After a journey of almost a decade, the New Horizons space probe is less than a week away from its Pluto flyby! Every day, better pictures are coming in! By this time next week, we should have beautiful, crisp, clear photos of the ninth (yes, ninth) planet (yes, planet)!
I can't wait!!
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-new-horizons-a-heart-from-pluto-as-flyby-begins
Modern man has only been on Earth for maybe 50 to 100 thousand years, and now he's flying by the outermost planet of our solar system. That's actually a pretty spectacular quirk of evolution. Just think of all the good man could have done while he was fighting all those wars, arguing over which god is the right god, and trying to subdue everyone else on the planet. We are an odd species.
It's humbling knowing our species did this, and we're get to see clear images of it.
It's just a shame only now that it's reached Pluto, do they decide it isn't a true planet. Always did feel bummed out it got cut down like that.
It doesn't even show Pluto on my orrery app anymore
pluto is a planet again
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 08, 2015, 07:01:14 PM
pluto is a planet again
Wasn't it up for debate but its not been classed as of yet?
Quote from: Munch on July 08, 2015, 05:30:55 PM
It's just a shame only now that it's reached Pluto, do they decide it isn't a true planet. Always did feel bummed out it got cut down like that
Why? Ceres isn't a planet either and we have a probe there (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/dawn/main/index.html), to say nothing of the Rosetta/Philae mission. Pluto is vastly important as both the nearest (known) plutino and KBO - maybe even moreso as the prototype object of a whole new class, rather than as the oddball outermost tiny rock/ice cube.
The 'demotion' isn't unprecedented -- Ceres was considered the fifth planet until it was realized that there was a whole class of objects of which it was the first discovered.
While I'll agree that the IAU's definition isn't completely satisfactory, they're right. Pluto's not a planet. I
still can't wait for what New Horizons sends back, planet or not. The red color is weird; it kinda looks like old two-tone Technicolor.
The problem with Pluto's planethood (or not) is that it's not possible to define a planet in a consistent way so that we end up with just nine. The IAU's first definition promoted Ceres, Eris, and Pluto's moon Charon to planet status so we'd've had 12 (and counting). I'd've been perfectly happy with that -- it was a rigorous definition (an object that is sufficiently massive for gravity to force it to be round, and in direct orbit around a star, and not a star itself). Likewise, the current definition makes sense -- an object in hydrostatic equilibrium in direct orbit that has cleared its local space and isn't a star or in orbit around another object.
There are problems with the current definition -- the main ones are that it's heliocentric so it doesn't apply to exoplanets, and that it should say 'controls' rather than 'has cleared' its local space. Neptune's local space isn't cleared, Pluto crosses into it. Jupiter's local space isn't cleared, it has hundreds, maybe thousands, of Trojan asteroids both leading and trailing. But these planets
control their orbital zones -- Pluto is in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune because of Neptune's greater gravity, and the Jovian Trojans are there because of Jupiter's gravity.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 08, 2015, 07:01:14 PM
pluto is a planet again
Link?
I've always maintained that it is a planet (in a "once a planet, always a planet" kind of way). However, I have heard of no official announcement by the IUA that it has been reclassified as a planet.
At 1:06 almost it looks like a drawing, but its actually a composite image taken by the craft on July 7, amazing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB1qGrCLKao
Its surreal. Apparently Pluto might even have clouds, they just aren't close enough yet to determine either way.
Hey! I thought I saw Jesus back there!
I don't care what they call it--being this close and having pictures is absolutely amazing! And besides, if Mickey thinks Pluto is cool, then Pluto, is cool!!
Pluto and its moon Charon
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/pluto_charon_color_final.png?itok=ud6os8ES)
A. Pluto isn't a planet, get over it >:-).
B. Oh lawrdy, these photos... they make me feel things.
It's so red! But it's not iron oxide like on Mars... weird. This is so awesome. :D
I think what's really getting me about this is that this is the first time Pluto has been a place, not just a fuzzy blob. It amazes me that it can get such great pictures moving as fast as it is, and with so much less light to work with.
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/nh-7-10-15_pluto_image_nasa-jhuapl-swri_0.png?itok=lg5rg4io)
Quote from: Atheon on July 10, 2015, 10:32:53 PM
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/nh-7-10-15_pluto_image_nasa-jhuapl-swri_0.png?itok=lg5rg4io)
That is
astonishing, and the best part is these images are going to get
even better at an accelerated rate over the next few days.
I think this image is about 75 pixels in diameter;
on the 10th it will be 89;
on the 11th it will be 120;
on the 12th 189;
I believe the best quality image is expected to be about 5000 pixels across.
Just. Fucking. Amazing.
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2015, 05:38:27 PM
Just. Fucking. Amazing.
Damn straight--and Mickey is down right proud!!!
Anybody spotted the Starbucks?
(http://i.imgur.com/VNjn2zB.jpg)
I believe this is the latest picture, and we will be getting a lot more detail in a big hurry.
Also useful: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/ this is where I have found a more or less steady stream of updated images from the LORRI
Edit: Also, Charon
(http://i.imgur.com/n8pu2t6.jpg)
(http://imageshack.com/a/img540/8562/oxMq6N.jpg)(http://imageshack.com/a/img673/2870/Vqq4Ub.png)
(http://imageshack.com/a/img911/6611/cqcv5A.jpg)
Horizon will get the closest to Pluto in hours.
I like the pics. Nice mugs.
New Horizons reached closest approach an hour ago. I'm geeking out!!
Pluto looks like an alien world. Oh that's right... it IS an alien world!
https://books.google.ie/books?id=oZfpYIUKDrUC&lpg=PA38&ots=xu4Xze8I6y
Congratulations, Mankind, you have just sent a probe to the first KBO. Now you just need to send one to the next bajillion. :D
So when do we get a Pluto-rock back here?
