Challenge Thread: Were you wrong about Pluto?

[dlamberth]

* Remember: you went from 0 to 60 in just 10 posts.

It took a few more than 10 post, but you went from the question of being right or wrong about Pluto being our 9th planet to crooked scientist.

Wow.

Isn't that good enough to believe a handful of crooks demoted Pluto?

People a lot more knowledgeable than you and I put together say Pluto should still be a planet.

Okay with you if I agree with them? or should I go with your snap decision otherwise?*

* Remember: you went from 0 to 60 in just 10 posts.

At this point after 240 posts, I'm a bit confused on the point your trying to make. You started out with the question of right or wrong. Now it's about crooked scientist. Or is there some other point out there in the horizon that your looking at?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Is that what you call a rigged vote? "humans being human"?

Can't you be a little more specific in this case? like "scientists being crooked"?

I know you don't like to admit it, but scientists are human. So you're just complaining about "humans being crooked."

So I'll ask again - why perpetuate the lie that science is to blame?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why even care that Pluto is no longer the 9th listed planet?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Is that what you call a rigged vote? "humans being human"?

Can't you be a little more specific in this case? like "scientists being crooked"?

An even older example of rigged voting. Only 300 of 1800 invitees participated. Who/what should we pin this rigged vote on?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who/what should we pin this rigged vote on?

Sinners.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Sinners.

Using your logic and standards I say we should blame Christianity. I win.

 

[AV1611VET]

Using your logic and standards I say we should blame Christianity. I win.

What about your scapegoats?

1. big pharmacy
2. big government
3. big management

 

[Hans Blaster]

What about your scapegoats?

1. big pharmacy
2. big government
3. big management

Sounds more like your scapegoats.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What about your scapegoats?

1. big pharmacy
2. big government
3. big management

Were they around in 4th century? Were humans responsible? No? Then let's lay the blame where it belongs - Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Were they around in 4th century?

Was Pluto our ninth planet in the 4th century?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was Pluto our ninth planet in the 4th century?

This question makes no sense as written. You are unclear in your definition of the word "planet"?

And this is why scientists redefined the meaning of the word planet. By usage Pluto was not a planet in the 4th century. But then neither were Neptune or Uranus. In the fourth century "planet" meant wandering stars. Or since they did not know what stars were either it merely meant "wandering light". Words are always changing in meaning. When scientists realized that there was no consistent definition of the word planet they had to come up with a new one. As a result Pluto was no longer a planet due to the new definition. No malice was involved. No hatred of Pluto fans. Just facts.

In the fourth century there were only five planets. Do you want to go back to that definition?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Was Pluto our ninth planet in the 4th century?

No, it wasn't. That's also irrelevant to the Congress of Nicenae being a rigged vote. Christianity was (by your standards) corrupt long before IAU made its decision.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm a bit late to this rather silly thread, but what exactly is, (or what do you mean by) a 'rigged vote'?

<whine> 'They stole the election...'

Remind you of anyone?

 

[Yttrium]

Then ... for the umpteenth time ... quit whining about it and give me something better to use as a poster child.

Until then ...

How about the Steady State Theorem? Would that work?

 

[AV1611VET]

How about the Steady State Theorem? Would that work?

Was the SST pwned by a rigged vote?

 

[Yttrium]

Was the SST pwned by a rigged vote?

Oh, is it just the "rigged vote" thing you have a problem with? Science is done by consensus, and the consensus has gone the way of accepting the definition of a planet as an object in the solar system that rounds itself with it's own gravity, doesn't orbit a planet, and clears its neighborhood of planetesimals. Which Pluto doesn't fit, due to that last bit. If the majority of astronomers and astrophysicists didn't want to go along with the "vote", we wouldn't be using that definition now.

If we stuck with the old definition, then Pluto would still be a planet, but it wouldn't be the 9th any more. Ceres would become the 5th planet, making Pluto the 10th. And we'd also add in Haumea, Makemake and Eris as planets.

 

[Gottservant]

In another thread, someone made this comment:
If this is your sentiment as well, were you wrong about Pluto being our ninth planet?

My position is that "planet" or not, naming it should follow Benford's or Zipf's law.

The trouble is we don't have enough data of celestial bodies, to know where to draw the line (between planet and asteroid)?

 

[Phred]

It took a few more than 10 post, but you went from the question of being right or wrong about Pluto being our 9th planet to crooked scientist.

At this point after 240 posts, I'm a bit confused on the point your trying to make. You started out with the question of right or wrong. Now it's about crooked scientist. Or is there some other point out there in the horizon that your looking at?

You're confused? I thought it was obvious. Science bad. Everyone involved with science bad.

 

[Phred]

My position is that "planet" or not, naming it should follow Benford's or Zipf's law.

The trouble is we don't have enough data of celestial bodies, to know where to draw the line (between planet and asteroid)?

What's the "we" stuff? That's exactly what the IAC decided. And it wasn't between planet and asteroid.

Here's a hint... when you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Don't talk.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

"Okay everyone, this is how we describe a planet. These are planets, including this cute one over here."
Neat!
"Update: We have new definitions for the classification of planets. Pluto doesn't fit the new definition."
Oh no! Well, thanks for the update. I guess that means I can't be fairly convinced of anything anymore! Stupid changing definitions undermining actual perceived phenomenon!