Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,185
- 7,496
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
You know as well as I do that Pluto was considered our 9th planet.
That has changed.
Apparently, though one could say tiny does as tiny is.Does that really affect you in any serious way though?
I asked you a simple question - what was the IAU definition of a planet before 2006? Humour us - if IAU changed the definition, what did they change it from?You know as well as I do that Pluto was considered our 9th planet.
That has changed.
It's more what they changed it with: a rigged vote.Humour us - if IAU changed the definition, what did they change it from?
No, the important part is what it was changed from. I'm sure you know the answer, that's why you're dancing round it so much. So go on - get it out there so we can all see the solid foundation of this science-shattering argument of yours.It's more what they changed it with: a rigged vote.
Do you mean to tell me that, in Pluto's case, you're more interested in what was changed, than you are how it was changed?No, the important part is what it was changed from. I'm sure you know the answer, that's why you're dancing round it so much. So go on - get it out there so we can all see the solid foundation of this science-shattering argument of yours.
I'm coming to the conclusion that you actually have no idea what the change was, do you? You're fired up and adamant that it was a momentous change, but you don't have the vaguest idea what was actually changed. All you care about is the people who made the change. That's an ad hominem fallacy.Do you mean to tell me that, in Pluto's case, you're more interested in what was changed, than you are how it was changed?
Once again:
If it was just a routine scientific undertaking, why the rigged vote?
Why are three state legislatures involved?
Why is the ADS word-of-the-year for 2006, "plutoed"?
When Pluto was redesignated, it hit me as more as a life time emotional attachment to the idea of 9 planets more than anything else. But Pluto itself hasn't changed. It's still there. And the science provided by NASA"s New Horizon Pluto flyby is still providing new insights.Indeed. Now, I do think the manner in which the vote was taken was a good example of the pettiness of interal organisation politics. I also think the new definition of planets is flawed - "clearing their orbital path" is a qualitative, not a quantitative distinction. But having thought "that's a bit off", with regard to the vote, and "that's a lousy example of a scientific definition", in respect of the that, I moved on to things that were actually important. Meanwhile, as you suggest, others seem to view incessant whining as more important.
I've shown you two links from a poster named "laurele," who would know more of this than you and I put together, as well as the Wikipedia article detailing legislation and even public sarcasm against Pluto's demotion.I'm coming to the conclusion that you actually have no idea what the change was, do you? You're fired up and adamant that it was a momentous change, but you don't have the vaguest idea what was actually changed. All you care about is the people who made the change. That's an ad hominem fallacy.
And what if scientists rigged a vote to change the name of the state you live in?When Pluto was redesignated, it hit me as more as a life time emotional attachment to the idea of 9 planets more than anything else. But Pluto itself hasn't changed. It's still there. And the science provided by NASA"s New Horizon Pluto flyby is still providing new insights.
The comprehension problem is 100% yours. I asked what the IAU definition of a planet was prior to 2006. You have repeatedly avoided answering that question. Initially I thought it was because you knew how embarrassing it would be for you to tell us. Now I realise it's actually that you have no idea.I've shown you two links from a poster named "laurele," who would know more of this than you and I put together, as well as the Wikipedia article detailing legislation and even public sarcasm against Pluto's demotion.
If you consider what I've done an "ad hominem," then perhaps you have a comprehension problem.
And what if scientists rigged a vote to change the name of the state you live in?
Would you justify it by claiming "nothing's changed"?
Better yet, what if a shrewdness of scientists got together and demoted Rhode Island to the status of "dwarf state" by rigging a vote based on what they considered an inappropriate definition of "state" in the dictionary?
Would you take a star off of the American flag, then claim "nothing's changed"?
Who cares? I never even heard of the IAU prior to Pluto's demotion.I asked what the IAU definition of a planet was prior to 2006.
I get hives and writhe in pain all night long, often waking up in a sweat just in time to make it to the bathroom.But how does Pluto being changed from a planet to a dwarf planet personally affect you? How?
I get hives and writhe in pain all night long, often waking up in a sweat just in time to make it to the bathroom.
This poster is not responsible for the actions of any church outside of his parking lot.Funny. For a group that says God tells them what to do and when to do it.
I never even heard of the IAU prior to Pluto's demotion.
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?