(PS, any colored image of Pluto will be a false-color one.)
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 14, 2015, 07:37:21 PM
Congratulations, Mankind, you have just sent a probe to the first KBO. Now you just need to send one to the next bajillion. :D
So when do we get a Pluto-rock back here?
(PS, any colored image of Pluto will be a false-color one.)
So?
(http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Multimedia/Science-Photos/pics/nh-071315_falsecolorcomposite.jpg) (http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/News-Article.php?page=20150714-3)
It's still awesome. :D
I've been enjoying these images very much.
Quote from: trdsf on July 15, 2015, 01:32:57 AM
So?
(http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Multimedia/Science-Photos/pics/nh-071315_falsecolorcomposite.jpg) (http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/News-Article.php?page=20150714-3)
It's still awesome. :D
Yes it is, but I still think I want to see a non-false color image, showing how Pluto would really look if it weren't so damn dim out there. And I want a Pluto-rock.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 15, 2015, 08:16:16 AM
And I want a Pluto-rock.
Here, have some. :ppp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCC99O92Zjo
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 14, 2015, 07:37:21 PMSo when do we get a Pluto-rock back here?
It would probably melt/vaporize into nitrogen, methane, ammonia and water if brought back.
Quote from: Atheon on July 15, 2015, 01:03:27 PM
It would probably melt/vaporize into nitrogen, methane, ammonia and water if brought back.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/d3/d3b09224b28069f83a25934c26c19b04955d0753dcd6beec1a1a58509b23bf08.jpg)
I still want my motherfucking rock from motherfucking Pluto!
Why?
CUZ IT'S FROM MOTHERFUKKIN' PLUTO!!! :winkle:
(http://imageshack.com/a/img661/6269/4n6M4l.jpg)
(http://imageshack.com/a/img538/3797/LusJNl.jpg)
Wow. I mean, wow.
https://youtu.be/ydU-YrG_INk
Quote from: trdsf on July 18, 2015, 10:46:47 PM
Wow. I mean, wow.
Yeah, I didn't expect so much detail. A few days ago, someone said it's at it's closest point/ But we had been looking at photos for the last week, so I didn't expect to see that much difference.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on July 18, 2015, 01:22:02 AM
(http://imageshack.com/a/img538/3797/LusJNl.jpg)
No, he's not Sagan, but consider what a tough act to follow Carl Sagan was. They're equally gifted, I think, and Tyson fills those shoes well. When Sagan died, there was left a big gap where cosmologists failed to explain things to the average stargazer or excite them much. Tyson does, though, and he doesn't trivialize the wonder of the universe by invoking the supernatural.
I like Tyson and admire him for what he does, but no they are not equally gifted, NOT even in the same league or position to be compared.
Carl Sagan has more than half a thousand scientific papers and made direct contribution to science. Also when he started to popularise science, that was something a NO-NO to do for a hard scientist in that period, he suffered from it, but didn't back down an inch. I'd like to see the new generation to do something like that. Yeah men with balls. Got to love them. No way around it. Very few.
He reached half a BILLION people over 50 countries on earth with Cosmos series -hi, I am one of them- also managed an influence all around the world in so epic porportions, in an era without the internet and popping up videos, when people didn't know what they were looking at, he redefined the way what people understand with the concept of nature. He carried the scale to its home; universe.
So there. Nobody is in the same league with Carl Sagan. He is stiill underrated.
Just think what science could have done if it had all the money the Church and churches have made for 2000+ years. We would be seeing pictures and videos of Kulob. :eek: :biggrin2:
Sagan claimed that if the Arab world would have kept up with scientific inquiry like it had before the burning of the Library of Alexandria and Europe would have avoided it's religious preoccupation and the contempt for the acquisition of knowledge during the Dark Ages, we would now be populating other planets. I dunno. It sounds like heady optimism. No doubt we would have progressed unbelievably beyond where we are now, however.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 19, 2015, 10:34:27 AM
I like Tyson and admire him for what he does, but no they are not equally gifted, NOT even in the same league or position to be compared.
Carl Sagan has more than half a thousand scientific papers and made direct contribution to science. Also when he started to popularise science, that was something a NO-NO to do for a hard scientist in that period, he suffered from it, but didn't back down an inch. I'd like to see the new generation to do something like that. Yeah men with balls. Got to love them. No way around it. Very few.
He reached half a BILLION people over 50 countries on earth with Cosmos series -hi, I am one of them- also managed an influence all around the world in so epic porportions, in an era without the internet and popping up videos, when people didn't know what they were looking at, he redefined the way what people understand with the concept of nature. He carried the scale to its home; universe.
So there. Nobody is in the same league with Carl Sagan. He is stiill underrated.
If a pig in a wig got people to be more interested in science I'd slop that hawg.
Quote from: SGOS on July 19, 2015, 11:48:24 AM
Sagan claimed that if the Arab world would have kept up with scientific inquiry like it had before the burning of the Library of Alexandria and Europe would have avoided it's religious preoccupation and the contempt for the acquisition of knowledge during the Dark Ages, we would now be populating other planets. I dunno. It sounds like heady optimism. No doubt we would have progressed unbelievably beyond where we are now, however.
It's an anachronistic anology to point out how religions are the huge obstacles in road to the development. Also shows his natural objectivity to different cultures making of an example from opposite ones. :)
Who knows? No doubt we would be far ahead though. :/
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 19, 2015, 12:11:02 PM
If a pig in a wig got people to be more interested in science I'd slop that hawg.
