[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.14512439 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x1024, Pluto.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14512439

>>14512424
Often with transneptunian objects tend to be very similar due to their distance. Eris is likely to be very similar to Pluto.
The difficulty isn't getting there, it's slowing down once you're there. Hence we'll probably need incredibly efficient and powerful ion engines to get there

>> No.12137975 [View]
File: 217 KB, 1024x1024, 1024px-Pluto_in_True_Color_-_High-Res.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12137975

>>12137544

>> No.11405228 [View]
File: 217 KB, 1024x1024, Pluto_in_True_Color_-_High-Res.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11405228

>>11405192
>The current standard model believes 96% of the universe for all intents and purposes doesn't even exist
If you're referring to shit like dark matter, we will discover more of the truth in time.

100 years ago, did we know that Pluto existed? No we didn't. Clyde Tombaugh discovered it in 1930. Also we didn't even know what it looked like until 2015, when pic related was taken. And it was taken by a spacecraft that spent nearly TEN YEARS (9.5 to be more accurate) flying through space, at tens of thousands of miles per hour.

>nature of reality
My point is that science has proven that it CAN discover the nature of reality - that doesn't mean our current science is perfect, because it definitely ISN'T. But it has clearly improved with time, and will continue to improve.

Philosophy can't discover fucking anything about the nature of reality. I think it was John Locke who talked about substance having properties. And properties can't exist on their own, blah blah blah. He was trying to classify the nature of reality, the nature of existing things. But it's all pointless intellectual masturbation bollocks. It's not scientific. He hasn't tested anything to see what reality is like. He's just coming up with a stupid fucking language game of how we should think about reality. It's intellectual masturbation bollocks and serves NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. Science is the only useful methodology when trying to answer questions about the nature of reality.

The only places in which philosophy might be useful might be something like political philosophy. That's something that philosophy can arguably say something interesting about... normative questions of how we should organise society, rather than descriptive questions (which are best answered by science).

But even then, every political position is just a subjective opinion - one position isn't more correct than another.

>> No.10809718 [View]
File: 217 KB, 1024x1024, Pluto_in_True_Color_-_High-Res.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10809718

>>10809638
>claims Pluto looks best
>posts false color
The fact that so many people believe in the false color images is proof of the impact of modern sensationalist clickbait media.

>> No.9996024 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x1024, Pluto_in_True_Color_-_High-Res.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9996024

How many dwarf planets are there?

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]