Slashdot Mirror
Is Pluto Actually a Mash-Up of a Billion Comets? (smithsonianmag.com)
Scientists from the Southwest Research Institute suggest Pluto may be a comet, as opposed to a planet or dwarf planet. According to a study published in the journal Icarus, Pluto could be made up of billions of comets all mashed together. Smithsonian reports: Scientists had long believed the dwarf planet Pluto was formed the way planets come to be: they start as swirling dust that's gradually pulled together by gravity. But with the realization that Pluto was a Kuiper belt dwarf planet, researchers began speculating about the origins of the icy world. The researchers turned to Sputnik Planitia -- the western lobe of the massive heart-shaped icy expanse stamped on Pluto's side -- for the task. As Christopher Glein, lead author of the paper and researcher at the Southwest Research Institute, explains to [Popular Science editor Neel V. Patel], the researchers used the data from New Horizons on this icy expanse to estimate the amount of nitrogen on Pluto and the amount that's escaped from its atmosphere.
Glein explains the conclusions in a statement: "We found an intriguing consistency between the estimated amount of nitrogen inside the [Sputnik Planitia] glacier and the amount that would be expected if Pluto was formed by the agglomeration of roughly a billion comets or other Kuiper Belt objects similar in chemical composition to 67P, the comet explored by Rosetta." The report goes on to mention a few caveats. "For one, researchers aren't sure that comet 67P has an average comet composition," reports Smithsonian. "For another, New Horizons only captured information about Pluto at a specific point in time, which means nitrogen rates could have changed over the last billions of years. [T]here's also still the possibility Pluto formed from cold ices with a chemical composition to that of the sun."
Glein explains the conclusions in a statement: "We found an intriguing consistency between the estimated amount of nitrogen inside the [Sputnik Planitia] glacier and the amount that would be expected if Pluto was formed by the agglomeration of roughly a billion comets or other Kuiper Belt objects similar in chemical composition to 67P, the comet explored by Rosetta." The report goes on to mention a few caveats. "For one, researchers aren't sure that comet 67P has an average comet composition," reports Smithsonian. "For another, New Horizons only captured information about Pluto at a specific point in time, which means nitrogen rates could have changed over the last billions of years. [T]here's also still the possibility Pluto formed from cold ices with a chemical composition to that of the sun."
Basically they have no clue. If pluto formed from a cloud of dust it would have taken about 1 trillion years, so it's a no go. Now a billion comets? they are grasping at straws. Mostly every theory of formation is based on crap evidence with plenty of evidence that disproves it.
There is an explanation which is creation. Scientists claim to have evidence to alternatives (Planetary evolution) but they find so much evidence that basic throws the wheels off it that they start grasping at straws like this. There is no formation theory that fits the facts of discovery and evidence except creation. Lets say to be kind, so far.
You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
I have a classic book in front of me published in the year 1868, titled "GOD IN HISTORY and GOD IN SCIENCE," authored by London Pastor John Cumming (1807-1881).[1] May I say kindly, there's no such thing as an atheist! Some of the world's wealthiest celebrities have the stench of Hell on them, which is where they are all going, blaspheming the very God Who is kind to them. Luke 6:35b, "...for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."
Legendary singer Billy Joel is a professed atheist...
"I gradually decided that just because I didn't have or couldn't find the ultimate answer didn't mean I was going to buy the religious fairytale. As an atheist you have to rationalize things." â"Billy Joel
On page 139 of his book, "GOD IN HISTORY and GOD IN SCIENCE," Pastor John Cumming makes a brilliant observation concerning professed atheists...
Atheism is folly as much as wickedness. But suffer me, before I show this, to say, that it is absolutely impossible that any man can be an atheist, in the strict sense of that word. All that any can say is this: "No spot that I have searched does reveal a God; every organization I have examined does not show traces of wisdom, goodness, and design:" but that individual cannot say; "There is no God;" because he cannot say, "I have soared to the farthest star, I have descended to the deepest mines, I have swept all space, and searched all time, and in the realms of infinite space I have not detected any traces of a God." In other words, to be able to say, "There is no God," you must yourself assume to be God, which is a reductio ad absurdum, an utter and a complete absurdity.
SOURCE: "GOD IN HISTORY and GOD IN SCIENCE," p. 139; by Rev. John Cumming, D.D.; New York: Published by Carlton & Lanahan; 200 Mulberry-Street; 1868.
What a brilliant observation. How can any man claim to be an atheist unless he has traveled to the farthest place in the universe? The nearest star to the earth (after our own sun) is Alpha Centauri, which is 4.37 light-years away (28,200,000,000,000 miles away!). This is just one star, being the closest to earth besides our own sun, which is 93,000,000,000 miles away. My friend, the Hubble Space Telescope has discovered that there are at least 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe. And each of those galaxies contains BILLIONS of stars! It is anticipated that when the James Webb Telescope is launched in 2018 from NASA, that it will discover over ONE TRILLION GALAXIES!!!
The Word of God teaches that God made the stars. I love how Genesis 1:16 is written... "HE MADE THE STARS ALSO." It's like the Bible is saying, "Oh, by the way, God also made all the stars!" Genesis 1:16, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." God is amazing, Who knows the exact number of stars that He created, and he calls them each by their own name. Amen! Psalms 147:4, "He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names." I have just briefly discussed the stars. The world that exists under a microscope is even more amazing, complex and a mystery to mankind. How can anyone reasonably claim to be an atheist when man hasn't even discovered what's in 90% of the earth's oceans? Pastor John Cumming is so right... For anyone to say, "There is no God!," you must yourself assume to be God! No human being has traveled to the ends of the universe. In fact, no human being has ever even left the Milky Way Solar System. Psalms 145:3, "Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable."