And I'll follow you with the bucket around, but no underrating certain figures. :axe:
:lol:
Quote from: SGOS on July 19, 2015, 07:07:39 AM
Yeah, I didn't expect so much detail. A few days ago, someone said it's at it's closest point/ But we had been looking at photos for the last week, so I didn't expect to see that much difference.
And we haven't even had anything from the actual closest pass yet. We're going to be getting data for nearly a year and a half -- they took that much, even at 30,000+ mph. It won't
really start coming back until later this month, after they finish the post-encounter data grabs and can spin-stabilize that puppy.
And this is where I get a deeper sense of awe and grander sense of majesty than I ever had in any church. I repeat,
wow.
Quote from: trdsf on July 19, 2015, 01:17:12 PM
And we haven't even had anything from the actual closest pass yet. We're going to be getting data for nearly a year and a half -- they took that much, even at 30,000+ mph. It won't really start coming back until later this month, after they finish the post-encounter data grabs and can spin-stabilize that puppy.
That's kind of what I thought was happening. So the stuff we looked at last week was probably taken a month before?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 19, 2015, 10:34:27 AM
I like Tyson and admire him for what he does, but no they are not equally gifted, NOT even in the same league or position to be compared.
This is kinda like complaining that Bernini was no Michelangelo. I think Tyson definitely has the same infectious sense of fascination and fun for the subject, and is equally unwilling to pull punches.
Also keep in mind that Sagan came of age professionally at the peak of the space race; by the time Tyson was out of college, NASA was the red-headed stepchild of the US' annual budget and the opportunities there were considerably less.
But there's no question in my mind that Neil 'gets it' in exactly the same way that Carl did, and that he's just as capable of expressing that excitement over the universe and our place in it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0teSHmk2aM
Quote from: SGOS on July 19, 2015, 01:32:10 PM
That's kind of what I thought was happening. So the stuff we looked at last week was probably taken a month before?
Oh, no, the ice mountain and ice plains shots were taken during the encounter, at a distance of several tens of thousands of miles. NASA wisely understands that while in an optimal world they'd be spending all their time on data acquisition at this stage, this is not an optimal world and they need to have something to show for it
now, so they lost a little post-encounter observation time in order to send back a couple visual
hors d'oeuvres. Even I, who appreciate the limited opportunity they have to capture data, would have been sore disappointed to have nothing to show for the encounter until a month later.
And keep in mind, there's more to come, beyond the year and a half's worth of data transfer from the close approach -- the plan is to have an encounter with
another KBO in the next few years, probably in 2019 if they go with the current most easily reached target.
Oh, and there is a place for 'faith' (as it were) in science, insofar as New Horizons was launched with the expectation of visiting a KBO after Pluto, but with absolutely no suitable target in mind, just the expectation that one would be located by the time they had to make a decision--which will be next month.
Three were found. In 2014. Now that is trusting your instruments.
Quote from: trdsf on July 19, 2015, 01:50:58 PM
This is kinda like complaining that Bernini was no Michelangelo.
Lol, that anology actually sides with me. Bernini is not just 'not Michelangelo', he is also a pretty hyped up figure compared to many others and what he did.
QuoteI think Tyson definitely has the same infectious sense of fascination and fun for the subject, and is equally unwilling to pull punches.
Nobody critcised his style and his activism. I admire him for what he is doing as I stated.
QuoteAlso keep in mind that Sagan came of age professionally at the peak of the space race; by the time Tyson was out of college, NASA was the red-headed stepchild of the US' annual budget and the opportunities there were considerably less.
If I didnt keep that in mind, I wouldn't point out the difficulty Sagan faced in that period because of what he did. There is another side of the coin coming with that peak. And that made Sagan's life difficult just because what he did, the more he did it. What Sagan achieved is far beyond the range of his time, doesnt matter what angle you look from. That's the whole point. He is a pioneer. Tyson is not. That doesn't put him down. It defines his place accurately.
QuoteBut there's no question in my mind that Neil 'gets it' in exactly the same way that Carl did, and that he's just as capable of expressing that excitement over the universe and our place in it:
It's not about getting it right.
The point you don't get here is saying that "Tyson is NOT in Sagan's league" is NOT a statement that PUTS TYSON DOWN. It's pointing out a fact and refusing to accept an unnecessary hype. It doesn't mean Tyson is unimportant or not good at what he is doing.
We got used to celebrate mediocrity so well, anyone who is successful at what he is doing or consistent in achieving the same goals, gets to be declared extraordinary or some sort of a genius at some point. No, they are not. That's not celebrating these people, that's championing them, promoting them to fill a space they are not meant to, because we don't have the better. And that's not beneficial to us. It just lowers the bar, it simplifies what all these people spend their lives to accomplish.
There is a little amount of extraordinary people in human history, far less in recent history. It's not about filling some space and continuing a tradition. Yes, it is admirable, but that's it.
Also, somehow it feels like Tyson would be the first person to agree with this.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 19, 2015, 03:13:56 PM
The point you don't get here is saying that "Tyson is NOT in Sagan's league" is NOT a statement that PUTS TYSON DOWN. It's pointing out a fact and refusing to accept an unnecessary hype. It doesn't mean Tyson is unimportant or not good at what he is doing.
No, I get that point.
I just very strongly disagree with you.
Quote from: trdsf on July 19, 2015, 03:47:10 PM
No, I get that point.
I just very strongly disagree with you.
Oh, so you just enjoy disagreeing with me. OK. Knock yourself out.
Just don't forget that that unnecessary hype and promotion cause those people get under appreciated in long term and lose their influence eventually before their time, while they still got a lot to give.
