The part in bold is just nonsense. That's an argument reductio ad absurdum. You're taking the argument to a ridiculous proportion for no reason.
.
Your words again:
You want my answer to whether I think Pluto is or isn't a planet? It's simple: I don't care. Pluto could be a planet, a dwarf-planet or a giant ball of twine. It doesn't matter. I made no statement on whether I thought that Pluto was a planet
As it is (as y
ou already made clear before coming in this thread elsewhere that you did not specialize in science anyhow), You made a claim that you couldn't care less if Pluto was a ball of twine - so it is rather pointless talking about things being absurd when you made an absurd response saying you don't care if Pluto is a ball of twine. By your logic, the Sun and the other planets can be seen as basketballs and called such since it's not a concern. But as said before, if it wasn't a concern, you'd not be here.
As it is, your responding with a nonsensical answer does not show at any point where one was not already set on derailing the discussion - as the discussion is simple: Define why you feel Pluto should not be a planet or why it should be a planet - and address why there are political protests. It's already inconsistent of you being here complaining when you already are doing an argument ad absurdum insulting others in the science community when bringing up an ad-hominen about "What does this mean to others you're around personally?" when that was not even the conversation in the OP
If you feel it does not matter, then make a thread stating such - but please do not come into the threads of others and derail a thread when you are unable to focus on the discussion since the focus is on what teachers, scientists and others take seriously when it comes to definitions in the classroom.
As said before, if you were not concerned at all originally, , then you should not have remained on a discussion. However, obviously the issue means something to you since you're active here in a thread trying to make an issue as if it's about anything personal when you tried to interject that into a discussion not even focused on that. Focus.
But you weren't on the panel either. So you have no business questioning whether the decision to reclassify Pluto as a dwarf-planet was right or not. This whole thread really just smacks of the Duning-Kruger effect.
Once again, you are derailing the conversation since the conversation was about what scientists on the panel and other scientists off of it have already said who work with NASA and other scientific councils. That was spelled out in the OP and thus you have little business talking on others concerning the classifications when you already stated you don't care.
If you don't care, then there's no need speaking in a thread as if you do since it is obviously the case that others taking seriously whether textbooks are accurate (i.e. not saying something is conclusive but an issue of varying opinions - no different than evolution vs. creationism debates) are a problem for you with all of the interjections you seem determined to give. People concerned with what's taught in the classrooms are involved in threads discussing them - and by your logic, it'd be like talking to people debating on creationism vs. evolution in schools and bringing up the silliness of "Well, you're not a scientist so why are you questioning if your students are taught inaccurate info? I don't care" ........
..no one cares whether you care if they are discussing with others who do.
Your responses smack of Don Quixote in full when chasing the wrong issues and then asking others to defend something that wasn't discussed.
Of course the definition of planets will not have a thorough consensus. Do you know how many planetary bodies exist out there? Billions! We have only scratched the surface of the universe with Earth based telescopes and telescopes attached to satellites. In the future, we will very likely find more planetary bodies that will further test what we know about the universe.
That again has nothing to do with the issue, as it concerns the reality of teaching something as 'fact' for all when ignoring how not everyone was present to vote on it - and share their thoughts in the textbooks. No one is arguing whether there are billions of planetary bodies out there - so again, you need to deal with the OP rather than coming into it discussing what was not a focus. The focus was on the bodies within our own solar system - which determine how we view others outside of it we've yet to go to.
And no, I will not watch the video because it's bad form to go on to a forum and in presenting an argument to simply say "Go watch this video"
Actually, it's argument via selective attention where you go a
bout focusing your attention on certain aspects of the argument while completely ignoring or missing other parts. It is silly coming into a discussion pertaining to what the scientific community has said - with a documentary being the main topic/focus - and then avoiding that while presuming to talk/ask questions when you were disrespectful to the OP.
People don't need to answer questions that have little to do with a topic you've yet to show awareness of in the OP - and as it is not your thread, one can make their own if wanting to do things their own way. But derailing is and will always be disrespectful and needs to cease.
. Actually explain what views are presented in the video instead of telling me to find them
You already derailed and it's no one's job to do your homework as if people are that slothful to bring up things you cannot do in simple basics. Again, if you cannot do a basic review of a video, there's no need to speak. Simple.
I've checked out the links you provided (not touching the mic.com one since... well, it's mic.com. I wouldn't touch that site with a ten-foot pole, and the sciencemag.com isn't linked to talking about Pluto).
.
Assertion is not the same as demonstration, as your personal bias against a website does not show information to be false. From mic.com:
On Wednesday, two scientists published a report in the Astronomical Journal about newly discovered evidence of the ninth planet, dubbed "Planet X" or "Planet Nine," in our solar system. According to a press release from the California Institute of Technology, where the research was conducted, astronomers Michael E. Brown and Konstantin Batygin have yet to locate the actual planet, but argue for its existence because they have observed odd behaviors of six small orbiting bodies far away on the Kuiper Belt, an elliptical plane that houses celestial bodies like Pluto.
