UNCANNY LIKENESS......but Harpo is still the funny one and her Heinous is still Uranus.
Posted on 08/24/2006 7:18:05 AM PDT by Lunatic Fringe
Sorry to bug you again, but I am completely unfamiliar with the Uranian/Jovian satellites (outside of Jupiter and Saturn). They should hold at least a few conspiracy-theory Zapruder Film-type clues. I noticed the article you cited only stated a "rocky" interior, surrounded by water ice and ammonia. No surprises there, but what is "rocky"? What holds a Jovian giant together?
Gravity holds 'em all together (whether rocky or gas giant or Pluton). Jupiter's satellites are much more numerous (60+) than we all learned in school, and many (most?) of them are in retrograde orbits, which is generally considered diagnostic of capture origin.
Jupiter's core?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1294934/posts?page=12#12
Oh, and from that same topic, there's also this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1294934/posts?page=10#10
Wonderful, wonderful news - and thank you for the citations. #102 bodes for our descendents pretty well (even under 20th century physics, not to mention what supergeeks are working on now).
I've going to bug a couple others about Uranus, if you don't mind. Absolutely fascinating. How come the MSM never covered the fly-bys? Would it be possible to send a relatively-cheap mission past Uranus and Neptune? I know "New Horizons" is en route to Pluto, but what data will that gather? Surely, within 20-odd years, we can get a planetary slingshot alignment that will get something across those two damn things, particularly if we can shoot the damn thing from Mars or something.
Thanks for adding me to the Ping List.
God Bless,
-Jeff
They've decided to get rid of that stupid joke once and for all. They changed the name to Urectum.
Dang zoning boards are all alike. They're only doing it for the tax revenue.
I'm happy with it. I always thought that Pluto was a poser.
UNCANNY LIKENESS......but Harpo is still the funny one and her Heinous is still Uranus.
What?!? It is the very fact that Science is malleable that makes it Science, not religion.
Voyager 2 decades ago did a fly-by of Uranus and Neptune and allowed the mass of each to be corrected to just about 100% certainty. Previously they were known to about 99% of actuality.
What I'm referring to is the prevalence of junk science, which IMHO has made large numbers of lay people into science skeptics. The Malthus/Ehrlich population bomb hoax, the vastly exaggerated claims we were all about to die from a nuclear winter and if that didn't happen radiation from nuclear power plants would get us, the DDT/pesticide lie, IUD's, silicone breast implants, AIDS was going to affect all American heterosexuals, Algore's global warming nonsense . . . . And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
At one time scientific results were very intuitive. That changed around the time quantum theory was developed. (Around the same time, curiously, it became impossible for lay people to tell good art from bad art.) It seems to me the scientific community needs to do a much better job of calling out the hucksters who distort science for profit or political gain and restore some credibility that many don't realize has been lost.
My main point with Pluto is that nearly everyone alive has grown up with the idea that Pluto is a planet. NASA is sending a ship there to "complete" its initial exploration of the planets. Most people aren't exposed to a lot of science in school, but one thing everyone learns in elementary school is the catechism of the Planets. Couldn't we leave Pluto on the list until lay people are exposed to the idea and get comfortable with the fact we only relatively recently learned that Pluto is one of many, many Kuiper objects that really aren't like the original eight planets?
I saw in the paper this morning there is already reaction against the decision as just another example of nutty junk science. I really didn't expect it to happen this quickly, though.
I agree completely. I don't think this settled a thing. It almost seems like they absolutely had to stay away from defining a planet as something that would (heaven forbid) add to the number of planets.
It is universally agreed that had they known how small Pluto was when it was first discovered, it never would have been designated a planet in the first place. After all, Ceres was at one time considered a planet.
Did anybody notice that an "international group" of astronomers demoted the only "planet" discovered by an American?
I think that's really stretching things a bit. Pluto is an oddball as far as being defined as a planet would be. It has an erratic orbit and it is out of the planetary plane. The axis of its gravitational orbit with Charon (it's major moon) does not lie within Pluto's own mass.
If it makes you feel any better, you can always ridicule Euro-trash with this phrase "haha you guys didn't discover Your Anus until 1781, hahaha"
If I had a scope... I envy you folks... : ) <<< me
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.