They do not deserve that, they are scarce and they are needed. We do not need to make Holywood stars out of anyone doing something good. It's harmful, also devaluating their efforts.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 19, 2015, 04:07:58 PM
Oh, so you just enjoy disagreeing with me. OK. Knock yourself out.
Just don't forget that that unnecessary hype and promotion cause those people get under appreciated in long term and lose their influence eventually before their time, while they still got a lot to give.
They do not deserve that, they are scarce and they are needed. We do not need to make Holywood stars out of anyone doing something good. It's harmful, also devaluating their efforts.
Enjoyment has nothing to do with it. I made my statement, and I stand by my
opinion. If you want to keep going on as if your
opinion is lab-tested proof, you go right ahead.
Quote from: trdsf on July 19, 2015, 04:23:55 PM
Enjoyment has nothing to do with it. I made my statement, and I stand by my opinion. If you want to keep going on as if your opinion is lab-tested proof, you go right ahead.
I wrote something, you reacted to it and I'm trying to explain why I disagree with the whole thing; standing by my opinion based on a general idea. You are pretty much like supporting a 'football player', not stating an opinion. You make irrelevant comparisons. (Art history, lab-tested proof) You are the one who is annoyed by my opinion to begin with. I'm not going to apologise because I don't automatically type "we have to agree to disagree then :)". We post about the same topics countless times all around the forum, how is it that it's a problem that I wrote another post? Whatever...
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 19, 2015, 04:56:27 PM
I wrote something, you reacted to it and I'm trying to explain why I disagree with the whole thing; standing by my opinion based on a general idea. You are pretty much like supporting a 'football player', not stating an opinion. You make irrelevant comparisons. (Art history, lab-tested proof) You are the one who is annoyed by my opinion to begin with. I'm not going to apologise because I don't automatically type "we have to agree to disagree then :)". We post about the same topics countless times all around the forum, how is it that it's a problem that I wrote another post? Whatever...
Couple incorrect assumptions you're making here, but the main one is that I give a fuck. The only objections I have is that you're stating your opinion as if it were fact, and that you're so exercised about being disagreed with.
See, this is the thing that really bothers me, and it's not only you, it's very nearly everyone anymore: no one can tolerate being disagreed with, and a contrary opinion is treated like a personal attack. I defy you to point to anything I posted that says "No, you're wrong". I have consistently and explicitly stated that things are 'in my opinion' and 'in my view'. You're the one who says:
Quote from: drunkenshoe
The point you don't get here...
and
Quote from: drunkenshoe
You are pretty much like supporting a 'football player', not stating an opinion.
and most egregiously
Quote from: drunkenshoe
It's pointing out a fact
when you were
absolutely expressing an opinion, not a fact. You stated your opinion, I stated mine, and you apparently just couldn't stand being disagreed with and felt it necessary to attack my understanding and belittle my position.
Thank you, I've now formed another opinion, though not about the original topic of discussion.
I don't have a problem with being disageed, trdsf. If I had, I wouldn't give the time and the energy and write long posts most people don't read, about almost anything I want to talk about. So please do not mistake my assertive tone, sometimes agressive stance for something else than being eager to have some conversation. Yeah, I seem to get pissed off easily, however that's just hot blood and a flash in the pan.
However, I have a problem with abrupt, pre-mature attitude of 'we'll agree to disagree then' or 'oh I just very strongly disagree' and continue to go on about in a dismissive tone. Because you are also the disagreed side here. We are not 'enemies'. This is an internet forum and we should mess up with each other's ideas and opinions, likes and dislikes because there is nothing else, may be even call each other a few names at most, but then be able to turn around and say 'hi, how are things going on?' in some other thread. That's how I see it.
---------------------------
Those are two different quotes from two different posts. So taking them out of context and putting them together in your post is pretty much pretending not to get the point. I am not telling one thing in one post and another thing in the other. There is something I point out and then 'things' that I connect within a bigger picture.
The FACT I was pointing out is that Sagan was a contributing scientist while Tyson is not. This is NOT a personal opinion of anyone. It's a fact. And that was what I wrote in my first post as the main quality to point out the differences between two people to state why they cannot be in the same league. It was the thing that triggered me to write against the comparison to begin with. Also it's what annoyed you. You tried to excuse Tyson for something he didn't/couldn't do. (As if he needed to be excused for anything in any way)
You are also praising him with the calibre of 'getting it' as good as Sagan. There is a simpler hint there for you, why the two cannot be in the same league. Having said that, he doesn't need to 'get it' like Sagan to be good at his job or to be celebrated for what he is doing. So supporting him like a 'football player' with an unnecessary hype is devaluating of his place and his work.
The general idea I was refering to is about a certain general trait of American culture. It produces these sort of hypes and needless promotions around every public figure possible -doesn't matter who are they or what they are doing; actors, scientists, singers, artists, reality show stars, the president, the toddler beauty queen, talk show hosts, stand up comedians- they ALL get the same fucking SORT of hype and the goal is just to squeeze them dry as a disposable product until people get sick of them. Unfortunately, very a few of them are a bit too important to be used as hype material.
This is the same thing in its essence from the exaggerated harmful promotion of the ordinary individual's ego; 'everybody is special', the huge set of industries that come with it, to the world famous Hollywood actors, writers, scientists... you name it -dead or alive- all those figures according to the group they are being marketed for. Top to bottom celebrating mediocrity by hype. So anyone who really needs to be up there, another one somewhere down gets confused and that directly influences what everyone set out to do in the first place.
People complain about how anti-intellectualism is killing America, how it is always the same sort of people who gets the spot light in arts or science, how there are no original, intellectual and creative products produced in an international level. This is about one of those 'whys and hows' in a huge tangled relations of cultural traits specific to American culture. That space race and its peak, the sense of 'fall' -apart from economical issues- is included in that too.
