Conferences Series Events
SPACE   |   EVOLUTION   |   PHYSICS   |   SOCIAL SCIENCES   |   NATURAL SCIENCES   |   DNA   |   PSYCHOLOGY   |   BIOTECH   |   MEDICINE   |   ANTHROPOLOGY   |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET   |   NEW MEDIA   |   START-UPS   |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY   |   WIRELESS   |   COMPUTING   |   ENGINEERING   |   CEOS
RELIGION   |   GAMING   |   FILM   |   FASHION   |   SEX   |   PHILOSOPHY   |   EDUCATION   |   HISTORY   |   ARTS   |   MUSIC   |   TRAVEL   |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Watch Now

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Death By Black Hole

69
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
132,290 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

kimberlyhyndman Avatar
kimberlyhyndman
Posts: 0
Posted: 01.31.09, 07:39 AM
To laurele: I don't understand about Pluto either. What about a midgets and short people? Are midgets and short people not human because they are under a certain height, say like 5'?
Steven185 Avatar
Steven185
Posts: 1
Posted: 01.15.09, 02:54 AM
@journeyer58: How can you NOT become interesting by knowing and experiencing all this stuff that are so higher from our every day experience but also the progenitor of all?

I was always wondering how the physics' teachers in my school were managing to turn such an interesting topic to something mundane. I was grateful enough to have some good teachers in college and finally was able to see how interesting physics can be and how in fact -if you do it right- enriches you as a person instead of emptying you like I saw with those high school teachers...
scienceTASTIC Avatar
scienceTASTIC
Posts: 1
Posted: 01.12.09, 06:57 PM
My grandma was killed by a smithereen. Tragic.
laurele Avatar
laurele
Posts: 2
Posted: 01.12.09, 03:02 PM
I am a proud Plutophile who has been advocating Pluto's reinstatement for two years and can definitively say that my position has nothing to do with Disney or the dog.

I also am very much aware that some of the other planets' moons are larger than Pluto. These objects should be referred to as secondary planets since their composition and sphericity make them planets but they orbit another planet rather than the sun directly.

Pluto IS a planet because unlike most objects in the Kuiper Belt, it has attained hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning it has enough self-gravity to have pulled itself into a round shape. When an object is large enough for this to happen, it becomes differentiated with core, mantle, and crust, just like Earth and the larger planets, and develops the same geological processes as the larger planets, processes that inert asteroids and most KBOs do not have.

There is no reason that Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris cannot be dually classed as both planets and Kuiper Belt Objects.

Not distinguishing between shapeless asteroids and objects whose composition clearly makes them planets is a disservice and is sloppy science.
As of now, there are three other KBOs that meet this criterion and therefore should be classified as planets—Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. Only one KBO has been found to be larger than Pluto, and that is Eris.

The IAU definition makes no linguistic sense, as it states that dwarf planets are not planets at all. That’s like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear. Second, it defines objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were placed in Pluto’s orbit, by the IAU definition, it would not be a planet. That is because the further away an object is from its parent star, the more difficulty it will have in clearing its orbit.

Significantly, this definition was adopted by only four percent of the IAU, most of whom are not planetary scientists. No absentee voting was allowed. It was done so in a highly controversial process that violated the IAU’s own bylaws, and it was immediately opposed by a petition of 300 professional astronomers saying they will not use the new definition, which they described accurately as “sloppy.” Also significant is the fact that many planetary scientists are not IAU members and therefore had no say in this matter at all.

Many believe we should keep the term planet broad to encompass any non-self-luminous spheroidal object orbiting a star.

We can distinguish different types of planets with subcategories such as terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, dwarf planets, super Earths, hot Jupiters, etc.

We should be broadening, not narrowing our concept of planet as more objects are being discovered in this and other solar systems.
In a 2000 paper, Dr. Alan Stern and Dr. Hal Levison distinguish two types of planets—the gravitationally dominant ones and the smaller ones that are not gravitationally dominant. However, they never say that objects in the latter category are not planets.

I attended the Great Planet Debate, which actually took place in August 2008, and there was a strong consensus there that a broader, more encompassing planet definition is needed. I encourage anyone interested to listen to and view the conference proceedings at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ Significantly, Tyson's presentation there was more show than substance, and he did not answer many of the questions posed to him, including mine.

You can also read more about this issue on my blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com

You can find the petition of astronomers who rejected the demotion of Pluto here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/
journeyer58 Avatar
journeyer58
Posts: 14
Posted: 01.11.09, 01:29 PM
Very Cool! How does someone who is a physicist become so entertaining?
I do not know but hope Dr. Tyson, stays around for a long time.
solaris Avatar
solaris
Posts: 31
Posted: 01.10.09, 08:53 PM
Neil: time to start moving to Montana :P
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
Advertisement