NFUN

Dray.

You don't really believe that. You're bluffing to get all of the contrarians among us to agree with (and possibly rep) you.

We can just wait until the response signal we sent back gets received and they (assuming anything is out there) reply. I've got 35,000 years to kill.

I don't think there are any serious theories or scientists that state photons are anything but fundamental. Photons are the quanta of light, and are tiny bits of pure EM energy. They certainly do not have anything inside them, and they don't decay, being the carrier of one fundamental force (Electromagnetism) that can cause decay, and unaffected by the other (the Weak Force).

As one gets further away from the emitter of light, less photons will reach the observer as the angular diameter of the body gets smaller and smaller. Assuming there is nothing in the way of the light's path, and it doesn't get moved due to gravity, light will reach the target. However, if no light was actually emitted directly at the object, obviously no light would reach it, and sufficiently distant bodies would receive few, if any, photons from each other. Energy would probably not just disappear en route without an object or force forcing it to. This is in response to your first question, your second statement is gibberish. It is, in fact, your responsibility to transcribe your thoughts in a medium that can be understood, or else you may not get much conversation.

Expect every post after this to be along the lines of "Yeah, we should get rid of [program I dislike] because [reasons], but there is no way we can eliminate [program I like] because [other reasons]." You are dangerously close to bringing politics into the forums, and that never ends well.

Just because intelligent alien life might be out there doesn't mean that SETI will be able to find it. Light dissipates quickly, and believing that SETI won't find life isn't necessarily arrogance, it could be realism.

What does that even mean?

1.) The IAU explicitly said that 'Dwarf Planet' is a unique and separate category than 'Planet'. 2.) The Kuiper Belt as a whole is theorized to have formed closer to the Sun/Jupiter than it is now, and migrated outwards thanks to the influence of the gas giants. Pluto itself is likely similar to many of the other TNOs (Trans-Neptunian Objects), and it has the same resonance with Neptune that the others do, which could indicate a similar origin (or perhaps not, I'm not an astrophysicist).

I had fun with trajectories.

Squad has said that they are doing their best to allow old saves to work, and are putting more effort into preserving save integrity now that the game is released.

Astronomer's Visual Pack You are wrong.

Oh, chloride anions. I misread, and thought he meant solitary chlorine in chemistry.

He would continue to waste Squad's precious bandwidth and memory. What if nobody answered these questions in a hurried, dismissive manner, eager to ask their own question at the expense of humor or wit? Alternatively, what if I was actually fun at parties?

Chlorine would be reduced, not oxidized. It gains an electron. And electrodes aren't expensive, they are preferably platinum.

There are ways to calculate the degree of which a body has cleared its neighborhood, such as the Stern-Levison parameter. It would be trivial for the IAU to choose a value to determine the cutoff point for being a planet or dwarf planet, or a range in which individual cases would be decided. In any case, the value between the most messy planet and cleanest dwarf planet differs by many orders of magnitude, regardless of what specific formula is used. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood

From my point of view, that analogy would be for gas giants vs ice giants vs terrestrial planets. I would contend that for dwarf planets, SUV would be replaced with truck, where one can call a truck a car if they wish, but they'd be modestly mistaken, and only correct if they called it an automobile.

If comes out greater than 100 for the object, it is a planet. If it comes out less than 100 for Mercury, it is no longer a planet. Simple. //Stern-Levison Parameter

Because movies always reflect reality. I'm not saying the issues presented are impossible, but they aren't certain either. One can't use the results from one imagined scenario to discount all other possibilities, in fact, movies should warn us of risks and inspire us to prevent them, not discourage any advancement at all In any case, humanity would probably have developed some type of cheap, highly effective birth control that would allow women to only get pregent when she desired that was more ubiquitous than forms today, possibly even deactivating genes until they were needed. What I find more messed up about the movie is (IIRC) that the parents were biased against their non-enhanced child when it was their stupid, easily prevented mistakes that put him at a disadvantage in the first place. Otherwise, that Universe was decent. Besides from ethical objectors, the technology would certainly be rolled out to those who couldn't currently afford it (the middle class could), with government programs helping if it did not. From the point of view of that society, normal people are a drag on society, and costly, so even if ithat society was a unempathetic dystopia it would have reason to give the technology to all within a few generations. The Third World would be likely screwed, but they are now, and eventually they would be treated too. People in Gattaca cared so much about enhancement and were so biased about it charities would likely sprout up offering it to expectant Third World mothers. Besides, manned missions to Titan, man!

Is there a dead pixel in the left ventricle?

What kind of question is that? It exists, we know it exists, the only people who deny this are conspiracy nutters. Please, lets move on before they come here.

If Pluto is so desperate for attention, maybe he should've made like Triton and moved to become the only interesting moon around a giant, specifically Uranus. Instead, the cocky body decided to gamble in trying to have its cake and eat it too in having five other bodies in its system while still being in the Kuiper Belt. Arrogant snowball doesn't even have it's barycenter inside itself, and still wants to be an actual planet? Pfft, my response to the poll:

It isn't just a "fluid", it is a supercritical fluid. Besides any random drops of liquid that might exist in the planet, Jupiter is either gaseous or composed of supercritical fluids, with some metallic hydrogen. If some spots in the interior are cooler, they will be metallic hydrogen or gaseous, not liquid. I would also dispute your claim that because life can exist in a gas it can form from gases. I'd post a phase diagram for hydrogen, but they tend to be messy, and I can't find a good one.

There is not really such a thing as scientific certainty, but this comes close. The distinguishing feature of gases is that there are almost no intermolecular forces. Gas molecules really don't care to be by one another, and any collisions between molecules are elastic and don't lead towards sticking together physically. Large, complex molecules can form, but due to Van der Waals forces and potential polarity, these molecules will probably not be gases, and in any case, groups of molecules working in tandem as anything but the simplest self-replicating proto-life is impossible. This isn't the same statement as "life cannot begin in Jupiter", as some liquids might exist in the atmosphere, but short of extraordinary chemistry we have not yet encountered nor predicted, life shouldn't be able to begin between gases. //solid chemistry tends to be too slow or violent, but that's a different story

Not the most nonsensical Medeval superstition (at least it had some twisted logic as a basis), but annoyingly long lived. Besides Lucifer as mentioned above, Judas was on Jesus's left side during the Last Supper, which helped create the left-hand hatred. Ambisinister is a strange term, because "sinister" in the original Latin meant "left", which also goes to show how pervasive that attitude was.