Then people get annoyed when I say who the fuck is Sam Harris. It's the same shit. A hyped up best selling author who wouldn't be able to get to half the way he did if he was born in Europe. He is an avarage with a scientific education, celebrated as a someone 'gifted' or 'special' because he was born in America. Celebrity culture.
How is that something real going to happen if people are programmed to treat everyone that goes out there to do something good like a superhero of some sort? It's a crude, barren cultural trait. It's harmful, it's what lies under most things you complain about your society on general ignorance, willful ignorance and the specific 'stupid culture' Americans like to bash. Why children or youngster are more likely to aspire to be like Justin Bieber or Kim Kardashian instead of Tyson. Hyping up Tyson, putting him up there somewhere he doesn't belong, putting him in the same machine. He has his place, he doesn't have to be pushed in to some other league to be 'good' or 'celebrated'.
:exclaim: The worst thing is, unfortunately, religion and nationalism and any kind bigotry are very compatible with this cultural trait of hype, they are feeding each other as well as being fed from the outcome, because it is a some sort of fanatism, 'team supporting'. Which kills every kind of critical thought and original idea that it can't exploit. This is a very tangled, messed up issue, it is important and gives more harm to children, young people and generally people than a two dozen Tysons can fix.
Quote
No, he's not Sagan, but consider what a tough act to follow Carl Sagan was. They're equally gifted, I think, and Tyson fills those shoes well. When Sagan died, there was left a big gap where cosmologists failed to explain things to the average stargazer or excite them much. Tyson does, though, and he doesn't trivialize the wonder of the universe by invoking the supernatural.
To be honest that picture isnt really representative of my own views, I just couldnt resist the temptation of sharing it. Sorry for the controversy.
To be honest I'm indifferent about whether Pluto is considered a planet or not, because to me it doesn't mean it's insignificant. We seem to have a great deal to learn from it after a close look.
I never held it against those who demoted Pluto as there are a yet indeterminate number of roughly Pluto-sized worlds orbiting the Sun independently, and as it stands upon their discovery we will not call them planets, so it always struck me as a sensible compromise.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on July 21, 2015, 12:19:28 PM
To be honest that picture isnt really representative of my own views
It doesn't have to represent your views. It's still funny. I can get that it's a matter of opinion whether Pluto is a planet or Tyson is a Sagan. However, those who think Tyson is a Pluto or Pluto is not a Sagan may be suspect.
Quote from: SGOS on July 19, 2015, 11:48:24 AM
Sagan claimed that if the Arab world would have kept up with scientific inquiry like it had before the burning of the Library of Alexandria and Europe would have avoided it's religious preoccupation and the contempt for the acquisition of knowledge during the Dark Ages, we would now be populating other planets. I dunno. It sounds like heady optimism. No doubt we would have progressed unbelievably beyond where we are now, however.
Its optimistic, but certainly possible.
However, it may be more likely that we will never be able to overcome the massive hurdles of interstellar travel and colonization, at least before some kind of natural or human made disaster seals our fate in the meantime.
If we assume that not only the Great Library remained intact, but the spirit of Greek and Roman philosophy in which knowledge was perceived as having more value then anything monetary also remained intact, ergo everything was fair game for inquiry from the very beginning, I think we would be many centuries ahead from where we are now.
And its not like there weren't technological advances during the "Dark Ages" either. Its a bit of a misnomer as we kept plodding along, albeit at an unremarkable rate. What really held us back was the inability to think freely.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 20, 2015, 06:44:03 AM
I don't have a problem with being disageed, trdsf. If I had, I wouldn't give the time and the energy and write long posts most people don't read, about almost anything I want to talk about. So please do not mistake my assertive tone, sometimes agressive stance for something else than being eager to have some conversation. Yeah, I seem to get pissed off easily, however that's just hot blood and a flash in the pan.
However, I have a problem with abrupt, pre-mature attitude of 'we'll agree to disagree then' or 'oh I just very strongly disagree' and continue to go on about in a dismissive tone. Because you are also the disagreed side here. We are not 'enemies'. This is an internet forum and we should mess up with each other's ideas and opinions, likes and dislikes because there is nothing else, may be even call each other a few names at most, but then be able to turn around and say 'hi, how are things going on?' in some other thread. That's how I see it.
I consider the ability to 'agree to disagree' absolutely essential to civil discourse -- at least in matters which pass what I call the Jefferson Test -- "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- so while it might be an interesting topic of debate, it's not really relevant to anyone's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. This is
exactly where a comparison of Sagan and Tyson falls, unlike something like national health policy, or marriage rights, or the like.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 20, 2015, 06:44:03 AM
Those are two different quotes from two different posts. So taking them out of context and putting them together in your post is pretty much pretending not to get the point. I am not telling one thing in one post and another thing in the other. There is something I point out and then 'things' that I connect within a bigger picture.
The FACT I was pointing out is that Sagan was a contributing scientist while Tyson is not. This is NOT a personal opinion of anyone. It's a fact. And that was what I wrote in my first post as the main quality to point out the differences between two people to state why they cannot be in the same league. It was the thing that triggered me to write against the comparison to begin with. Also it's what annoyed you. You tried to excuse Tyson for something he didn't/couldn't do. (As if he needed to be excused for anything in any way)
So, the papers he's published in
The Astronomical Journal,
The Astrophysical Journal and
Astronomy & Astrophysics (http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/curriculum-vitae#research) don't count as being a "contributing scientist". Rrrrrright.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 20, 2015, 06:44:03 AM
You are also praising him with the calibre of 'getting it' as good as Sagan. There is a simpler hint there for you, why the two cannot be in the same league. Having said that, he doesn't need to 'get it' like Sagan to be good at his job or to be celebrated for what he is doing. So supporting him like a 'football player' with an unnecessary hype is devaluating of his place and his work.
