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 a scientist but I'd think that implying a hypothetical about dark matter can replace the law and theory of Gravity is a stretch.
The Pluto issue was ridiculous. A group of people after all these years voting that Pluto doesn't qualify as a planet. God complex much?
I'm not a scientist but I'd think that implying a hypothetical about dark matter can replace the law and theory of Gravity is a stretch.
The Pluto issue was ridiculous. A group of people after all these years voting that Pluto doesn't qualify as a planet. God complex much?
Is this how you do your job?Umm, how on earth is reclassifying an astronomical body based on new definitions in any way indicate a "god complex"?
Seriously, people need to stop whining and acting like scientists are being unreasonable because we actually do our jobs instead of catering to the sentimental whims and superstitions of the masses.
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.
Do grow up.Umm, how on earth is reclassifying an astronomical body based on new definitions in any way indicate a "god complex"?
Seriously, people need to stop whining and acting like scientists are being unreasonable because we actually do our jobs instead of catering to the sentimental whims and superstitions of the masses.
Do grow up.
It's an opinion! Not a whine. And the public doesn't have to care or bow to what a group of scientists get together and decide about Pluto.
The whiners would be those who claim a group of scientists must be obeyed without question and anyone who opposes that opinion with their own is a whiner.That just reiterates the god complex!
And the public doesn't have to care or bow to what a group of scientists get together and decide about Pluto.
Reception to the IAU decision was mixed. While some accepted the reclassification, others seek to overturn the decision with online petitions urging the IAU to consider reinstatement. A resolution introduced by some members of the California State Assembly light-heartedly denounces the IAU for "scientific heresy", among other crimes. The U.S. state of New Mexico's House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Tombaugh, a longtime resident of that state, which declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13, 2007 was Pluto Planet Day. The Illinois State Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009, on the basis that Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto, was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU.
Some members of the public have also rejected the change, citing the disagreement within the scientific community on the issue, or for sentimental reasons, maintaining that they have always known Pluto as a planet and will continue to do so regardless of the IAU decision.
I really don't think it was trivial.Of course it does. You can continue complaining over utter trivia if you want, just don't expect us to take it seriously or give it any consideration.
I really don't thing it was trivial.
It was done by a group of unqualified scientists behind closed doors.
Those kinds of shenanigans could cause a space shuttle to blow up.
Someone didn't read Post #9, did he?Says the unqualified layperson.
Why are you putting so much affection into a definition?
Any particular reason you're fond of Pluto, and not the other 100,000 KBO's?Do grow up.
It's an opinion! Not a whine. And the public doesn't have to care or bow to what a group of scientists get together and decide about Pluto.
In fact those new scientists vomited all over their colleagues in the past when they as much as determined those who called Pluto a planet at one time had no right to, and didn't know what they were talking about. And they were talking, at the time Pluto qualified as a planet, from an educated perspective. Kind of funny when Scientists turn on other Scientists.
And then those who support Science condemn the public who has an opinion about Scientists that turned on other Scientists while turning on the evidence that at one time determined Pluto qualified to be called a Planet.
Don't look for enemies on the lay public. Scientists have enough among their own to keep them quite busy for quite awhile.
The whiners would be those who claim a group of scientists must be obeyed without question and anyone who opposes that opinion with their own is a whiner.That just reiterates the god complex!
The Pluto issue is a sore spot with me.
Any particular reason you're fond of Pluto, and not the other 100,000 KBO's?
Hey AV, how many times has the Pluto gone around the Sun?
In Bible numbers, 9 is the number of divine completeness.
Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
That's a mighty big stick you've got up your behind there.Do grow up.
It's an opinion! Not a whine. And the public doesn't have to care or bow to what a group of scientists get together and decide about Pluto.
In fact those new scientists vomited all over their colleagues in the past when they as much as determined those who called Pluto a planet at one time had no right to, and didn't know what they were talking about. And they were talking, at the time Pluto qualified as a planet, from an educated perspective. Kind of funny when Scientists turn on other Scientists.
And then those who support Science condemn the public who has an opinion about Scientists that turned on other Scientists while turning on the evidence that at one time determined Pluto qualified to be called a Planet.
Don't look for enemies on the lay public. Scientists have enough among their own to keep them quite busy for quite awhile.
The whiners would be those who claim a group of scientists must be obeyed without question and anyone who opposes that opinion with their own is a whiner.That just reiterates the god complex!
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?