Spiritual Core

[thaumaturgy]

And yet those astronomers in the IAU who voted against Pluto getting plutoed had access to just as much information as those who voted to have Pluto plutoed --- and they still disagreed.

But, for some reason, 100% of the people here, even w/o knowing all this information, coincidentally agreed with the vote.

And we are the sheep?

I have to admit, AV, you have me completely at a loss here. The Pluto thing has been explained to you so many times using such simple explanations that it makes me wonder if you are being purposefully obtuse or if you are simply too ignorant to understand the point. I wish I knew. I apologize if it's the latter, this is really a simple concept.

Do you honestly think that our understanding of the laws of nature changed when someone decided to finally establish a technical definition of the word "planet" instead of the previously more informal nature of the word?

I wish I could understand what your "game" is on this one. Perhaps it is because this is one of the few things you think you understand in science because it uses some words you recognize. Maybe if you bothered to listen to what people are saying instead of sitting in judgment all the time, or if you bothered to learn science before critiquing it, it might help.

Wow.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you honestly think that our understanding of the laws of nature changed when someone decided to finally establish a technical definition of the word "planet" instead of the previously more informal nature of the word?

I think the definition of the word "planet" was changed, myself --- then adretrohominemmed (how do you like that neolog?) to make it look like it was previously "informal" --- (to use your word).

Funny how we went so long with dictionaries having the wrong (or informal) definition of such a high-profile word as "planet", isn't it?

Any words in the science of geology that you know of, Thaumaturgy, that need a lexicographic upgrade?

Can you tell me beforehand, before one is voted on --- instead of after-the-fact?

And can you explain why these dissenting scientists, who voted against Pluto's demotion, didn't acquiesce to the new definition?

You would think that if your logic, Thaumaturgy, is so convincing --- then the vote should have been 100% in favor of the dictio... er... demotion.

Or do they still think the old definition is okay as it stands?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Funny how we went so long with dictionaries having the wrong (or informal) definition of such a high-profile word as "planet", isn't it?

I admit I was surprised, but that is apparently exactly what happened. I cannot help you if you think by merely insisting that reality correspond to your wishes makes it so.

Any words in the science of geology that you know of, Thaumaturgy, that need a lexicographic upgrade?

Yes, probably. In the case of mineral names when a new mineral is discovered (and yes new minerals are still discovered!) it is given an "informal" name, then later an organization called the International Mineralogical Association (IMA) codifies the OFFICIAL name of the mineral (LINK1, LINK2)

Now, do you think the mineral itself, it's physical properties, chemistry etc. change because the name changes?

I hope you don't actually believe that.

Can you tell me beforehand, before one is voted on --- instead of after-the-fact?

Do you really not understand the whole Pluto thing? I mean, honestly and really not understand what is being said to you on this matter?

I would find it very helpful because I feel sometimes I get quite aggressive with dealing with your posts. If you are challenged in some way, mentally, I would feel very bad for taking it out on you. You may not be able to help yourself.

If that is the case I sincerely (and I do mean that) apologize. I thought perhaps you weren't but clearly this whole Pluto thing has you completely flummoxed. And I really don't understand how it can be so confusing to you.

And can you explain why these dissenting scientists, who voted against Pluto's demotion, didn't acquiesce to the new definition?

-sigh-

Are you aware that scientists are humans and humans debate things that often don't have a technical resolution defined by nature itself? We are, after all talking about a word here. It isn't like they were debating whether F=ma or not.

You would think that if your logic, Thaumaturgy, is so convincing --- then the vote should have been 100% in favor of the dictio... er... demotion.

It is a word, AV. A word. You should be more than familiar with words since you like to play so many games with them.

The word planet is a word. A WORD. It wasn't written by God. Maybe that is what has you so confused. You simply aren't aware that humans came up with a word.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, probably. In the case of mineral names when a new mineral is discovered (and yes new minerals are still discovered!) it is given an "informal" name, then later an organization called the International Mineralogical Association (IMA) codifies the OFFICIAL name of the mineral

Um ... I meant high-profile words.

Like the word 'mineral', itself.

One that comes to mind (well, my mind, anyway) --- although not a geologic term --- is "plasma".

Now considered the fourth state of matter.

Amorphous solids is another --- you know --- were the molecules randomly lose their bonding --- (something like that).

There are just some things out there that refuse to be placed in a box, and I wish Pluto would have been given more consideration.

Do you really not understand the whole Pluto thing? I mean, honestly and really not understand what is being said to you on this matter?