And back to belittling again. Yes, thank you, you've made it clear that you're much more interested in proving your so-called point than in having an exchange.
It is worth noting that if stating the opinion that Tyson "gets it" as well as Sagan did is praise, than stating he doesn't is, despite your protestations to the contrary, necessarily denigratory.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 20, 2015, 06:44:03 AM
The general idea I was refering to is about a certain general trait of American culture. It produces these sort of hypes and needless promotions around every public figure possible -doesn't matter who are they or what they are doing; actors, scientists, singers, artists, reality show stars, the president, the toddler beauty queen, talk show hosts, stand up comedians- they ALL get the same fucking SORT of hype and the goal is just to squeeze them dry as a disposable product until people get sick of them. Unfortunately, very a few of them are a bit too important to be used as hype material.
This is the same thing in its essence from the exaggerated harmful promotion of the ordinary individual's ego; 'everybody is special', the huge set of industries that come with it, to the world famous Hollywood actors, writers, scientists... you name it -dead or alive- all those figures according to the group they are being marketed for. Top to bottom celebrating mediocrity by hype. So anyone who really needs to be up there, another one somewhere down gets confused and that directly influences what everyone set out to do in the first place.
People complain about how anti-intellectualism is killing America, how it is always the same sort of people who gets the spot light in arts or science, how there are no original, intellectual and creative products produced in an international level. This is about one of those 'whys and hows' in a huge tangled relations of cultural traits specific to American culture. That space race and its peak, the sense of 'fall' -apart from economical issues- is included in that too.
Then people get annoyed when I say who the fuck is Sam Harris. It's the same shit. A hyped up best selling author who wouldn't be able to get to half the way he did if he was born in Europe. He is an avarage with a scientific education, celebrated as a someone 'gifted' or 'special' because he was born in America. Celebrity culture.
How is that something real going to happen if people are programmed to treat everyone that goes out there to do something good like a superhero of some sort? It's a crude, barren cultural trait. It's harmful, it's what lies under most things you complain about your society on general ignorance, willful ignorance and the specific 'stupid culture' Americans like to bash. Why children or youngster are more likely to aspire to be like Justin Bieber or Kim Kardashian instead of Tyson. Hyping up Tyson, putting him up there somewhere he doesn't belong, putting him in the same machine. He has his place, he doesn't have to be pushed in to some other league to be 'good' or 'celebrated'.
:exclaim: The worst thing is, unfortunately, religion and nationalism and any kind bigotry are very compatible with this cultural trait of hype, they are feeding each other as well as being fed from the outcome, because it is a some sort of fanatism, 'team supporting'. Which kills every kind of critical thought and original idea that it can't exploit. This is a very tangled, messed up issue, it is important and gives more harm to children, young people and generally people than a two dozen Tysons can fix.
See, and now in your chestbeating, you finally got to a point worth discussing.
I won't debate the question of whether we have a personality/celebrity obsessed culture, since we do. I won't debate the question of whether of not it's healthy, because I agree, it's not.
But
given that that's the culture we live in, and that withdrawing from it cannot possibly fix it, who would you rather see elevated to celebrity status by it -- Kim Kardiashian and Justin Bieber, or Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye? Which ones are more likely to try to impress the idea that thinking for one's self and paying attention to and thinking about the real world around them just might be a better thing to do with one's time than staring at 'Big Brother' and 'Pop Idol'?
And which way of thinking is more likely to eventually lead to a culture that is *not* celebrity obsessed?
It's all well and good to decry the world we live in -- but the unfortunate thing is that we do live in it, and the way out of it is far more likely to be evolutionary than revolutionary. And that means sociological
jiu jitsu -- using the flaws of the culture against themselves until they're either no longer flaws, or no longer part of the culture.
So let them have celebrity status -- the message that the celebrity scientist (and let there be no doubt about it, Sagan himself was very much promoted
in the same way, and wasn't shy about using that status to get his message out; this isn't something that's new with Tyson) is going to deliver has vastly more potential to both educate, and create the sort of mindset that doesn't need to blindly adulate. Trying to excuse or exclude science popularizers -- not only Tyson, but Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Brian Cox
et al. -- is excluding the introduction of the one thing that can break the very cultural problems you complain about: rational thinking and the scientific method.
I'm not really in the mood of discussing about American celebrity culture, trdsf. Things are really bad over here. Not feeling good. May be another time.
Frozen. Nitrogen. Glaciers. (http://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-horizons-discovers-flowing-ices-on-pluto)
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/nh_04_mckinnon_02b.jpg)
As much as I love science fiction, you couldn't make this shit up. :D
trdsf, It's not 'chest beating'. It's cultural and personal difference. You guys can't get that for some reason and want everyone fit in to your norms. I 'talk' like that. It's not something I can help. I do not need to write or talk in some style people think I should fit in. I'm not an American or a European. I also despise political correctness and NO 'agree to disagree' is something people should go with when things get uncivil, not before in fear of it could go uncivil. You cannot exchange anything real with that remote, cold attitude. It's not civilised manners, it is just apathy. Get a bit messy, get a bit confrontational. Doesn't hurt anyone. We are on the same team.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 25, 2015, 04:03:20 AM
trdsf, It's not 'chest beating'. It's cultural and personal difference. You guys can't get that for some reason and want everyone fit in to your norms. I 'talk' like that. It's not something I can help. I do not need to write or talk in some style people think I should fit in. I'm not an American or a European. I also despise political correctness and NO 'agree to disagree' is something people should go with when things get uncivil, not before in fear of it could go uncivil. You cannot exchange anything real with that remote, cold attitude. It's not civilised manners, it is just apathy. Get a bit messy, get a bit confrontational. Doesn't hurt anyone. We are on the same team.
