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.
so now you are ridiculing NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, thats an interesting turn.
thanks for the comment.
Even if the page hadn't stated that it was aimed at kindergarten to 4th graders, one would be expected to notice from the way it is written what audience it is pitched at. That you didn't, or so I gather from your quoted comment, is interesting.
so that would be again poisoning the well,
if information is correct it matters not to whom the audience is.
right?
QV please:Yes, the information that the definition changed is correct. No one disagrees with that. But you specifically said you are agreeing with AV1611VET. AV1611VET argues that there is a hidden and suspicious agenda for the definition change involving skulduggery and a rigged vote no less, and that by rights Pluto should still be classified as a planet. So, when you said you still agree with AV1611VET, this is what it is assumed you are still agreeing with. If not, if in fact you don't agree with with AV1611VET on these points, this might be a good time to say so, because the next question is: do you think the source you gave to support your agreement with AV1611VET, a NASA webpage aimed at children, is the right place to look for subtext?
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.
Yes, the information that the definition changed is correct. No one disagrees with that. But you specifically said you are agreeing with AV1611VET. AV1611VET argues that there is a hidden and suspicious agenda for the definition change involving skulduggery and a rigged vote no less, and that by rights Pluto should still be classified as a planet. So, when you said you still agree with AV1611VET, this is what it is assumed you are still agreeing with. If not, if in fact you don't agree with with AV1611VET on these points, this might be a good time to say so, because the next question is: do you think the source you gave to support your agreement with AV1611VET, a NASA webpage aimed at children, is the right place to look for subtext?
okay now that we settled the matter regarding poisoning the well with NASA and (4th grade). Now we can see a changing of the bars and saying that it is in fact correct.
Thats a good thing. Now lets see what else we have here....conspiracy theory. I don't typically adhere to that btw.
But I seem to see that there were many who believe that the definition of "planet" was not coined "scientifically" until 2006. One person at least believed that, so you must decline to say that "no one disagrees with that."
Take note that NASA itself has stated the definition was changed, and gave motive. http://www.christianforums.com/t7738535-2/#post63175356
so now you are ridiculing NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, thats an interesting turn.
No one said it wasn't correct. No bars have changed.
So, finally, it turns out you don't actually agree with AV1611VET after all. That's OK, no one else does either. But you might have saved a lot of time if you hadn't said you agreed with him.
If you want to argue that the definition didn't actually change, but was instead just properly scientifically defined for the first time, then super. But it's nothing more than pointless quibbling.
OK, what 'motive' do you think you can glean from an instructional webpage for small children that is in any way worthy of further discussion?
So's Law - Any response that begins with "So..." will be followed by a straw man.
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?