Pluto Challenge

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This thread is specifically for @AV1611VET since it's a topic he loves to bring up.

Pluto is demoted from full planetary status to dwarf planet.

It's still up in space, still going around the sun, the same as it always did since it formed all those millions of years ago.

How does demoting it from planetary status change anything about it?

 

[AV1611VET]

How does demoting it from planetary status change anything about it?

Physically ... not at all.

I can call my neighbor's dog a cat, and he'll still bark.

But if I go out of my way to violate my own standards to get the community to see my neighbor's dog as a cat, then something's wrong in Hong Kong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Physically ... not at all.

I can call my neighbor's dog a cat, and he'll still bark.

But if I go out of my way to violate my own standards to get the community to see my neighbor's dog as a cat, then something's wrong in Hong Kong.

Except that you've been shown repeatedly that it didn't, and you also only act like demoting Pluto changes something about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that you've been shown repeatedly that it didn't,

What didn't what?

... and you also only act like demoting Pluto changes something about it.

And ... let ... me ... repeat ... myself ... slower ... this ... time.

Phizz ... ick ... lee ... nooot ... aaat ... alll.

Seee ... Pooost ... Twooo.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What didn't what?

That the vote didn't violate their own standards.

And ... let ... me ... repeat ... myself ... slower ... this ... time.

Phizz ... ick ... lee ... nooot ... aaat ... alll.

Seee ... Pooost ... Twooo.

Eh, that really doesn't work when written.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

This thread is specifically for @AV1611VET since it's a topic he loves to bring up.

Pluto is demoted from full planetary status to dwarf planet.

It's still up in space, still going around the sun, the same as it always did since it formed all those millions of years ago.

How does demoting it from planetary status change anything about it?

Well, if it's no longer a planet then something must have changed, mustn't it? Don't expect me to tell you what, specifically, has changed but we all know that something must have changed because the r̶i̶g̶g̶e̶d̶ vote involved S̶a̶t̶a̶n̶'̶s̶ ̶m̶i̶n̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ scientists.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, if it's no longer a planet then something must have changed, mustn't it? Don't expect me to tell you what, specifically, has changed but we all know that something must have changed because the r̶i̶g̶g̶e̶d̶ vote involved S̶a̶t̶a̶n̶'̶s̶ ̶m̶i̶n̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ scientists.

I do have a vague memory of him saying that it goes against God's plans because it lowers the number of planets, even though there's no where in the Bible where it mentions the exact number of planets in the solar system.

 

[AV1611VET]

That the vote didn't violate their own standards.

QV please:

"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."

SOURCE

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

QV please:

"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."

SOURCE

And also from the same thread, you never answered my question of WHY Pluto was demoted.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do have a vague memory of him saying that it goes against God's plans because it lowers the number of planets, even though there's no where in the Bible where it mentions the exact number of planets in the solar system.

Is Gravity About To Get Plutoed?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is Gravity About To Get Plutoed?

So, extra-biblical flimflam then, because the verse you quote, nor the whole of Genesis 2, is the number 9 even mentioned.

 

[AV1611VET]

And also from the same thread, you never answered my question of WHY Pluto was demoted.

Something about stuff beyond Neptune.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Something about [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or stuff beyond Neptune.

Aww, damn filters! I don't know what the first one is!

 

[AV1611VET]

Aww, damn filters! I don't know what the first one is!

I used the word TEE ARE AY EN EN WY -- meaning "things that go beyond".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Something about stuff beyond Neptune.

I'll respond to this one since it's clearer: that's not still not an asnwer.

To rig something means that you want a specific outcome. According to you, the IAU wanted Pluto to be demoted, but why? What would be the reason for that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I used the word TEE ARE AY EN EN WY -- meaning "things that go beyond".

Trans-Neptunian objects? Huh, that works fine.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, extra-biblical flimflam then, because the verse you quote, nor the whole of Genesis 2, is the number 9 even mentioned.

But "the host of heaven" is mentioned.

And that would include Pluto.

In other words, if God intended Pluto as a planet, then Pluto is a planet, and I am obligated to defend it as such.

And as for 9 not being mentioned, you have to take the Bible as a whole to get the full import of 9 in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

To rig something means that you want a specific outcome. According to you, the IAU wanted Pluto to be demoted, but why? What would be the reason for that?

I don't know.

What reasons did they give?

See ... even you, who has an academic mindset, don't know why the IAU demoted Pluto.

That's because their baloney reasonings are just word salad.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But "the host of heaven" is mentioned.

And that would include Pluto.

In other words, if God intended Pluto as a planet, then Pluto is a planet, and I am obligated to defend it as such.

And as for 9 not being mentioned, you have to take the Bible as a whole to get the full import of 9 in the Bible.

Except that only in an extra-biblical reading will you read 'the host of heaven' as to mean all of the planets.

And perhaps you could share the passage where the Bible speaks about the solar system having specifically 9 planets in it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know.

What reasons did they give?

See ... even you, who has an academic mindset, don't know why the IAU demoted Pluto.

That's because their baloney reasonings are just word salad.

You're the one who's making the claim that the IAU had a reason for demoting Pluto, you say the reason.

The IAU said that Pluto doesn't meet their definition of a planet, which is a simple reason to accept. You're the one who's saying it's something else entirely.