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.
In that light, I think it's safe to say that science's version of Pluto's reality took a hike, didn't it?
Does God change every time somebody "sees the light"? Or when they lose their faith?
Sure .. New Horizons was not designed to change Pluto, (obviously) .. but it was designed to alter whatever we meant whenever we spoke of the astronomical object called 'Pluto', from that point onwards, and thereby our understanding of 'what Pluto is'. Only after New Horizons imaged the surface, did 'Pluto' then (testably) mean a body with a 'heart' shaped structure on its surface, which was then named 'Tombaugh Regio' .. (a term which was completely meaningless beforehand).
Nope .. it just updated its view of objective reality with new data adding to its testable models of what Pluto is.
No. Just like Pluto didn't change one single piece of its landscape when myopic science started describing it in 1930.
No. Just like Pluto didn't change one single piece of its landscape when crooked science rigged a vote to reclassify it in 2015.Bungle_Bear said:
Some yes ... some no.Bungle_Bear said:
Is that the reality of Pluto now?
Yep .. at least science is getting more consistently understood meanings of its 'objects' .. soon Kindy kids will be drawing pictures of Pluto with a heart on it!
What reality means will always change. Its your misunderstanding that has it mean something fixed, unchanging and independent from your understanding, that's all .. dissonance, in effect.
And thus its previous version can take a hike ... right?
MY misunderstanding? LOLSelfSim said:
Meh .. its incremental .. move on.
Pluto nowadays, is still a dwarf planet. Its not like it was ever a stellar object, y'know(?)AV1611VET said:
Who cares about hypothetical science tests you never took, nor whose outcomes would ever decide upon your existence or demise!?AV1611VET said:
Show me what you learned then, instead of dodging my good point.
Well ok .. on the Pluto matter, what I was reminded of, was that what 'planet' means, is contextually dependent and the context itself, is also subject to change with new data.
Hmm .. that assessing what one has 'truly' learned, is an interesting question.AV1611VET said:
People can sometimes appear hostile out of caring to bring others into a new, more forward-looking realm of understanding .. (as opposed to seeing them being left behind and encumbered by the past, repeating the same mistakes over and over).AV1611VET said:
Even if they have to ruin their reputation doing it with a rigged vote?
Other folk think nature is in a state of decay due to the Fall, and literally groans in [thermodynamic] pain.SelfSim said:
Space.com said:
David Hammen response said:These are blatant lies.
Regarding the small number of voting members who bothered to vote, Stern was high enough up in the technical food chain to know exactly how professional societies work. Across all societies, voting on resolutions almost uniformly occurs on the last day of the society's general assembly. Most of the members of a technical society do not attend that society's general assembly, and of the few who do attend, most do not attend the final day of the proceedings. A few societies have started to transition to electronic voting, but this is very recent, much more recent than 2006.
Regarding "clearing the neighborhood," Stern either knew or should have known exactly what that phrase meant. If he did know, his statements were a blatant lie. If he didn't know, his statement makes him guilty of academic fraud, which is even worse than lying.
Stern was the lead author of a paper presented to the IAU six years before the vote occurred titled "Regarding the criteria for planethood and proposed planetary classification schemes." This paper developed a metric that shows a 5.5 order of magnitude gap between the eight planets and objects such as Pluto and Ceres. Either he knew what was in that paper / presentation (which makes his later statements a blatant lie) or he didn't, in which case he was guilty of a very serious form of academic fraud, that of forcing a subordinate to add the supervisor's name as an author. That fraud is even worse when the supervisor forces the subordinate to make the supervisor the lead author.
Here's a typical schedule for almost every professional organization's large meeting:
Most of the members of a professional organization do not attend the organization's general assembly; they are members for other reasons. Of the fraction of members who do attend, most do not attend the opening session, and even fewer attend the closing session. Voting has traditionally been very low. This tradition is changing as some societies now use electronic voting, but this is very recent.
- A meet & greet session on the evening before the meeting officially starts. This is a great time to have informal chats, to grab some free food, and to pocket the per diem. One should carpe per diem whenever the opportunity arises.
- An opening plenary session with lots of pomp and circumstance, and lots of blah-blah-blah. This a great time to either meet people in the hallways or to play hooky from the conference and tour the boondoggle of a locale where the conference is being held.
- A number of small paper sessions, poster sessions, society committee meetings, and plenary sessions for invited speakers and invited panels. These meetings, along with the vendor exhibits, are why people typically go to these large conferences.
- A closing session with lots more pomp and circumstance and lots more blah-blah-blah. This is almost universally where proposals / rule changes / resolutions are voted on. This is also almost universally a great time to take one last look at the vendor exhibits, to play hooky and tour the boondoggle city, or to be already flying home.
Since pictures are worth a thousand words, here are a couple of pictures from the 2006 IAU General Assembly voting session, one from the rear and one from the front:
Did Hammen address why a re-vote wasn't allowed?
Why should there be a revote when there is no evidence the vote was rigged which is supported by your own link.
So an apathy to voting amongst the pro Pluto camp is the reason given why Pluto was demoted; this is not vote rigging as no-one prevented them from voting or applying pressure to change their vote.
