Consent

[AV1611VET]

No one was excluded from the decision,

Bologna.

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed.

SOURCE: 1

 

[bhsmte]

Bologna.



SOURCE: 1

AV,

Why don't you get a poster of Pluto and hang it on your wall, it might make you feel better.

 

[AV1611VET]

We figured out a better alternative, helium.

How coincidental.

Right after the Hindenburg disaster, I take it?

Amazing how scientists "figure out things" after a disaster occurs, isn't it?

Like Thalidomide, the Hindenburg, Vioxx, changing [Tylenol] capsules to caplets and others?

 

[[serious]]

How coincidental.

Right after the Hindenburg disaster, I take it?

Amazing how scientists "figure out things" after a disaster occurs, isn't it?

Like Thalidomide, the Hindenburg, Vioxx, changing [Tylenol] capsules to caplets and others?

Yeah, after a 30 year history of helium filled air ships catching fire, they suddenly switched after one of the many such fires.

EDIT: Also, right after 15-years-before-the-hindenburg, the US navy announced it would be switching to helium as quickly as possible. coincidence? No, another, unrelated burning airship.

 

[MikeCarra]

Amazing how scientists "figure out things" after a disaster occurs, isn't it?

Unlike the Holy Bible. It talked about leprosy a LOT, but guess when Leprosy was actually cured (and didn't require the Son of God to be directly in front of you)?

 

[MikeCarra]

I doubt he will.

Selectivity is just as powerful.

No, I HAVE and indeed it is correct. Almost all the YEC I meet on here and they thrive with the two holy sacraments of Creationism:

1. Doubt for doubt's sake
2. Denial of other people's points ("ignoring" the science)

 

[AV1611VET]

Unlike the Holy Bible. It talked about leprosy a LOT, but guess when Leprosy was actually cured (and didn't require the Son of God to be directly in front of you)?

Leprosy in the Bible is a picture of sin, an no scientist on earth can cure that.

Only the Great Physician, aka the Son of God, can do that.

 

[RickG]

Bologna.

SOURCE: 1

Rubbish AV. An agenda was published ahead of the conference and all members of the IAU were aware of this. The fact that they chose not attend is their problem. Furthermore, your information does not come from the IAU, rather sources that have sour grapes just like you.

If Pluto remains a planet, then we have to add 40 more planets. That is beyond ridiculous. Grow up and get your information from the original source instead groups that are outside the IAU that are not even professional scientific organizations.

UNDERSTAND?

 

[AV1611VET]

Rubbish AV.

Sez you, Rick.

An agenda was published ahead of the conference and all members of the IAU were aware of this.

You were there?

The fact that they chose not attend is their problem.

And why did they (planetary scientists) choose not attend?

Did they not take it seriously? did they not know about it?

They are going to write up a definition for "planet," and of all people, planetary scientists chose not to attend?

Something's fishy in Denmark here.

Furthermore, your information does not come from the IAU, rather sources that have sour grapes just like you.

Ya ... ya.

Look who's being sour?

And according to Mr. I-used-to-live-in-California's fake indignation, the California assembly were legislating in jest.

If Pluto remains a planet, then we have to add 40 more planets.

And as laurele pointed out in the link I provide you, that didn't stop scientists from adding to the Periodic Table of the Elements -- did it?

That is beyond ridiculous.

Why don't you quit talking like you were there.

Maybe our own Mr. "Question Everything" has some questions about this?

Nah -- I doubt it.

He's as slective as you guys are.

Grow up and get your information from the original source instead groups that are outside the IAU that are not even professional scientific organizations.

You first -- instead of acting like you have some inside information.

UNDERSTAND?

Don't yell at me, Rick; or I'll report you.

 

[RickG]

Don't yell at me, Rick; or I'll report you.

Oh! Please do.

AV, over my professional career as a chemist, I belonged to several professional organizations. I know how they operate, and it is not the way you or your sources portray it. Meeting agenda's and proposals are sent to all members in advance of meetings.

Here is the IAU news release of that meeting in 2006.

IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result of the IAU Resolution votes | Press Releases | IAU

And a news release specific to Pluto.

Pluto and the Solar System | IAU

And just in case you miss it, here are the specifics as to how the decision was reached.

