Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not alone, am I?
Yes, it is a big whoop.I've said it countless times before, but it is still such a weird hill to want to die on.
Pluto isn't a planet. Big whoop.
Yes, it is a big whoop.
Big enough to cause quite a stir.
Right up to the legislative level.
So while some are just shrugging their shoulders and wondering what all the hullabaloo is about, others are busy doing something science should have done in the first place: peer reviewing it.
But instead of peer reviewing it, science [illegally] voted on it.
And you guys think that's all okay.
Whatever.
Not one iota.How does Pluto not being a planet affect your life?
Not one iota.
How does the Nebraska Man embarrassment affect yours?
Well now you know differently, don't you?Yet you continually act as if Pluto being demoted is some major slight against you.
Well now you know differently, don't you?
And speaking of major slights, how about we post the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn and seemajorcolonel slights show up pronto?
Have a good day.But you do act as if it's a major slight against you. You bring it up every time that you feel science needs to be taken a potshot at when it's the smallest negative thing that science could have done. So why do you continually feel that it's something important when it's really not?
And the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn is a thing in your own country because of your Constitution. Deal with that in your own way.
Have a good day.
Well now you know differently, don't you?
And speaking of major slights, how about we post the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn and seemajorcolonel slights show up pronto?
I am unaware of any instance in which microbiologists, for example, have complained about, for example, changes in stratigraphic nomenclature decided upon by geologists. Nor any "mixed reception" to any decision on classification by scientists from one discpline, by scientists of another discipline.Public reception to the IAU decision was mixed.
QV please:I am unaware of any instance in which microbiologists, for example, have complained about, for example, changes in stratigraphic nomenclature decided upon by geologists. Nor any "mixed reception" to any decision on classification by scientists from one discpline, by scientists of another discipline.
Why this absence of concern, or indeed of support? I put it down to the fact that the majority of scientists are intelligent enough to know they lack the knowledge to offer any comment of value for something requiring expertise outside their field. And then there is just the common courtesy of not sticking your nose in where it is neither needed, nor wanted.
There has been some resistance within the astronomical community toward the reclassification. Alan Stern, principal investigator with NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, derided the IAU resolution, stating that "the definition stinks, for technical reasons".
What don't you get? Stern is part of the "astronomical community". I explicitly stated that criticism on matters of classification by scientists outside the relevant discipline didn't, to my knowledge occur. Within given communities, of course there will be wide ranging criticisms, arguments and nuclear level blow ups. That's part of how science advances.
Okay. My bad.What don't you get? Stern is part of the "astronomical community". I explicitly stated that criticism on matters of classification by scientists outside the relevant discipline didn't, to my knowledge occur.
One accepts that there are scientific objections to the theory of evolution. As a complete layman in such matters, I am content to accept that, for all practical purposes, it is morally certain - therefore not inarguably and unanswerably certain - that the theory of evolution is a fact. ISTM that even the most certain conclusions in any branch of knowledge ought to be revised, should this be required by available evidence.In another thread, someone made this comment:
If this is your sentiment as well, were you wrong about Pluto being our ninth planet?
Okay, AV, I have two questions for you.
1. How many things in our solar system do you think SHOULD be counted as planets?
2. Please give me a definition of "planet" we can use.
Pluto. Who knew that the entirety of science, the very FOUNDATION of science would so easily crumble because Pluto was demoted.
I think we all enjoyed science while it lasted. I know I did. I enjoy this computer and all these wonderdrugs that keep us all alive and healthy. But it had to come to an end one day. Now that we no longer have "science" to rely on we will need to back to good ol' religion to help us explain the universe. Thankfully there are no "rigged votes" or "bad actors" in religion.
Dr. Dino is here to show us how it is done. (I'm not sure if this is his mugshot or not)
I think the only way we're going to satisfy AV's 9 planets standard is to replace the part about sweeping the orbit with one that states that a planet has to have a mean radius of at least 1,180 km. It's a simple, arbitrary rule that lets Pluto be a planet and not Eris.
Now if we can just rig the vote to make it happen...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?