These bodies loop outward in the same quadrant and at about the same angle but never collide, which is extremely rare, according to the New York Times. According to the astronomers, the best explanation for this gravitational pull is a big, unknown planet. The ice-cold planet would be the fifth-largest, at about two to four times the diameter of Earth, according to the Washington Post. It would also be at least 20 billion miles away, which means it would take between 10,000 and 20,000 years to orbit around the sun. It takes Earth just 365 days.
Read more:
° NASA Releases Never-Before-Seen Image of a "Psychedelic Pluto"
° You're Going to Heart What Scientists Just Discovered on Pluto
You making a claim on mic.com does little to show an evidence false in way of what other scientists have said - so ignoring the reality of Planet X (from
There May Be A Giant Ninth Planet, Called "Planet X," In Our Solar System ) is silly - an attempt at poisoning the well. Moreover, it's silly talking on the first link not talking on Pluto (as discussed
Astronomers say a Neptune-sized planet lurks beyond Pluto ) since (again) that was not the focus of the OP. What was discussed in intro was that others have said Pluto does not need to be seen as a planet since Planet X is considered to be Pluto. Plenty of scientists have discussed that issue, so referencing the matter before going into discussing why Pluto should be considered a planet is not odd.
As said there:
Let's declare Pluto as a dwarf or sub dwarf planet AND a planet! This is about the vexed question of whether Pluto is a planet or not. Yes the International Astronomical Union "settled the question" but I'm not sure their decision is one that will work all the way into the future, for instance if we find Earth or Neptune sized objects beyond Pluto. And it also stretches language in an awkward way to say that Pluto is a dwarf planet but not a planet - and the English word "dwarf" seems to have little to do with the concept of clearing your neighbourhood.
Their decision doesn't have unanimous support amongst astronomers. Alan Stern of the New Horizons mission is one of those who argues strongly that Pluto is a planet. Note that he is one of the two authors of the paper that introduced the idea of "Clearing the neighbourhood" which the IAU used to motivate their decision that Pluto is not a planet. Indeed the ones who are most against their decision are planetary scientists, and the decision, it seems, was made by astronomers most of whom study stars and galaxies and such like rather than planets, so don't have to live with this awkwardness in their daily life so much.
There are plenty of people to explain why it is a dwarf planet and not a planet. This originated as my answer to the Quora question "How can Pluto be called a "dwarf planet" if it's not a planet?" - so see the other answers to that question for more about this.
Again, for someone who doesn't claim to care, you show a lot of investment failing to discuss the issue. And as you avoided dealing with anything remotely showing you addressed the links - be it
Friday at 9:59 PM or
Yesterday at 12:52 AM or
Yesterday at 1:42 AM and multiple other places - failing to even give quotes - it is not taken seriously.
The first link, is a blog. It is not a scientific website, it's a persons personal website. Do you know what that means? It means it's a website about a person's opinions. In fact, in the very first paragraph of that page, the person outright states: "In my opinion this was a mistake." Opinion =/= scientific fact.
Logical fallacy, as something being from someone's personal thoughts is not opposite from scientific fact when there are multiple places (which you obviously avoided) where they both cited/referenced what others in the scientific community already noted. Scientists/physicists and those who are science teachers have blogs they reference thoughts from the scientific community - Do you understand what a scientific blog is? Do you understand the concept of what happens when scientists on their blog share their own research and reference other scientific communities/projects and documented research?
As it is, it was another false assertion on your part since it was NEVER said that all that followed in discussion was the person's personal opinion. For the
exact quote:
As the New Horizons spacecraft approaches the amazing Pluto system for an historic flyby in July, 2015, it’s inevitable we should discuss whether Pluto is a proper planet or only a “dwarf planet” as the International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted in 2006. The IAU’s definition of a planet says that it must (1) orbit the sun, (2) be large enough to be rounded by gravity, and (3) have cleared out its orbit [by flinging away or absorbing the smaller bodies that once tried to share that orbit]. Pluto meets requirement parts 1 and 2 but not part 3, so it was defined as merely a dwarf planet, and according to the IAU a dwarf planet is not a subcategory of planet
but is a separate category. In my opinion this was a mistake. However, the interest in Pluto’s planethood is a great opportunity to discuss science! So let’s not miss it. Here are nine reasons why Pluto is a planet.
A great opportunity to discuss science is the focus - and what followed after that were several scientific websites referenced from the man on the issue discussing science (As goes the subject here in this thread).