Civility or incivility hasn't anything to do with it. It just wasn't a debate I wanted to get into in the first place -- for that matter, I didn't even consider it a debate, just a difference of opinion.
What I will always react negatively to is not being disagreed with, but being told that I don't get it --
that is what I object to, and the inbuilt implication that if I did "get it", then I wouldn't disagree. I get it perfectly well, and I come to a different conclusion, and some things do not have a definitive right or wrong to them. Disagreement does not be disagreeable, and questioning my intellect and/or judgment is something I will always consider disagreeable.
I recommend completely dropping the matter now. I certainly have nothing further to say on it.
A thought about Pluto's possible nitrogen glaciers -- we know that Pluto is entering its winter (for the next 63 years... I'll never bitch about Ohio winters again!); I wonder if the flow patterns were from nitrogen freezing out of its thin atmosphere as it cooled further...
Quote from: trdsf on July 25, 2015, 05:29:03 AM
Civility or incivility hasn't anything to do with it. It just wasn't a debate I wanted to get into in the first place -- for that matter, I didn't even consider it a debate, just a difference of opinion.
What I will always react negatively to is not being disagreed with, but being told that I don't get it -- that is what I object to, and the inbuilt implication that if I did "get it", then I wouldn't disagree. I get it perfectly well, and I come to a different conclusion, and some things do not have a definitive right or wrong to them. Disagreement does not be disagreeable, and questioning my intellect and/or judgment is something I will always consider disagreeable.
I recommend completely dropping the matter now. I certainly have nothing further to say on it.
Debate? Who handled it as a debate? You are taking this far too seriously. Also, apparently personally. My point was clear just in my second post when I talked about 'celebrating mediocrity' and 'hype'. I just elaborated the same thing with my following posts.
Did it just become relevant and 'a point worth discussing' finally when
you got there? Because now, you are not just accepting that point after a while, you are also building another thing on it. Not that anything wrong with it, but your attitude reduce it to nothing.
You didn't get the point before, because you insisted on looking at his from supporting one person, which I mentioned a few times. You don't like the poster -me- or her style which is OK. Just please have the integrity to say so. This is how you started to this conversation and it got somewhere even with a half ass barren way, because
I insisted on not accepting the 'agree to disagree' bullshit. If I acted the way you said people should, there wouldn't be anything. You are also projecting with your 'people cannot handle being disagreed with', because considering we just got to the same page and your admitted annoyance of having this conversation with me, everything you wrote before is just your reaction to being disagreed.
From the begining you kept complaining about my posts, my style, how I handle this, but in the end you continued even after a few days ago. You could have just said, 'OK, I disagree, why do you think that way, what do you have in mind?' in the first place. But, no, because how would it look like then, right? Conversation be damned. You just played reluctant, kept saying you didn't like/agree with what I am saying, blamed me with a lot of things on my expresion, didn't even follow or once thought what the fuck is she talking about and then you said, 'ah yes we have that culture...BUT.' You couldn't pass the poster to arrive to the subject, trdsf.
Telling someone that they don't get point in a topic is not an insult, neither it is a way of putting them down in a conversation. I don't get a LOT of things and first thing I do is to jump in with 'what the hell is this, I don't get the point, explain?' And I do not think myself fall in a position of 'stupid' or 'weak' in doing so. Very much on the contrary. As far as I am concerned that's a sign of intelligence. I'm sure, I look stupid to a lot of people in this forum, who the fuck cares. I enjoy here 5 times more than people who can't bother with reading a post more than 5 lines and express their opinion.
You know why? Because I'm not here to 'win' conversations, nor to look cool with my stance(s). If I desired something like that, I would jump on every religious or dogmatic idiot who enters the forum and slap them stupid right and left with the 500th thread of why 'atheists are immoral' and feel good and 'smart' with myself. I would choose very specific titles to post. I'm not doing any of that.
I just want people to jump over the bench and be bale to get in to some real conversation about the simplest things instead of jerking around and typing to the mirror.
I would have thought there Oort to have been more craters?
Well I personally am not impressed because there just isn't the face of the Virgin Mary anywhere in those pictures.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 25, 2015, 10:43:57 AM
Well I personally am not impressed because there just isn't the face of the Virgin Mary anywhere in those pictures.
Yes, but doesn't it make you happy that the moon has the shape of an oversized woman's bum bending over?
(http://a.dilcdn.com/bl/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2013/07/Butt-Types-graphic.jpg)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 25, 2015, 09:33:42 AM
I would have thought there Oort to have been more craters?
Do they ever ban people for bad puns? :biggrin:
Quote from: SGOS on July 25, 2015, 12:46:40 PM
Do they ever ban people for bad puns? :biggrin:
As Boss Nass said to Qui-Gon Jinn, "He shall be pewnished."
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 25, 2015, 07:23:19 AM
Debate? Who handled it as a debate? You are taking this far too seriously. Also, apparently personally.
You're the one who made it personal, not me. Whatever. You were given every opportunity to back down gracefully, and declined every one. You have nothing further of any interest to me; I shall be adding you to my ignore filter now. Goodbye.
How could this go about Pluto to butts? I could understand if it was about Uranus.
Quote from: Solitary on July 26, 2015, 02:14:45 PM
How could this go about Pluto to butts? I could understand if it was about Uranus.