You're the one who doesn't get it --- it's not about Pluto, per se that I'm harping on --- it's about the 100% --- that means "all" --- of the 'scientists' here who a-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c-a-l-l-y agreed with the IAU --- without question.

This is the same symptom (yes, 'symptom') that causes (yes, 'causes') them to agree with what they call PRATTs and Internet sites listing Bible contradictions, etc.

It's that read-it-don't-know-what-it-said-but-I-agree-with-it attitude that, in my opinion, is a detriment to some people here converting.

 

[TheManeki]

There are just some things out there that refuse to be placed in a box, and I wish Pluto would have been given more consideration.You're the one who doesn't get it --- it's not about Pluto, per se that I'm harping on --- it's about the 100% --- that means "all" --- of the 'scientists' here who a-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c-a-l-l-y agreed with the IAU --- without question.

Oh poor, poor Pluto. But if Pluto hadn't been demoted, we would have had to grant planet status to all the many Pluto-like objects in orbit beyond it (currently at 5, including Pluto, but with dozens of other potential candidates and counting). It was a sensible cut-off point.

If the IAU hadn't done this, Instead of the familiar 9 planets, children would have to study about many times more planets. Think of the children!

No need to automatically agree with the IAU when the rationale was available everywhere to read. Not my fault you missed it.

I'll save amorphous solids for another time when I have more time and energy. Suffice it to say that it has nothing to do with "molecules randomly losing their bonding" and more to do with how molecules pack together.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh poor, poor Pluto. But if Pluto hadn't been demoted, we would have had to grant planet status to all the many Pluto-like objects in orbit beyond it (currently at 5, including Pluto, but with dozens of other potential candidates and counting). It was a sensible cut-off point.

I think there are some in the IAU that would disagree.

If they don't disagree, why did they vote against the majority?

 

[Split Rock]

You're the one who doesn't get it --- it's not about Pluto, per se that I'm harping on --- it's about the 100% --- that means "all" --- of the 'scientists' here who a-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c-a-l-l-y agreed with the IAU --- without question.

This is the same symptom (yes, 'symptom') that causes (yes, 'causes') them to agree with what they call PRATTs and Internet sites listing Bible contradictions, etc.

It's that read-it-don't-know-what-it-said-but-I-agree-with-it attitude that, in my opinion, is a detriment to some people here converting.

The detriment to "some people" converting here is the poor quality of argument and deceptive tactics of creationists like yourself. Don't blame us for your failure to convert others here. As I have said before, you guys constitute the best argument against creationism.

As far as your point about scientists here accepting the new IAU defintion, I will give it to you one more time... None Of Us Are Astronomers. We have no real stake in the argument. As far as I am concerned, astronomers can call whatever they like a planet. It is nothing more than a definition. Got it now?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Oh poor, poor Pluto. But if Pluto hadn't been demoted, we would have had to grant planet status to all the many Pluto-like objects in orbit beyond it (currently at 5, including Pluto, but with dozens of other potential candidates and counting). It was a sensible cut-off point.

If the IAU hadn't done this, Instead of the familiar 9 planets, children would have to study about many times more planets. Think of the children!

Unfortunately with AV I think it's "think like the children".

As far as I can tell the only people who's world was truly rocked by the demotion of Pluto were grade school kids who had just spent all that time memorizing Mary's Violet Eye Make John Stay Up Nights Pining.

But of course that is precisely the "peer review panel" that AV is most likely familiar with.

No need to automatically agree with the IAU when the rationale was available everywhere to read. Not my fault you missed it.

Maneki, you aren't questioning the IAU are you? I mean, I don't want to have to report you...you would have to go to the "IAU Reeducation Camp". I know you don't want to even harbor heretical thoughts.

I'll save amorphous solids for another time when I have more time and energy. Suffice it to say that it has nothing to do with "molecules randomly losing their bonding" and more to do with how molecules pack together.

If AV is having trouble with the Pluto, imagine how hard crystallography and molecular coordination would be!

I would dearly love to see AV tackle space groups, reciprocal space or XRD in general.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I think there are some in the IAU that would disagree.

If they don't disagree, why did they vote against the majority?

Look, I've given you a hard time on this, but it isn't as fundamental as you might seem to think it is.

Here's a 2008 article about the debate (LINK)

It's a classification problem and a definition problem. As Maneki said if you don't establish a cut off in the definition then the problem balloons. Part of that ballooning is due to our ability to see more out beyond Pluto. The KBO's and the various objects out there would have to be considered planets if Pluto were considered a planet once a technical defintion of planet was established.