And as it concerns the individual, he is a scientist engaged in dialogue on what is said in the scientific community. His own bio:
Meet Phil Metzger…
Dr. Philip Metzger is a planetary physicist who recently retired from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, where he co-founded the KSC Swamp Works. He now is now at the University of Central Florida — but still a part of the Swamp Works team — performing research related to solar system exploration: predicting how rocket exhaust interacts with extraterrestrial soil, investigating the mechanics of soil, characterizing lunar and martian soil simulants, modeling the migration of volatiles on airless bodies, etc. While at NASA he led the Agency’s work in rocket blast effects for human-class missions. He participated in architecture studies for the Lunar Architecture Team, the Mars Architecture Team and the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group, and he helped develop NASA’s technology roadmap for planetary surface technologies. He has also led projects to develop extraterrestrial excavators, regolith conveyance technologies, dust-tolerant quick disconnects, lunar/martian landing pads, and other surface systems technology. He co-founded NASA’s biannual Workshop on Granular Materials in Lunar and Martian Exploration and is a founding member of the ASCE Technical Committee for Regolith Operations, Mobility and Robotics. He received the astronaut’s Silver Snoopy award in 2010 and was selected as the Kennedy Space Center’s NASA Scientist/Engineer of the Year for 2011.
Follow Phil on Twitter @DrPhiltill to get more cool, space-relate
As he works at NASA - and the director of NASA feels Pluto is a planet - of course I take seriously what the scientific community says. You do not, however.
Again, there's no need to be baseless in the logic you're using when you did not show where the person was either not a scientist themselves or not referencing science since what you're sharing is largely your opinion - and we already know you don't care about scientific definitions. You also avoided where they noted at several points what other scientists said opposite of your own view, so enough with the cherry picking. Quote if you're going to make a point - but don't speak in false assertions with zero evidence of someone saying something.
The second link is complete garbage! It's a tabloid website! It has zero scientific merit to it. One of the 'points' that the article's writer makes about why Pluto should be a planet is the fact that the mnemonic device used to remember the planets ("My Very Elderly Mother Just Sits Until Night Passes") would be wrong. First of all, it wouldn't be wrong, since you could just remove Passes, and it would still work (My Very Elderly Mother Just Sits Until Night) or even change Night to Nighttime, and it would still work. But that is not a valid, scientific reason to say that Pluto should be kept as a planet.
Again, reference - in regards to
7 Reasons Why Pluto Should Be The Solar System's Ninth ...as it never good to claim something false as if it will be accepted because you brought it up and one does not merely assert as you did without giving any quotes whatsoever and poisoning the well is never a good strategy since trying to ridicule a link does not show that one actually addresses in verification what a website was about.
As said plainly in the link:
NPR and NASA were referenced, but by your logic (and lack of addressing facts), NPR and NASA are now tabloid. Of course there were aspects of the piece which were aimed at humor, but the facts referenced were the facts...as noted before:
The International Astronomical Union demoted Pluto to a dwarf planet in 2006, and a good number of astronomers are still pretty heated about the move years later. Some argue that planets should be determined based on shared physical characteristics as opposed to the IAU's three criteria, of which Pluto only meets two.
Claiming 'tabloid website' doesn't show a website tabloid and you've given no evidence of such - so one can try again if wanting to be taken seriously, as that wasn't even in the OP.
Seriously, If you cannot produce any credible arguments, besides the fact you're derailing the thread failing to address anything, you're on ignore.
If you want people to take you seriously, actually post pages from scientific magazines on the topic instead of just people's unscientific opinions on the matter.
Remember: Opinion =/= scientific fact
You already ignored several scientific magazines referenced - both in the OP and other places - and as already said before:
Charles Bolden, head of the American space agency, can still call Pluto a planet
As another said best:
The size factor So Pluto is small, but so is the Earth. At least in comparison with giants like Jupiter. If you paid attention to the mass of Earth and the mass of Jupiter, and then the mass of Pluto as opposed to the mass of Earth, you would be able to see an interesting comparison. The size of Earth compared to the size of Jupiter is very like the size difference between Pluto and Earth. So, how can we honestly use this as an indication? Who says how big we have to be in order to be part of the group? Sounds like unfair judgment to me! Size shouldn’t matter, remember… But I get it, we have to draw the line somewhere.
...The unique factor Pluto is in the Kuiper belt, I know. But it’s different than those other ice chunks and rocks. Pluto, Ceres, Eris and other dwarf planets are large enough for gravity to pull them into nicely formed round shapes. Pluto is also orbited by five moons, has a rocky core surrounded by an ice mantle and a thin atmosphere. With this being said, Pluto has more in common with planets in our solar system than objects in the Kuiper belt. To me, this is enough to include her into our group.