John Cumming was a Scottish minister who was well-known for his anti-Catholic writings and preaching. Amen for that! One of the biggest evidences of apostasy in the United States today is that hardly any professed Christians, evangelicals and clergy criticize the damned Roman Catholic religion. Catholicism teaches sacramental salvation, which is a
Just imagine the secrets it could hold and the decades of research... Every part of it a new mystery to solve.
The earth is also a "smashup" of all kinds of space debris including comets.
but my last duke was by the person who came in after.
You might as well just call it a planet. Because why not?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So you can pray to whoever you want but traitors don't go up.
According to my own calculation based on the planet/dwarf planet structure, I'd say only 999,980,443 comets.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
According to my definition of a rocky planet, Pluto needs:
- a round shape
- a crust
- a hot core or a previously hot core
Pluto passes all three requirements, therefore it's a planet.
Questions?
There, settled. If you have more question; feel free to ask!
"In other news, today, after enduring roughly 1B comet collisions, dwarf planet Pluto may be about to be shattered when a joint MPAA/RIAA copyright lawsuit hits it next month over claims that it is, in fact, a Mash-Up. Representatives of both associations have claimed that "no longer can they allow Pluto to continue to be a safe harbour for space pirates". Representatives for Pluto could not be reached, but close friend and notable spacecraft New Horizons commented that "it's all Fair-Use, Pluto has survived worse and will prevail". This news follows Pluto's fall from grace when it was considered to not be a proper planet, any more, and received the newly created title of dwarf planet. The former planet has been trying to make its way back to the limelight, ever since."
Worse than Watergate and fake TV news isn't talking. Forget prison, shoot the libtards who orchestrated 9-11.
AE911Truth org
Buh ha ha ha ha
Buh ha ha ha ha
Buh ha ha ha ha
~Dr. Evil
It's a dog.
Your entire post uses the EXACT same logic as the Ancient Aliens tv show:
Science cannot (yet) explain it therefore it can ONLY be Ancient Aliens! Er uh I mean a bearded dude in the sky looking down on all of us who rewards the good kids and punishes the bad.
I have now proven by your logic that Pluto could only have been created by Santa Claus.
Pluto doesn't have that giant heart on it for nothing, you know. It belongs to Taylor Swift. Delicate!
They're just not going to stop until they permanently eliminate it as a planet...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yes. This news seems to be a result of someone re-stating how large objects form in the solar system to make it sound sexier encountering a journalist who has never heard of this before. Tomorrow's article will be "Sun formed from particles created at the birth of the universe" to be followed by "Earth contains fossilized remnants of a 6 billion-year-old supernova".
The Earth, and all other planetary objects, is nothing more than a lot of dust and rocks mashed together. Ergo, using the same logic, we do not live on a planet. Sorry people.
Well, then the Earth is nothing but an untold number of billions of asteroids mashed together. Time to downgrade Earth!
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
Pluto won't be the first thing in the cosmos to break definitions and it won't be the last. The current definition of planet isn't a good one.
"A celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit."
But if these bodies at some point have a molten core, complex geological features, and long-term orbital stability, I find the cleared neighborhood requirement to be unfounded.
If the Earth was a bit less massive and the Moon a bit more, the center of gravity for the system would be outside of Earth. Why wouldn't it be a binary of two planets then? Isn't it a matter of time until we discover these even in the data on exoplanets we've already got? Pluto is such a system.
When we find Planet IX out there, and it's likely to be 10x the mass of earth, it'll likely have an orbit that is crossed by a great many bodies, some of which may be larger than Pluto and Eris. Is its status as a planet going to be in doubt every time we find another large object in the Kuiper belt?
There are planemos we've detected that may well have not formed in a star's proto-planetary disk but are larger than Jupiter. How are they not planets of a sort?
If we're just trying to keep the planet count in our solar system low, what for exactly?
I find that definitions with excessively sharp and arbitrary boundaries where physics shows us a gradual spectrum are a product of humans trying to impose their thinking, instead of adapt it to the world.
It's really mysterious to me why so many "scientists" seem to have it in for Pluto... sometimes called "The Dark Planet", the only conclusion I can come to is racism.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
and they were the ones who would have to use the definition. So it is kinda correctfor them to make the definition. And all of those who WANTED to vote WERE ALLOWED. Most of the whiners didn't care and didn't want to stay for the vote and left. Only when it turned out pluto wasn't a planet did they complain and bitch. Mostly because they saw a loss of prestige for the USA. Ceres was a planet once.
And that is all you have for it instead. Every other option either still keeps pluto out or makes for hundreds to put in to the list. You just don't know WHY the definition was required and you're butthurt over "losing" a planet. Ceres was a planet once. It got demoted to a new class: asteroids.
1. It has liquid water
2. It has an evolving surface
3. Including atmosphere, it's larger than Earth
What we know about the Kuipier Belt
1. It has an Earth-sized "dwarf planet" (it's a dwarf because it hasn't cleared its orbit, even if it's the size of Jupiter), although Pluto is not that planet
I see nothing here that says "comet" or indeed anything that makes that relevant as to what class of object it is.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)