"Q: How did astronomers reach a consensus for a new definition of planet?
A: The world's astronomers, under the auspices of the International Astronomical Union, deliberated on a new definition for the word planet for nearly two years. The results of these deliberations were channelled to a Planet Definition Committee and ultimately proposed to the IAU General Assembly. Continued evolution of the definition through debate and further discussion allowed a final consensus and vote."
​

NOTE THAT IT WAS DELIBERATED FOR TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING.

Again, it was not an ad hoc decision by just a few people.

There, AV. Absolute proof of what I previously posted is fact. Not something I made up as you incorrectly assert. What is your "sour grapes" source, some blog by non professionals?

GOT IT THIS TIME?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is your "sour grapes" source, some blog by non professionals?

How about dissenting astronomers?

Astronomers who oppose this decision hold that Pluto should have remained classified as a planet, and that other dwarf planets and even moons should be added to the roster of planets along with Pluto.

SOURCE

Will that do as a substitute for "some blog by non professionals"?

 

[bhsmte]

Oh! Please do.

AV, over my professional career as a chemist, I belonged to several professional organizations. I know how they operate, and it is not the way you or your sources portray it. Meeting agenda's and proposals are sent to all members in advance of meetings.

Here is the IAU news release of that meeting in 2006.

IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result of the IAU Resolution votes | Press Releases | IAU

And a news release specific to Pluto.

Pluto and the Solar System | IAU

And just in case you miss it, here are the specifics as to how the decision was reached.

"Q: How did astronomers reach a consensus for a new definition of planet?
A: The world's astronomers, under the auspices of the International Astronomical Union, deliberated on a new definition for the word planet for nearly two years. The results of these deliberations were channelled to a Planet Definition Committee and ultimately proposed to the IAU General Assembly. Continued evolution of the definition through debate and further discussion allowed a final consensus and vote."
​

NOTE THAT IT WAS DELIBERATED FOR TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING.

Again, it was not an ad hoc decision by just a few people.

There, AV. Absolute proof of what I previously posted is fact. Not something I made up as you incorrectly assert. What is your "sour grapes" source, some blog by non professionals?

GOT IT THIS TIME?

Well stated and crystal clear.

I bet AV still uses it though.

 

[AV1611VET]

FYI, Rick, QV:

Pluto Planethood Debate? Stern Challenges Tyson

 

[AV1611VET]

Well stated and crystal clear.

I bet AV still uses it though.

Read it and weep:

The vote to demote Pluto was rigged

 

[bhsmte]

Read it and weep:

The vote to demote Pluto was rigged

Ok, I had a good cry, now what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, I had a good cry, now what?

You can talk to the hand from now on.

 

[RickG]

How about dissenting astronomers?


SOURCE

Will that do as a substitute for "some blog by non professionals"?

Good grief. The dissenters were political entities.

California State Assembly
New Mexico's House of Representatives
Illinois State Senate
American Dialect Society

Nevertheless, in that meeting (conference), they also created a new category into which Pluto and other like objects are know officially known as a "dwarf planet".

Simply put AV, the 2006 conference provided an official set of criteria that defines a planet. Pluto does not meet all of those criteria.

Based on your dissent, do we need to reclassify the Earth as the center of the universe?

Now tell me AV, do you now understand that it was not an "ad hoc" decision brought up at a meeting of which no one was aware of previously and did not exclude the greater astronomical community?

 

[RickG]

FYI, Rick, QV:

Pluto Planethood Debate? Stern Challenges Tyson

So?

The article does not support your position.

 

[RickG]

Read it and weep:

The vote to demote Pluto was rigged

Pure rubbish AV. Even the dissenter Stern, has no problem with the "dwarf planet" designation. Again, the classification was not an "ad hoc" decision excluding anyone, not even Stern. He needs to address the IAU, not Tyson.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, the classification was not an "ad hoc" decision excluding anyone, not even Stern.

We can yak our opinions back and forth, can't we?

I can recall speaking with an astronomer who was in attendance at “the particular” meeting in which Pluto was demoted. It took place supposedly on the last day of the meeting and most of the attendees had departed. It “may” have been an “ad hoc” resolution–added at the very end of the day, as well?

I believe you are correct. I had a friend that attended that meeting as well and he said they waited until almost all the delegation had left before they brought this up to a vote at the last meeting of the conference. It always sounded like back room politics to me. And, as Mordnicus pointed out, there still is no real definition of what a planet is, only what it is not. Technically, the moon is a planet, but I am not sure it qualifies as anything currently.

SOURCE