Nothing changed about our "Understanding" of the planets, or even about Pluto or the newly discovered KBO's. It's just a matter of calling this one or that one a planet.

Sure, its a debate. It's a debate in same way that I debate with my wife over what makes an appropriate pizza topping. She says pineapple is. I say that pineapple is not a pizza topping.

But in the end it's s a discussion around classification and definition. It doesn't really change the fundamental science or our understanding of the science.

And the fact that you keep bringing it up as if it were some indictment of the flawed "all-too-human" aspect of science is silly.

Pluto is unlike all the other planets in our solar system. Every 248 years it is the eight planet as it switches places with Neptune for 22 years, then goes back to being further out from Neptune (NASA link). For all your love of Pluto, do you keep that in mind when you used to list the planet's in order?

It is smaller than 7 of our solar systems' planet's moons! Pluto's moon, Charon, is at least volumetrically larger than Pluto.

This still is only a debate about classification and definition. Not about some fundamental law of nature.

 

[Split Rock]

Sure, its a debate. It's a debate in same way that I debate with my wife over what makes an appropriate pizza topping. She says pineapple is. I say that pineapple is not a pizza topping.

I like pineapple on pizza! How do you feel about canadian bacon?

And the fact that you keep bringing it up as if it were some indictment of the flawed "all-too-human" aspect of science is silly.

Ha! It proves that scientists are hypocritical, incompetent, SATAN worshippers who have an Anti-God, Pro-E.U. Agenda, and should be ignored when what they conclude contradicts my interpretation of scripture!!

 

[dad]

Care to explain radiometric dating to us?

That you missed that bit is indeed a scream.

Sure. We are now in a universe where there is radioactive decay. Things break down over time, into other things. They look at what is now produced by decay, for example, the daughter material, and assume that the daughter was not here already. If the universe was not the same, the daughter was here, most likely, and employed at another job.

For example. We take the ion sisters, A, and B. They were happily doing their act in the different state, and enjoyed the company of siste S. Sister S was spiritual. Together, they did a fine job. Well, wouldn't you know, the present state got here, and poor sister S had to say goodbye for awhile. Funny how this physical only state is so cruel like that.

Now all things were out of kilter, and different, and the poor sisters A and B were left here on their own. As it turns out, now sister A is producing for the show, and little sister B is just a product of decay now. They have new jobs.

We now call sister A the parent (sadly science refuses to call dear God the parent). The wise men of the temporal state, and godless knowlege, come along, and observe the decaying act. How nice, they say. We can see that sister B is being well produced, and grows into a fine girl, at a certain rate. My, she is getting bigger. At that rate, golly gee, they figure, rubbing their beard, as if they were quite wise, it would taken 2 billion years to grow into the sister B we see before us. That proves it, say they. Aren't we the clever ones.

They even have other variations of the act they look at, and, the same conclusions are drawn.

Now, oh wise men of the box, there is just one thing left to do, to make all your wonderful stories come to life, and be true. You need to prove that this temporal universe state was in effect, when the curtains opened. When the theatre was built. Not just for the little bit of the last act you happen to catch. What??? You can't do that at all, in any way, anyhow? Too bad for you.

Someone might catch on....eventually. Do try to keep that day away as long as possible now. You don't want to be out of a job, and a laughing stock of all the universes, now do you?


Hope you enjoyed your stories, kids.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately with AV I think it's "think like the children".

Is this how children think?

A resolution introduced by some members of the California state assembly light-heartedly denounces the IAU for "scientific heresy," among other crimes. The U.S. state of New Mexico's House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Tombaugh, a longtime resident of that state, which declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13 2007 will be "Pluto Planet Day". The Illinois State Senate passed a similiar resolution in 2009, on the basis that Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto, was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU.

Evidently no one around here lives in New Mexico or Illinois?

 

[TheManeki]

Saying politicians are capable of childlike thought is an insult to children everywhere. Saying politicians are even capable of thought is a bit of a stretch.

You aren't exactly helping your case, AV.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Is this how children think?

Note the word "lightheartedly". And yes, yes it is how children think. Certainly not how a dispassionate scientist would think.

Look, I owe you somewhat of an apology, AV. I was rather brutish yesterday indicating you were somehow challenged in a mental way for not getting this. That was out of line.

I recognize (honest) that this is a contentious issue, even among astroners, but really in the end it isn't a critique of science at its fundamental core. It is a critique of classification.

Imagine playing chess before someone establishes how a knight can move. If people have played chess over decades where the knight could move however people wanted it to, imagine how contentious it would be if someone said "Hey, if we keep allowing this then the game will get out of hand. Let's 'codify' how the knight moves."

