Comment Re:What's the big deal, anyway? (Score 2) 196
In science, if you're having to make exceptions to fit the rule to nature, then the rule doesn't make sense.
In science, if you're having to make exceptions to fit the rule to nature, then the rule doesn't make sense.
That's the general idea. You have to add all the objects that meet the criteria. The current criteria does not depend on characteristics of the object itself; the definition includes characteristics of the surrounding objects as well. I tend to agree with the argument that the current definition is wrong, for this reason.
The Kuiper belt and scattered disk are where all the remaining stuff left over from the formation of the solar system ended up. It was pushed out there by the larger planets. Unless the body is very large, for example like Uranus, it's not going to be able to "clear it's orbit" in that region of the solar system. If another large planet did exist out there, it would probably scatter everything in it's orbit, effectively pushing the Kuiper belt and scattered disk further out. Any smaller body, perhaps even an Earth sized body, would be unable to clear it's orbit. So, if the Earth's double was found out there, you would have to call it a "dwarf planet" by the current definition. That doesn't make sense.
And now Elon's thinking... Great, now I need to make my own Air Force with my own radar systems...
At the Texas launch site, will SpaceX be providing launch radar or will the Air Force?
Well, Gallifreyans are/were millions of years ahead of us, philosophically and technologically. Why confuse the humans, as wonderful as they may be, with a bunch of technical jargon.
As to the role of the neutron flow... Isn't it obvious?
background information: I own and personally drive both ends of the spectrum, a 2014 model car and a 1970 model year truck. The 2014 has all the available electronics features. The 1970... the only electronic device in that vehicle is the ignition module; and, that was an upgrade (I hate setting points). The 1970 truck doesn't even have power brakes. I'm not a luddite. Hell, I make a living as an engineer working for a company that designs and manufactures sensors; I'm not going to argue against technology.
To the point: I read this discussion and I listen to people talking about the active cruise control and collision avoidance systems in their cars and I come to an unfortunate conclusion... These systems can and do lead to people becoming less attentive while they drive. I totally get that these systems save lives. It's just that I see people becoming dependent on these systems and not using them as they are intended.
Neutrinos have bad breadth.