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.
It changed when Neil Tyson learned he could make money off of it.
Ahhh, so I see your possible problem. You have no idea what I mean by the term "technical definition"! You appear to assume that common definition is the same thing.
Sorry, I thought you were following the debate. No, there was no technical definition of a planet prior to 2006. The word Planet is much older but the technical definition is not.
If you wish to define all "worlds" orbiting a star, be my guest. You will run into the exact same problems as the IAU did. Will you count the larger KBO's as planets? You will have to.
This is kind of why they decided to define more strictly.
I would hope you would have a better understanding of science and technical defintions before you launch into a scientific discussion.
You could possibly be more wrong but I would be hard pressed to figure out how that would be.
Not even close.
And, of course, that is precisely why I brought up (and others brought up other examples) of terms in the Bible apparently changing.
Whether it was a translation issue or a change in classification. AV1611VET is "KJV Only" which means only the language of 17th century England as it was used in the Bible is considered.
In his defense he ends up having to make up entirely new types of animals ("fowled bats" as he calls them) in order to maintain his KJV Only literalism. It isn't even a good defense, it is a strange excursion for a literalist to take.
WRONG! There was not technical definition for "Planet" prior to 2006 (info)
Science decided to codify the definition more strictly and in light of what we know about the Kuyper Belt Objects and stuff out there Pluto fell into a new category of "Dwarf Planet".
No. No it doesn't. His point is a word game. It says nothing about science other than people hadn't developed a strict technical definition for Planet until 2006.
If that is an indictment of science then I think that it misses the point altogether!
So before there was a genus and species for, say, a certain dinosaur, are we to assume that that dinosaur never existed????
even in your link which is wikipedia,
is says nothing of a "technical" definition,
I assume you mean the scientific definition?
funny I see in the first google search a scientific definition from back in the 1600's
"modern scientific sense of "world that orbits a star" is from 1630s."
However language stears science terminology.
It changed when Neil Tyson learned he could make money off of it.
You can't let this go, can you? Ok then, so here we go.
From thesaurus.com:
technical [tek-ni-kuhl]
Synonyms: abstruse, high-tech, industrial, mechanical, methodological, occupational, professional, restricted, scholarly, scientific, special, specialized, technological, vocational
Now that we left that behind, for the history of the definition:
"Before the discoveries of the early 21st century, astronomers had no real need for a formal definition for planets."
"Because a new planet is discovered infrequently, the IAU did not have any machinery for their definition and naming. After the discovery of Sedna, it set up a 19-member committee in 2005, with the British astronomer Iwan Williams in the chair, to consider the definition of a planet."
Source: IAU definition of planet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Technically, there was never a scientific definition of the term Planet before 2006. When the Greeks observed the sky thousands of years ago, they discovered objects that acted differently than stars. These points of light seemed to wander around the sky throughout the year. We get the term "planet" from the Greek word "Planetes" - meaning wanderer."
"It was the recent discovery of an object larger than Pluto within the Kuiper Belt that changed everything. Is this object, now named Eris, our 10th planet since it is larger than Pluto? This discovery and the naming of this new object prompted the IAU to discuss a scientific definition for the term planet."
Source: Mission:Science
even in your link which is wikipedia,
is says nothing of a "technical" definition,
I assume you mean the scientific definition?
It changed when Neil Tyson learned he could make money off of it.
I will never understand the KJV only movement. To me it seems to verge on idolatry, they are arbitrarily assigning infallibility to one translation that was made 1600 years after the fact, as if Jesus Himself came down and translated it personally.
It was a rigged vote, in my opinion.Ummmm...what about all the other astronomers who voted for the change?
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. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused. Why would they refuse to reopen a debate unless they were insecure about their stand? Meanwhile, this issue continues to be debated in other venues, such as the 2008 Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in August 2008 (which I personally attended), the American Geophysical Union, and the European Geophysical Union.
The IAU decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASAs New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term dwarf in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Plutos orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless.
Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. You can find out more by Googling "Laurel's Pluto Blog."
A decision should not be blindly accepted as some sort of gospel truth because a small number of people decreed it so. The IAU can decree the sky is green, but that doesn't make it any less blue.
One argument often used in favor of demoting Pluto is the fact that another planet was discovered beyond Pluto and that with many more possible small planets in the Kuiper Belt, we could end up with "too many planets" in our solar system. Well, there is no such thing as too many planets. At one point, we thought Jupiter had four moons. Now we know it has 63, and more may be found. Should we limit the number of moons because otherwise, there will be too many to memorize? Should we limit the number of elements in the Periodic Table because kids won't be able to memorize that many? The fact is, memorization is not a very useful learning tool. At one point, we knew little more about the planets than their names and order from the Sun. That is not true today. It is more important that kids understand what distinguishes the different types of planets.
If we use the alternate, broader term that a planet is any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star--which many planetary scientists prefer over the IAU definition--we can then use subcategories to distinguish the types of planets. While we previously recognized two subcategories, the terrestrials and the gas giants or jovians, the new discoveries show us there is a third class-the dwarf planets. These are planets because they are large enough to be rounded by their own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium--but of the dwarf subcategory because they are not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. In fact, Dr. Alan Stern, who first coined the term "dwarf planet," never intended for dwarf planets to not be considered planets at all. If this one area is amended so the IAU resolution establishes dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, much of the controversy would evaporate.
It was a rigged vote, in my opinion.
So it doesn't matter if it was rigged or not? so long as it was right in your eyes?In my opinion it was the right decision, otherwise we would have 23 "planets" in the solar system now, and possibly many more in the future.
So it doesn't matter if it was rigged or not? so long as it was right in your eyes?
Why won't you ask yourself those same questions? Why does it matter to you if Pluto falls into the newly defined dwarf planet group?
9 is a groovy number.
So it doesn't matter if it was rigged or not? so long as it was right in your eyes?
Did you read her comment about "too many planets"?
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?