01:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC) |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
:I think we would all be happy if the astronomers would come up with a definition of a planet that reasonably included Pluto but reasonably excluded the other 'candidates' that have been found so far. You know, the ones without large moons. Or Pluto could just be grandfathered in. Exactly how would science be held back by this?? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 00:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC) | :I think we would all be happy if the astronomers would come up with a definition of a planet that reasonably included Pluto but reasonably excluded the other 'candidates' that have been found so far. You know, the ones without large moons. Or Pluto could just be grandfathered in. Exactly how would science be held back by this?? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 00:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
:You don't think they tried to find a standard that included Pluto and excluded the others? Also grandfathering makes the idea of making a standard definition useless. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.162}} | :You don't think they tried to find a standard that included Pluto and excluded the others? Also grandfathering makes the idea of making a standard definition useless. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.162}} | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | |||
The airplane/treadmill question is actually hard to define properly. In real case scenario, the plane would of course take off, but you can keep it in place if you assume really fast treadmill (much faster that the plane), friction in airplane wheels and that those wheels won't break off, catch fire or otherwise get destroyed under the stress much higher they are developed for. Oh, wait, actually the airplane WONT take off if the wheels break. :-) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC) | The airplane/treadmill question is actually hard to define properly. In real case scenario, the plane would of course take off, but you can keep it in place if you assume really fast treadmill (much faster that the plane), friction in airplane wheels and that those wheels won't break off, catch fire or otherwise get destroyed under the stress much higher they are developed for. Oh, wait, actually the airplane WONT take off if the wheels break. :-) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Line 25: | Line 20: | ||
[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 02:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC) | [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 02:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
