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.
Pluto is not a planet.
Speaking of research ...And again: Laurele is wrong in several points. But he disagrees with "us internet scientists", and thus - whether you understand him or not - you use him to champion your ignorance.
I think that you, in the place of the student in your OP, would get the A+. You might have a knack at remembering data, or for looking them up.
But I am also certain, when the assignment for your finals was something that required you to research, understand, conclude, explain... you wouldn't pass. You would hand in nothing and tell the teacher: "nobody told me what the results were to be!"
QV please:AV, here's the biggest question of all time:
In the year 2000 what was the "official" technical definition of the word "Planet"?
If you can honestly answer this for us, then you will have answered your own concerns on this issue.
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.
QV please:
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.
Your analogy is poor.
If I couldn't change my name to AV1611HORSE w/o a consensus of moderators, and if only a handful of moderators rigged a vote to change my name, then your analogy would be ... analogous.
Also ... did you read the post form Laurele?
Specifically this part?
Pluto is not a planet.
No thaumaturgy, you are doing it wrong.The year is 1500 BC.
You are teaching children about animals.
You ask young Meschach to list the fowl.
He lists all of them but says he will not list "bats" as fowl.
When asked he says "I don't know".
You turn to the holy Scripture, Leviticus, in which GOD EXPLICITLY lists bats as "fowl" in Leviticus chapter 11.
In your opinion, was Meschach wrong to NOT list bats as fowl? Or was God wrong to list Bats as fowl?
Has religion changed? Has God fundamentally changed?
Does this example negate all of Judaism and Christianity?
If not, then why does the Pluto example cause problems for science? If Pluto's classification as a "planet" or de-classification as "planet" is a serious problem for science then why wouldn't this be a serious problem for God? (Science never claims perfection, but God is, by definition, perfect).
QV please:
It's the year 2000.
You are teaching senior level astronomy at a local high school.
You have a student that, for some reason, consistently leaves Pluto out of the picture as one of the nine planets.
The reason he gives for doing so is simply, "I don't know."
The final is coming up, and your students are instructed that they have one week to build a three-dimensional model of the solar system.
You warn your one student that he is entitled to believe that Pluto isn't our ninth planet if he wants to, but he must comply with standard models, or you will have to count it wrong.
He does so, and gets and A+ on the final.
Value question: In your opinion, is he wrong about Pluto?
Did that actually happen?
No thaumaturgy, you are doing it wrong.
Bats were originally fowl. But the Flood (or the Fall) caused them to decay into mammals. Before the Flood (Fall) bats had feathers, laid eggs, had beaks. Since then they decayed to skin and fur, giving living birth, lost their beaks and grew teeth instead.
So it is more evidence to the glory of god and christianity.
Levithicus was right.
And don't deny the existence of super evoltuion. The Creation Museum proves it exists
The Creation Museum Teaches Super Evolution - YouTube
I keep getting the feeling that I am missing something about your problem with how the Pluto classification changed. Would you be willing to explain why this is such an issue for you?
He doesn't really care about Pluto being a dwarf planet or a planet. All he care about is using Pluto as an example of how science is often wrong, and therefore should not be applied in any situation where his religious dogma disagrees with science.
Yes ... Split Rock is correct.He doesn't really care about Pluto being a dwarf planet or a planet.
No, that is more his challanger thing I think. Let's let him answer in his own words. I'm curious as to why he keeps bringing this up.
I don't believe Pluto is a planet anymore.He's probably just one of those people (like most of us) who were kind of saddened to hear Pluto demoted, even though it didn't really mean anything.
Pluto has always held a special fascination for most people I think since it is the "outer limit" of our solar system.
But since AV has a skewed and weird view of science he's also looking for something to use to show the 'impermanence' and "uncertainty" of science.
I assume he somehow twists this into a comfort about the permance and "rock" of the Bible and his faith which never ever changes.
That's probably why he never responds to the counterpoints that people raise about Bats as Fowl in Leviticus. (Note he never responds to that question, but responds to everything around it).
And of course he'll never really tell us what the official technical definition of a planet was in the year 2000 either, I suspect.
Both of these things would clarify so much for him if he were to address them.
But it probably won't happen because the next time he brings up Pluto we'd just point him to this thread where he answered his own question.
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?