Every once in a while in Lights Academy, we will do online discussions where each student uses their PLN to find three new learning ideas and share them with the class. I love these discussions because everyone shares new thoughts and ideas that really make you think. It's interesting to see other people's interests and see what their opinions and questions of your interests are.
I began my PLN learning by looking at Pinterest. After looking through some community boards about astronomy, I found a post with an article linked to which was about black holes not being real. This sparked my interest so I clicked on it and read the full article. Essentially, this professor named Laura Houghton used mathematics to prove that black holes can never come into existence because when the supernova expands right before it explodes and then collapses into a "black hole" it emits the hawking radiation, but when this radiation is emitted the star loses mass, resulting the supernova with too little mass to collapse into a black hole. You can read the full article here. I found this extremely interesting since black holes are so integrated into the scientific community, it would be like Einstein's theories such as his theory of relativity being proved wrong. I am also interested to see if this newly-found discovery will affect scientists, and if so how. One thing that I find rather amusing about this mathematical discovery is that if black holes don't exist, then singularities don't exist, which has implications on the widely accepted theory of the universe's origin (*smug smirk*).
I then went to my trustworthy Facebook site, knowing that my mentor, Mr. MacKirdy, would definitely have at least a few articles for me to read. I found one picture that I had been tagged in (on the left), which I thought to be extremely cool. Nothing really deep here, I just found this fascinating.
Lastly I found an article about Harvard re-classifying Pluto as a planet. Harvard's reclassification wasn't due to new discoveries or anything, but rather, Harvard basically used reason and logic. They stated that if you have a dwarf hamster, it is still a hamster, so using the same deductive reasoning, Harvard states that Pluto is a planet. I agreed with this at first, until a fellow LA student commented on my PLN discussion asking about other dwarf planets and asteroids that are the same size or bigger than Pluto. I hadn't thought of it, so I did a little more research before replying to my classmate. After a few quick minutes of research I had found the International Astronomical Union's definition of a planet. It has to orbit around the sun, it has to have sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a round shape), and it has to have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit. If a non-satellite body has fulfilled only the first two of these criteria, it is classified as a dwarf planet. In the end, I decided that I disagree with Harvard. A dwarf hamster is still a hamster, but there is a credible difference between a normal hamster and a dwarf hamster, and the same goes for planets and dwarf planets. So I guess I'm kind of agreeing to disagree. Here is the article, so you can read all about if yourself
That was all of my PLN, but I learned a lot of new things through discussion with classmates about colleges, Ebola, medicine, sports, animal bridges, photography, and even nanotechnology. I will try to keep updating my blog on my PLN so check in every once in a while! On a side note, I found a new network to add to my PLN. It is a YouTube channel called Grant Thompson - "The King of Random" and this guy does all these incredible scientific experiments like making homemade rocket-fuel (which I have already done. It was awesome), making instant ice, and cool stuff to do with dry-ice. Very interesting stuff, and I suggest you take a look at a few of his videos.
I began my PLN learning by looking at Pinterest. After looking through some community boards about astronomy, I found a post with an article linked to which was about black holes not being real. This sparked my interest so I clicked on it and read the full article. Essentially, this professor named Laura Houghton used mathematics to prove that black holes can never come into existence because when the supernova expands right before it explodes and then collapses into a "black hole" it emits the hawking radiation, but when this radiation is emitted the star loses mass, resulting the supernova with too little mass to collapse into a black hole. You can read the full article here. I found this extremely interesting since black holes are so integrated into the scientific community, it would be like Einstein's theories such as his theory of relativity being proved wrong. I am also interested to see if this newly-found discovery will affect scientists, and if so how. One thing that I find rather amusing about this mathematical discovery is that if black holes don't exist, then singularities don't exist, which has implications on the widely accepted theory of the universe's origin (*smug smirk*).
I then went to my trustworthy Facebook site, knowing that my mentor, Mr. MacKirdy, would definitely have at least a few articles for me to read. I found one picture that I had been tagged in (on the left), which I thought to be extremely cool. Nothing really deep here, I just found this fascinating.
Lastly I found an article about Harvard re-classifying Pluto as a planet. Harvard's reclassification wasn't due to new discoveries or anything, but rather, Harvard basically used reason and logic. They stated that if you have a dwarf hamster, it is still a hamster, so using the same deductive reasoning, Harvard states that Pluto is a planet. I agreed with this at first, until a fellow LA student commented on my PLN discussion asking about other dwarf planets and asteroids that are the same size or bigger than Pluto. I hadn't thought of it, so I did a little more research before replying to my classmate. After a few quick minutes of research I had found the International Astronomical Union's definition of a planet. It has to orbit around the sun, it has to have sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a round shape), and it has to have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit. If a non-satellite body has fulfilled only the first two of these criteria, it is classified as a dwarf planet. In the end, I decided that I disagree with Harvard. A dwarf hamster is still a hamster, but there is a credible difference between a normal hamster and a dwarf hamster, and the same goes for planets and dwarf planets. So I guess I'm kind of agreeing to disagree. Here is the article, so you can read all about if yourself
That was all of my PLN, but I learned a lot of new things through discussion with classmates about colleges, Ebola, medicine, sports, animal bridges, photography, and even nanotechnology. I will try to keep updating my blog on my PLN so check in every once in a while! On a side note, I found a new network to add to my PLN. It is a YouTube channel called Grant Thompson - "The King of Random" and this guy does all these incredible scientific experiments like making homemade rocket-fuel (which I have already done. It was awesome), making instant ice, and cool stuff to do with dry-ice. Very interesting stuff, and I suggest you take a look at a few of his videos.