.....Because Pluto is part of the various ice and chunks of rock in the Kuiper belt, it’s considered a “non-planet”. According to the IAU, Pluto has not “cleared its neighborhood”. A funny thing about that is, the Earth gets hit with just as many asteroids and comets as Pluto. What’s the difference? Just like Ceres, now classified as a dwarf, was once considered a planet when discovered in the 1800s, Pluto has been reclassified by its neighbors. I guess this makes sense as a disqualifying factor or does it.
As
said there for an excerpt WITH one reason to start (among the 9 Reasons Pluto is a Planet:
Pluto is not that small
When people explain why they think Pluto is not a planet, they say it’s just too small. Neil deGrasse Tyson asks, if Neptune were the size of a Chevy Impala, then what size car would Pluto be? His answer: it would be a matchbox car. Thus, “Pluto had it coming.”
Comparing planet sizes. All are to scale. Credit: leSud. License CC BY-SA 3.0, modified by addition of Pluto.
In my opinion, this favoritism toward larger planets isanthropocentric bias, similar to thinking that planets revolved around the Earth. It turns out the majority of planets are indeed small, and Pluto is in the middle of the size range. Using Mike Brown’s list of probable dwarf planets, keeping all the bodies that are larger than 300 km (because they are probably large enough to be rounded by gravity), it turns out there are 184 bodies in our solar system large enough to be planets. Of these, Pluto is the 17thlargest.1 That puts Pluto in the 88th percentile for largest planets! Since we are still discovering smaller planets, its rank is likely to climb to somewhere between the 90th and 95th percentile. That will give Pluto an “A” grade as one of the top planets of our solar system.
But in any case, size is not the essential feature of classification in other branches of science. Let’s look at some examples:
Scientific Classifications
Classification Small Large Size Factor (mass)
Planets Kuiper Belt Object 2010GB174 (600x smaller than Pluto) Jupiter 95 Million times
Mammals Etruscan Shrew Blue Whale 101 Million times
Reptiles Brookesia micra chameleon Dreadnoughtus schrani dinosaur 361 Million times
Fish Docypris progenetica Whale Shark 4 Billion times
Galaxies Segue 2 IC 1101 15.3 Billion times
Here are some graphics that help to make this point:
Top credit: Matt Martyniuk. License CC BY-SA 3.0. Bottom credit: Frank Glaw, Jörn Köhler, Ted M. Townsend, and Miguel Vences, license: CC BY 2.5.
The Etruscan shrew is much tinier than a human finger and is not even visible in the comparison with a blue whale. Top credit:Kurzon. Bottom credit: Trebol-a. License CC BY 3.0.
All these categories have size ranges that are bigger than the range of planets in our solar system. Are planets the only things in nature that aren’t allowed this beautiful diversity?
Pluto is mid-range in the sizes of planets. Returning to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s illustration, a Chevy Impala is actually 64 times longer than a Matchbox Car whereas Neptune’s diameter is only 21 times bigger than Pluto’s, so it turns out Neil’s example exaggerates by a factor of 3. In terms of volume, it exaggerates by a factor of 27. Even if it had exaggerated by a factor of 100,000 it would make no difference in helping the argument against Pluto. Reptiles, mammals, galaxies – so many categories of nature – have size ranges thousands or even hundreds of thousands times larger than the range between Neptune to Pluto.
Pluto is most definitely large enough to be a planet.
Previously, Had no idea there were debates asking "-- is Pluto yet to be determined as a planet, exoplanet, or not a planet at all ?"...From what I've seen, it's a rather intricate debate.....but it is still up to be seen as a planet again.
Someone reminded me on the ways that there's always evolution in the way things are done - that things are not always the same based on the times you live in. They told me "planets, manmade defintions (which rely on categorization) are always a bit fluid (just waiting for more data or a new framiong mechanism)"....and it's the same with ministry when people make an idol out of what they know but they don't even realize there was always more than one definition.
What is fascinating about Pluto is the way that the debate on the world itself has literally been about scientific minds disagreeing within their own community and the culture around it saying "It doesn't matter what you guys say when Pluto has moons around it and other objects - it is a planet."
Someone told me recently "as Yannaras points out, you cannot exhaust truth by referring to the associated definitions, and knowedge of the definitions is not the same as knowledge of truth"...
Often, size masks significance and we end up dismissing those things having powerful impact because it doesn't fit our assumptions. It has been fascinating to see why it makes sense that some of the most beautiful things are often neglected in the saddest of ways - even as others see its true beauty
And for other reviews..
And of course, as you could not deal with one explanation or even listen to what other scientists have said on the issue ....be it
Friday at 9:59 PM or
Yesterday at 12:52 AM or
Yesterday at 1:42 AM and multiple other places while failing to even give quotes.... it is not taken seriously.
As you had little concern for a scientific documentary on the issue, please do not speak on being taken seriously when it's obvious you really don't care about anything scientific and instead care more so about voicing your opinion on anything you don't like others discussing. You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
And as said before, please stop trying to derail the thread.
