Talk:473: Still Raw
The explanation says: "... Pluto has been the ninth planet in our solar system until 2006 ...".
- 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. 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.
- 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)
- I think this interpretation is a bit deliberately obtuse. Ceres wasn't considered a planet at the same time that Pluto was, so Pluto was indeed the ninth planet for a period of time. There is no confusion here.
- On another note, the Dawn and New Horizons probes have now given us a large world covered in volatiles and weather, with internally driven geology, and a smaller, more obviously non-spherical cratered ball of rock. A common sense definition of a planet would probably leave Ceres out. As for Vesta, nobody has ever considered that a planet, not even the "Pluto should still be a planet" crowd. Again, being deliberately contrarian doesn't usually shed any light on scientific questions. 220.127.116.11 03:38, 18 April 2016 (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?? 18.104.22.168 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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- For my part, I never understood why it was such an issue to not have the other things that are now dwarf planets classified as planets. More planets are cool, aren't they? They could have used whatever cut they made between dwarf planets and other stuff as definition boundary for planets and promoted them instead of declassifiying Pluto. You could then have split the category "planets" into "instert-cool-name-here"-planets and dwarf planets and voilà, more planets AND congruent definition. Also, less confusing nomenclature, as with the present definition dwarf planets aren't planets, even though the name makes it appear as if they are a subcategory of planets. I totally get why Pluto should be in a seperate category from the other large planets. 126.96.36.199 11:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- I always assumed the decision was aesthetic. They were faced with a choice between eight well-known planets with familiar names and distinctive characteristics that fit neatly on a poster and dozens or hundreds of planets, mostly obscure lumps of rock or ice.
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. :-) -- Hkmaly (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you choose to model friction in the wheels, it would be simpler to model the airplane with NO wheels, and then ask whether it could take off. Well, 'Airplane!' notwithstanding, it couldn't. But that's not an interesting problem, right? And neither is the variation with friction in the wheels. 188.8.131.52 23:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Odd that carrier decks still have to be so long. In fact launching them from podiums would allow the use of on-deck hangars.
- Anyone know if this applies to helicopters?