Is Gravity About To Get Plutoed?

[AV1611VET]

He touched on the reason earlier in the thread. Apparently the number 9 is the number of divine completeness, so having what used to be the 9th planet of the solar system, Pluto, demoted is, as he says, "a sore spot" for him. At least, that's what I've managed to glean from his outraged postings on the subject. He seems to have taken the demotion as a personal insult.

You're a breath of fresh air among a shrewdness of scientists.

(For the record though, it's not exactly a personal insult. It just bugs me.)

 

[AV1611VET]

I always thought he brought it up as an example of science getting something 'wrong', which of course would add zero credibility to his own position even if it were true.

Turns out the real reason is even dumber than that.

... I'm only allowed one reason?

 

[AV1611VET]

We jettisoned Pluto as well, and you still can't stop crying.

Tell that to the New Mexico House of Representatives on March 13th and see if you don't get escorted off the premises.

 

[TLK Valentine]

This is why I have the file that I do in the Fav. Movie portion of my profile.

QV please: 9

So what?

This isn't about definitions, chief.

but of course it is -- some people get awfully testy when things are redefined without their input -- it reminds them that their input is neither needed nor wanted in many situations.

Some people don't like being reminded of their own insignificance.

Tell that to the New Mexico House of Representatives on March 13th, and see if they don't escort you off the premises.

Why? Their opinion on the matter is almost as insignificant and unqualified as your own.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Tell that to the New Mexico House of Representatives on March 13th and see if you don't get escorted off the premises.

What do I care what they think? Why should I try to educate the intractably unwilling?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You're a breath of fresh air among a shrewdness of scientists.

(For the record though, it's not exactly a personal insult. It just bugs me.)

Ah, so it interferes with your Biblical numerology, and as such, diminishes your beliefs -- therefore, it must be... edited to order to appease you?

Get over yourself -- and tell the New Mexico House of Representatives to do likewise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell that to the New Mexico House of Representatives on March 13th, and see if they don't escort you off the premises.

Why?

Ya ... good question.

It's easier to ridicule one man who disagrees with Pluto's demotion, than take on a whole political body, isn't it?

You "scientists" aren't really interested in how I feel about it, are you?

If you were, you'd actually investigate it and see what others think ... (not that you'd actually care).

But hey, a scientist actually investigating something? when he can just ridicule a Christian on the Net? sounds like fun, doesn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

What do I care what they think?

Good question.

Why should I try to educate the intractably unwilling?

Good question. They just might see your POV and change their minds.

Then you guys couldn't Nero us Christians for the USA's failure to be #1 in the world on the techo totem pole.

 

[Adaephon]

Ya ... good question.

It's easier to ridicule one man who disagrees with Pluto's demotion, than take on a whole political body, isn't it?

You "scientists" aren't really interested in how I feel about it, are you?

If you were, you'd actually investigate it and see what others think ... (not that you'd actually care).

But hey, a scientist actually investigating something? when he can just ridicule a Christian on the Net? sounds like fun, doesn't it?

1. Yes, considering there's no point to it

2. No, we aren't interested, and there isn't any reason to put scientists in quotes

3. What reason would we have to investigate peoples feelings?

4. You do realize scientists have more interesting and rational things to study than public opinion polls, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Yes, considering there's no point to it

2. No, we aren't interested, and there isn't any reason to put scientists in quotes

3. What reason would we have to investigate peoples feelings?

4. You do realize scientists have more interesting and rational things to study than public opinion polls, right?

Excellent!

(Albeit in a sad sort of way.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Get over yourself -- and tell the New Mexico House of Representatives to do likewise.

You tell them.

I want to see the look on your face when you "scientists"* step on the wrong toes.

You might be a hot shot in the lab, but elsewhere, you're just people with pocket protectors and white coats.

* And yes, I know you're not a scientist, per se; I believe you're a professor of literature.

(If you are who I think you are.)

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Tell that to the New Mexico House of Representatives on March 13th and see if you don't get escorted off the premises.

Why? Did they think there was something special about the number nine too?

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell that to the New Mexico House of Representatives on March 13th and see if you don't get escorted off the premises.

Why? Did they think there was something special about the number nine too?

I doubt it, I'm sure there are more reasons than just mine as to why some would want Pluto kept as our 9th planet.

In fact, scientist, speaking of "nine," did you read Post #9, where the answer to your question can be found?

Here, in the spirit of the Movie File in my profile,* I'll qv it for you:

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.

*
Fedex - even for MBA graduates - YouTube

 

[Nabobalis]

No one will listen to the New Mexico's House of Representatives. It doesn't change anything. Pluto is still not a planet, but a dwarf planet. Unless the New Mexico's House of Representatives can get the IAU to change the definition, nothing will change. No whining, no laws, no nothing.

Like I said, you will never get the number 9 in the amount of planets of this solar system.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like I said, you will never get the number 9 in the amount of planets of this solar system.

How is it we did from 1930-2006?

 

[Tomk80]

How is it we did from 1930-2006?

Changing the definition has been under discussion since the '70s. The issue came to a head due to the discovery of other dwarf planets like Eris, Quaoar, Sedna and others. Especially the discovery of Eris in 2005.

While you always choose to remain living in your fantasy land where such discoveries did not happen, the rest of the world chooses to live in reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

While you always choose to remain living in your fantasy land where such discoveries did not happen, the rest of the world chooses to live in reality.

Not New Mexico ... not Illinois ... not the California State Assembly ... to name just a few.

 

[Tomk80]

Not New Mexico ... not Illinois ... not the California State Assembly ... to name just a few.

Then these people are as insane and (willfully) ignorant as you. Their legislation has as much effect on the definition of planet as your feable objections, namely non at all.

So what should we have called Eris according to you? If you want to be consistent, there are two options. Option 1, name it a planet. You would than have to include the other dwarf planets as well, increasing the number of planets in the solar system to at least 14, with the possibility of increasing the number of planets to 1,000 or more. Option 2 is excluding it from the planets, but then to be consistent you have to exclude Pluto. There is no middle road here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then these people are as insane and (willfully) ignorant as you.

Ya ... are hoal werld am ignit, cept yoo guys, ai'nt wee?

 

[Tomk80]

Ya ... are hoal werld am ignit, cept yoo guys, ai'nt wee?

Well, I'm terribly sorry that your pretty wee li'l feewings are hurt by me saying that, but has the IAU changed the definition of planet in order to accomodate the legislation in those states? No. Are they going to? No. Making legislation of which you know it will not have any effect whatsoever, and on issues that you know nothing about in the first place, cannot be described as anything else than insane. It has nothing to do with "us knowing better", or any of your other childish wee li'l insults.

It doesn't have anything to do with that.

Again, we discovered a new dwarf planet that was bigger than Pluto and around the same distance from the sun. Apparently, according to you, we should just have pretended that that did not happen. That is insane to say the least.

Coming from you, it is also extremely hypocritical. One the one hand, you lambast "scientists" for allowing thalidomide. But here, you lambast "scientists" for taking new information into account. What you are proposing here in "thalidomide-speak", is that we should just have continued using thalidomide after we had shown conclusively that it is harmful. The position you take in this matter is basically that we should not act on new information when it is available. It is hypocritical, dumb, insane, and when applied to other fields it is extremely dangerous.