7S' YoRHa Project Blog!Watch
Anyway, I'm a firm believer that sharing is important, and that you're less likely to quit important things if you have a lot of eyes watching you. That's where you lovely people come in! Basically if you'd like to follow my studying and researching please do so! And even better, shout hell at me if I quit! c:
So, what the heck is a 'YoRHa'? Nobody knows! But it's a thing from the video game NieR Automata which I bloody adore, and it's a research division in the game dedicated to Biomedical Engineering, mainly towards androids for various roles. And it sounds cool. So there.
Anyway. I start Cardiff University in September for a Biomedical Engineering degree - well, foundation at least - and I'm going to be blogging about my study both when I'm there, this coming month before that, and my own research interest - the biomedical engineering behind enhancing the human body in various capacities. Prosthetics, enhanced body organs, that kind of thing.
I'm also suuuuuper into Astronomy, and that's my backup plan if things go wrong somehow! So you're gonna see occasional stuff about that too. Pluto is a planet and that's what I'd dedicate my research career to defending tbh.
Anyway! If you find that stuff interesting, join in!
- Complete my Foundation Engineering and get a hella rad mark
- Learn as much as possible about Biomedical Engineering in the professional sense
- Start designing using CAD and physics. Not sure what I'm gonna actually design though!
- Campaign for Pluto to become a planet again (Dimension C-137 not included)
- Steal the declaration of independence
- Not gonna lie, my Maths isn't great. I got a C at GCSE twice. I did get A*s in Physics and Chemistry though! ...eh. Still bad.
- I'm not particularly sure what parts of Physics go into Engineering; it hasn't always been my plan to go into BME tbh with you
- Chronic Procrastination Syndrome (TM)
Since this isn't a decision I have to make for a year I'm gonna just post about both for the time being with what I find, and maybe I'll discover an answer for myself there in the process.
Watch this space! ...that's not a pun.
I also love Nier;Automata.
Day  - 13 Reasons Why (Pluto Is a Planet)
1. Pluto is not as small as is often quoted. Although rather small in comparison to its accepted planet brethren, Pluto gets the most flack for once being a planet right next to the bigger ones like Uranus (ha) or Jupiter. However, what we classify as a 'planet' means that the majority of planets are in fact quite small, they're just not well known. These are called 'dwarf planets' and Pluto is not even the smallest of them. The common measurement is any planet that is over 300km, because any smaller means it likely isn't naturally rounded by gravity - which narrows the massive amount of potential celestial bodies down to just 184. Of them, Pluto is the 17th biggest! This does mean we would have to accept the others as planets too, but honestly, some of them like Ceres have long deserved it. Sure it's a little more to remember for kids, but we managed 9 just fine.
2. The point of size scale being used to exclude Pluto makes no sense when we don't do that for literally anything else. The Segue 2 galaxy, one of the smallest, is not refused its status as a galaxy even though it is not even a speck compared to, say, IC-1101. Or another example; consider the difference in size between a rat and an orca. The rat would not even be visible in comparison to an orca. Are we now going to say that a rat isn't an animal, much less a mammal, because it's "too small"? The planets can't seriously be the only thing we do this for.
3. The fact we didn't know much about planets or astronomy at all at first is the reason we have such a weird system today. See, when the IAU decides what is or isn't a planet, they have certain requirements - among them, "being" and "doing". For example, the fact a planet must be round by its own gravity, or not be big enough to cause nuclear fusion (so to not be a star), is its "being". By adding extra "doing" requirements - such as orbiting a star and not being rogue and orbiting another planet - that's not saying what it "is" (by defining) so much as what it "does".
The reason this matters is because we again wouldn't do this with anything else - "it's not a real animal if it doesn't eat meat, it's just a dwarf animal" is absolutely ridiculous, right? The fact I mentioned the orca, more specifically whales, is because at one stage biologists tried to argue whether it was a mammal or a fish; ultimately deciding it was more important to consider what its being was, rather than how it acted. Of course both categories do exist, they just aren't mixed in such a bizarre and frankly outdated method.
4. We're basing our ideas of what a solar system 'should be' on the only solar system we know of. How many studies do you know of where a sample of one is sufficient to do anything? There is a requirement by the IAU that it must be able to clear out its own orbit path...but this goes against the reality that clearing out an orbit isn't the sole job of one planet. All 9 of them (including Pluto...) work together through their orbit to do so. A lot of weird stuff is true about our solar system (for example the odd spacing between some of them - possibly former planets destroyed? Who knows), and we're basing the definition of a planet based on our one weird but lovable one.
