S
seeking Christ
Guest
I think it's an accurate representation of reality. Apparently we have a difference of opinion. What do we ever do now?
Upvote
0
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.
This has to rank as one of the most deliberarely dishonest posts ever made on this forum. Ever.
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?
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.
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.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!
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
Did you read Laurele's posts? if not, let me give you the cliffs notes.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.
And yet again, I'll repeat myself: Posts 5 & 9 should be sufficient to answer all your questions.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.
If you don't want to, just tell me.
The Pluto issue is a sore spot with me.
This thread demonstrates that atheists and Christians cannot even meet peacefully over one sentence from a science article.
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.
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.)
The Pluto issue is a sore spot with me.
I think it's an accurate representation of reality. Apparently we have a difference of opinion. What do we ever do now?
This thread demonstrates that atheists and Christians cannot even meet peacefully over one sentence from a science article.
No, but as I understand it, King James I was actually King James VI!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?
Did my family rename it to "Happy Gully" by taking a vote behind closed doors and locking me out?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?
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?
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?