Because if you went to Pluto you'd freeze your ass off? :D
Quote from: Solitary on July 26, 2015, 02:14:45 PM
How could this go about Pluto to butts? I could understand if it was about Uranus.
Hey, it's Pluto that's mooning us with an upside down butt shot.
This is incredible... enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpyGhABXRA
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on July 31, 2015, 08:10:15 AM
This is incredible... enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpyGhABXRA
That was excellent. I have to wonder who gets ideas to do things like that? I was laughing out loud watching Neo look like he couldn't stand listening to another science lecture. Carl Sagan and Hugo Weaving are a perfect fit. Sheesh, that was funny.
I watched it three times.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 19, 2015, 10:34:27 AM
I like Tyson and admire him for what he does, but no they are not equally gifted, NOT even in the same league or position to be compared.
Carl Sagan has more than half a thousand scientific papers and made direct contribution to science. Also when he started to popularise science, that was something a NO-NO to do for a hard scientist in that period, he suffered from it, but didn't back down an inch. I'd like to see the new generation to do something like that. Yeah men with balls. Got to love them. No way around it. Very few.
He reached half a BILLION people over 50 countries on earth with Cosmos series -hi, I am one of them- also managed an influence all around the world in so epic porportions, in an era without the internet and popping up videos, when people didn't know what they were looking at, he redefined the way what people understand with the concept of nature. He carried the scale to its home; universe.
So there. Nobody is in the same league with Carl Sagan. He is stiill underrated.
Having watched the original Cosmos series and the reboot by NDT in their entirety, I can only agree that NDT is nothing comparable to Sagan. I give him kudos for trying to keep his memory alive, but nobody has exuded the personal love of his work as Sagan, who made you feel like he was taking you on a journey with him. When NDT tried to do the same, it was obvious that he was trying much too hard to fill another's shoes, the enthusiasm hardly seemed genuine. Also, I didn't feel like the NDT reboot was overall nearly as well executed as the original, despite the improved visual content from better telescopes and satellite imagery, and this too may be that his heart wasn't really there, or that it was all too personal for him (the sentimental experience when he met Sagan) which distracted him from overseeing smoothness in the production. Then he had to go with those really bad cartoons in place of acted scenes, which was just plain horrible because there was nothing life-like or emotional about these at all.
I've watched both Sagan and NDT over the years including Sagan's many appearances on the Tonight Show (Johnny Carson) Bear in mind that Sagan was unique; the first really popular scientist that gave a voice to what was then media wise, new territory. Sagan could be boring. Carson himself started to mock him in small ways, because he tended to hyperbolize everything (millions and millions of stars) so he was by no means perfect. His writings were better by far, well written and thoughtful.
NDT in many respects is forced to live in his shadow. Any effort to reboot or even do a new series is going to be compared to Sagan. But I don't judge NDT on that basis. Read his bio. He is his own man and has not made any effort to ridicule or criticize Sagan for his own gain; that tells me he is not small minded or jealous. NDT is one of the most personable and quotable of modern faces of science, and most importantly almost universally liked. He is a black man that does not use his position to politicize race but continually emphasizes science and education. Right now he is the right man. I for one do not compare the two, and NDT to me is just fine.
Quote from: stromboli on September 14, 2015, 06:31:46 PM
I've watched both Sagan and NDT over the years including Sagan's many appearances on the Tonight Show (Johnny Carson) Bear in mind that Sagan was unique; the first really popular scientist that gave a voice to what was then media wise, new territory. Sagan could be boring. Carson himself started to mock him in small ways, because he tended to hyperbolize everything (millions and millions of stars) so he was by no means perfect. His writings were better by far, well written and thoughtful.
NDT in many respects is forced to live in his shadow. Any effort to reboot or even do a new series is going to be compared to Sagan. But I don't judge NDT on that basis. Read his bio. He is his own man and has not made any effort to ridicule or criticize Sagan for his own gain; that tells me he is not small minded or jealous. NDT is one of the most personable and quotable of modern faces of science, and most importantly almost universally liked. He is a black man that does not use his position to politicize race but continually emphasizes science and education. Right now he is the right man. I for one do not compare the two, and NDT to me is just fine.
NDT is a great man of science, and he's more than personable, there's no denying that. Personable or not, I just didn't feel like he did so great a job at presenting Cosmos as Sagan did. It's hard to pin down exactly what it was that made the difference for me. I know I didn't care much for NDT's headache-inducing cartoonized scenes in place of human actors with realistic expressions (honest to fuck, whatever made him think that was a great idea?). I sort of felt like his personality, which is a little over-the-top although not at all arrogant was making it a little hard to follow the content of the show. I also felt a little like he was talking down to his audience (as well the material is for a younger audience, but I still felt irritated about it), whereas Sagan spoke straight from the heart, as did Fred Rogers to his very young audience. Of course I can't be sure what is really on Tyson's mind when he speaks, and I know he had immense and personal respect for Sagan, who he met personally while he was still in high school. Again, the pressure to fill those shoes must have felt immense, so although he can be faulted for trying to do so the way he chose to, I'm still very glad that he did something to remind us what Sagan did, and try to re-inspire us and the new generation in some way.
I did not regularly watch Carson because he didn't really connect with my generation ("X"), so most of what I saw of Sagan was on Cosmos, where I didn't see the "millions and millions" hyperbole as too noteworthy an affectation for older generations. As far as Carson mocking anybody, I do recall him being good at that, and his sort of mockery wasn't always particularly good-natured.
I have professionally been in the position of "big shoes to fill" and have everyone measure your output against previous occupants of the job. Probably the best advice I ever got was from a former boss; you can worry about what other people expect of you or you can simply do the best you can with what you have. That is how I see Tyson in comparison to Sagan.