5. Our idea of the planets has been based ever so slightly on the ancient idea of the planets as gods (pissing off Pluto, the GOD OF HELL, wasn't a smart idea, but I digress) - as such, we've liked to believe that the 'heavenly bodies' act in a clockwork, methodical manner. They do not and the weirdness of our solar system should prove that much nicely. In fact only recently have we begun to realise that it is not clockwork at all; sharing orbits is no longer an "exception" shared by the Currently Accepted 8, as the area past Neptune (the "Kuiper Belt" ) proves this is normal, not an exception. Not only that, but the smaller inner planets are cheeky buggers and keep destroying each other or interfering with each other's orbits. The IAU changing its definition of planets to exclude these third-area 'problem planets' definitely looks like an attempt to try and keep space 'simple', or rather reinforce the idea that space is still clockwork and methodical when in fact, it's a glorious, beautiful mess. Pluto being a planet breaks this dogma, or arbitrary quota for 'routine order'.
6. The fact that an entire generation became outraged that Pluto was demoted from planet status is cute, but it underlies a larger issue - removing it and the inner planets from the System takes away from the beauty of discovery. In science, Physics more than anything, the reason we love it is because we are always discovering new things - new galaxies, universes, and new theories that shake the foundation of everything we have ever known, even geniuses of our past being challenged. It seems like an arbitrary step backwards to remove our discoveries, what kind of message is that going to send to people? Apart from the especially invested, how often do you hear about Pluto or the inner planets on the news or in astronomical discovery? Science is about discovery, and for the young, removing something as fundamental as a major planet is going to send off the wrong message.
7. You know that whole "needs to clear its own orbit path" rule? Of the 3 major ones (orbit the sun, be round, clear own orbit), Pluto only doesn't manage the last one - and being furthest away from the Sun, it also has a load more cosmic debris to deal with than any other planet. If that's not enough, do you know which other two planets shouldn't be planets because it didn't clear it's own debris?
Jupiter and Earth.
8. Of the 10,000 that made up the IAU in 2006, over 9,500 were not there for the Assembly decision to declassify Pluto. Of those remaining, only 237 voted to reclassify it as a "dwarf planet", and 157 voted against its demotion. Although more here did vote to declassify, consider that the entire decision was made by just over 2% of the ENTIRE UNION.
9. Pluto is easily one of the least properly-discovered planets we have. We don't know vital things such as if it has a magnetic field, what its atmosphere is made of, its chemical composition, if it has a surface ocean, or anything about the way it interacts with the rest of space. All we really know is that it's cold as hell and takes a long time to do 1 orbit (261 years, I believe).
In essence, you're trying to declassify a Heavenly Body when you know precious little about it, especially compared to the extensive amount we know about the other Eight. The same applies for others like Ceres or Eris.
10. If the decision was made by the IAU under the guise that "it's either 8 planets or a whole load of planets we'll choose 8", that was likely done to make it easier for astronomers to deal with. That alone isn't too bad an idea, except now the new 3 definitions of a planet have made it so much more difficult for astronomers dealing with the oddities of new beings, in particular the exoplanets discovered en masse since 2006. There was an argument made that "we wouldn't redefine what a bone is to make it easier for medical students", which holds some weight as well. Furthermore, we are basing decisions on what it is now as opposed to what it used to be. This becomes important when talking about the distances between planets as a factor in deciding planethood, yet there is evidence everywhere of planetary migration over millions of years - Jupiter's movement can be noted in the Kuiper Belt (near Neptune...) for example.
11. Demoting Pluto when we know little about it can be a dangerous proposition; it's widely known that a lot of funding goes primarily into the Major Eight, particularly Mars (for colonisation reasons when we inevitably murder Earth). Removing Pluto means that funding is going to be a lot harder to come by, and as such we're gonna learn a lot less about it (and that includes evidence for both sides). The New Horizons Voyage in 2015 provided a lot of information and this leads me to be hopeful that this is a moot point, but it's a valid concern nonetheless.
12. Pluto can't be dumped in the same category as the other smaller 'planets' in the Kuiper Belt because it differs far too much, and in fact has more in common with other planets like Earth. Pluto has 5 moons, has a differentiated landscape (ie mountainous areas, not a basic area), and is significantly larger and varied than the majority of ice rocks, debris and KBOs in its vicinity. The same thing was done with Ceres way back in the 1800s, where it was considered a new planet up until it was discovered it was part of an asteroid belt. Speaking of asteroids, the whole 'clearing the orbit' thing is a moot point for both Pluto and Ceres; they both get pelted with meteors and asteroids about as much as Earth does, but largely speaking has cleared out its immediate area. Of course that leads to the wider question - is it the traits and features of Pluto that matter, or its position? If it moves slightly out of the way of its minute levels of debris, is it now a planet again? When it finishes orbit in a few hundred years and heads back into the rockier areas, will it temporarily not be a planet again? It's too vague to be realistic.
IT HAS A HEART ON IT.
IT IS MADE OF LOVE.
Ayy; I (possibly) start at Cardiff this September. I'm doing Physics though .
I also love Nier;Automata.
It's such a good game, might have possibly decided my degree field for me