Is Gravity About To Get Plutoed?

[seeking Christ]

This has to rank as one of the most deliberarely dishonest posts ever made on this forum. Ever.

I think it's an accurate representation of reality. Apparently we have a difference of opinion. What do we ever do now?

 

[[serious]]

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?

they found another object that was just as much a planet as pluto. They expect to find more as well. they were making a choice between one less and who knows how many more. they had to settle on a actual definition of planet.

 

[florida2]

Yes, jettison it.


Then do it; why demote Pluto?

I don't want to discuss why I personally don't like the demotion of Pluto, this thread isn't about me; it's about how scientists [mis]handled the Pluto issue.

So you're happy for there to be dozens or hundreds of planets if we include Pluto and then manage to skip over the 'number of divine completeness' issue that you seemed to hang your argument on earlier.

Pluto was called a planet before we had knowledge of the many other objects thanks to technological improvements. It's really not the big deal you make it out to be.

 

[Elendur]

AV, again, don't know if you missed or avoided my last post:
#110

If you don't want to, just tell me.

 

[mzungu]

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!

When you decide to do the work then you can name your work. Science discovered Pluto and science has the right to define and redefine Pluto. The definition of a Planet has changed simply because we are discovering more planet sized bodies in our solar system every year.
Pluto has been redefined as a DWARF PLANET. Case closed. If you want to stick to the medieval way of measurements where the official foot for the week was the size of the foot of the last parishioner to leave church on Sunday then be my guest.

Science does not come into your church and demand why you change things in your religion. Religion has no voice in science as science does not delve into religion.

 

[Tiberius]

Dr Famaey added, "If we account for our observations with a modified law of gravity, it makes perfect sense to replace the effective action of hypothetical dark matter with a force closely related to the distribution of visible matter."

SOURCE

Yeah, god forbid that we actually try to make our ideas about how things work any better.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you're happy for there to be dozens or hundreds of planets if we include Pluto and then manage to skip over the 'number of divine completeness' issue that you seemed to hang your argument on earlier.

Pluto was called a planet before we had knowledge of the many other objects thanks to technological improvements. It's really not the big deal you make it out to be.

Did you read Laurele's posts? if not, let me give you the cliffs notes.

She said there are currently two categories of planets. Simply make up a third category for all those other planets and stick them in it.

Yet again, here it is:

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.

And yet again, I'll repeat myself: Posts 5 & 9 should be sufficient to answer all your questions.

All I'm doing here now is repeating myself.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't want to, just tell me.

I don't want to.

 

[Elendur]

I don't want to.

Ok. I'm disappointed, but it's your choice.

 

[Quincunx]

The Pluto issue is a sore spot with me.

It is clearly that. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with foundational science.

It's a NOMENCLATURE THING.

Imagine if someone found out that King James actual name was "King Jimbles".

Would it change the Bible for you if it was ever after known as the King Jimbles Authorized Version?

Would it change the message? Would it change God and Jesus for you?

 

[Quincunx]

This thread demonstrates that atheists and Christians cannot even meet peacefully over one sentence from a science article.

No, that's not true. They can, but both parties should understand science first.

 

[Quincunx]

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.

Ohmygosh! Why didn't someone tell this to the Astronomical Union????

It would have changed EVERYTHING!!!!!

 

[Quincunx]

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.)

"Shrewdness of scientists" is rather different from religious numerological dreams.

 

[Tiberius]

The Pluto issue is a sore spot with me.

As we've seen.

However, you consistently fail to realise that Pluto has not changed. All that is changed is the label we apply to it.

Let me give you an example.

You grew up in a house, and your family had given it a name. They called it "Shady Glen."

Years later, after you were grown up and had moved into your own place, your family decided to rename the house "Happy Gully."

Now, do you think you'd be wrong to say that you grew up in a house called Shady Glen?

 

[Tomk80]

I think it's an accurate representation of reality. Apparently we have a difference of opinion. What do we ever do now?

That is very easy. Look at the faith symbols of all people involved in the discussion. It then quickly becomes apparent that it is not atheist vs Christians, as AV alledges, but people who understand science versus AV.

You can then go to any other thread AV has ever participated in, and see the exact same pattern.

 

[RickG]

This thread demonstrates that atheists and Christians cannot even meet peacefully over one sentence from a science article.

I know you don't believe this AV, but when an article is submitted to the peer review literature, they do not ask nor do they care whether the person submitting is an atheist, Christian, or spaghetti monster worshiper. What is important is that the article contains academic excellence, original research, proper methods used, and supporting evidence; all of which can be verified. Anyone can submit their research to a scientific journal, even you.

As for whether Christians and atheists here can meet peacefully over a sentence in a science article, I find that almost all hostility is instigated by those identifying themselves as Christians. So much for turning the other cheek.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is clearly that. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with foundational science.

It's a NOMENCLATURE THING.

Imagine if someone found out that King James actual name was "King Jimbles".

Would it change the Bible for you if it was ever after known as the King Jimbles Authorized Version?

Would it change the message? Would it change God and Jesus for you?

No, but as I understand it, King James I was actually King James VI!

 

[AV1611VET]

As we've seen.

However, you consistently fail to realise that Pluto has not changed. All that is changed is the label we apply to it.

Let me give you an example.

You grew up in a house, and your family had given it a name. They called it "Shady Glen."

Years later, after you were grown up and had moved into your own place, your family decided to rename the house "Happy Gully."

Now, do you think you'd be wrong to say that you grew up in a house called Shady Glen?

Did my family rename it to "Happy Gully" by taking a vote behind closed doors and locking me out?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did my family rename it to "Happy Gully" by taking a vote behind closed doors and locking me out?

If they would want a logical discussion they would to just that.

By the way, I saw Lily's claims, I did not see evidence that backed her up. Yes, the vote only involved 5% of astronomers. Were the others banned or did they not vote because they were not present? If an astronomer cannot take the time to go to a rather important meeting then perhaps they are not professional astronomers.

So, to reiterate: What evidence is there that the other 95% was locked out?

 

[Tomk80]

If they would want a logical discussion they would to just that.

By the way, I saw Lily's claims, I did not see evidence that backed her up. Yes, the vote only involved 5% of astronomers. Were the others banned or did they not vote because they were not present? If an astronomer cannot take the time to go to a rather important meeting then perhaps they are not professional astronomers.

So, to reiterate: What evidence is there that the other 95% was locked out?

Stating that they are not professional astronomers is a bit over the top. The vote was at one of the IAU conferences. Given that there are multiple conferences by multiple scientific organisations in each field each year and you can't go to all, everyone has to choose which conferences to go to.

Also, not all astronomers have planetary astronomy as their specialization, so scientists looking at star formation might have skipped this meeting for obvious reasons.