That's what this debate is. It is a debate about putting limits on a word. That's all. It is a classification problem. And not a classification problem of "we simply don't know anything about Pluto". We know a goodly bit about Pluto. It has always been a weird-ball in our solar system.

Now, if someone were to suddenly claim that Mars wasn't a rocky planet but they'd discovered that they thought it was made of anti-matter tachyons or some such, then people might debate. Then it would be more fundamental.

In the present case Pluto has always been "on the edge" of acting like the regular planets and it is compounded by the fact that there was no strict definition of the word "planet" until just a couple years ago and the process of coming up with that strict definition is what is currently causing all the kerfluffle.

Evidently no one around here lives in New Mexico or Illinois?

I'm from Illinois. Yet, ironically, I feel not one care how Clyde would feel about this classification issue.

(by-the-by, my small hometown in Illinois was the birthplace of a 1950's Physics nobel laureate. In fact you and your family have probably benefitted directly from the research he won the nobel for. But if you travel through my hometown you would be hardpressed if not incapable of seeing anything about him anywhere. I didn't know this fact until I'd moved away and was in my 30's reading a science history book. I called my mom back in Illinois and she said "Oh, yeah, your dad knew this guy's sister...."

So, just because a famous scientist is from Illinois doesn't always mean we Illinoisans are going to bend over backwards to maintain some astronomical status quo.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Look, I owe you somewhat of an apology, AV. I was rather brutish yesterday indicating you were somehow challenged in a mental way for not getting this. That was out of line.

Apology somewhat accepted, my friend; but let me make something clear, so we can move on from this topic.

I understand why our 9th planet got plutoed --- but that's not the point.

The point is that 100% of the people here automatically agreed with the deomotion --- no questions asked.

And just like my Mariana Trench thread says, they will accept anything they read, as long as it was scientifically verified first --- and this, contrary to popular opinion, is faith.

Using your chess piece example, which is a good one, suppose we went centuries just moving the Knight however we wanted.

Then F.I.D.E. --- (the ruling Chess authority on this planet) --- said, "Okay, we're gonna standardize how this piece moves. From now on, it moves one square in any direction, then one square diagonally in the same direction; or to put it another way, it moves like a capital L."

Now, following that ruling, there's a knock-down-drag-out. People are thrown down the stairs, shot, pushed out windows, run screaming from the room, lose their lunches, commit hari-kari, go insane (okay, skip that one), fall to the floor writhing, set themselves on fire, etc.

Finally, when order is restored, they take a vote and it is 100-5 in favor of standardizing the move.

Now later, people who don't even play Chess (as Split Rock says, "No one here is an astronomer") see only the ruling and say, "Yup, I agree with the ruling."

Question: Do you see how someone can come along later and not understand why there's 100% agreement about the new ruling among those who don't play Chess?

Is it wrong to use this statistic (100%) as an example of how people automatically (blindly) agree with "foreign policy" (Chess is 'foreign' to them)?

 

[Cabal]

Apology somewhat accepted, my friend; but let me make something clear, so we can move on from this topic.

I understand why our 9th planet got plutoed --- but that's not the point.

The point is that 100% of the people here automatically agreed with the deomotion --- no questions asked.

And just like my Mariana Trench thread says, they will accept anything they read, as long as it was scientifically verified first --- and this, contrary to popular opinion, is faith.

Using your chess piece example, which is a good one, suppose we went centuries just moving the Knight however we wanted.

Then F.I.D.E. --- (the ruling Chess authority on this planet) --- said, "Okay, we're gonna standardize how this piece moves. From now on, it moves one square in any direction, then one square diagonally in the same direction; or to put it another way, it moves like a capital L."

Now, following that ruling, there's a knock-down-drag-out. People are thrown down the stairs, shot, pushed out windows, run screaming from the room, lose their lunches, commit hari-kari, go insane (okay, skip that one), fall to the floor writhing, set themselves on fire, etc.

Finally, when order is restored, they take a vote and it is 100-5 in favor of standardizing the move.

Now later, people who don't even play Chess (as Split Rock says, "No one here is an astronomer") see only the ruling and say, "Yup, I agree with the ruling."

Question: Do you see how someone can come along later and not understand why there's 100% agreement about the new ruling among those who don't play Chess?

Is it wrong to use this statistic (100%) as an example of how people automatically (blindly) agree with "foreign policy" (Chess is 'foreign' to them)?

You're also forgetting that those of us who aren't astronomers but nonetheless consider ourselves less wilfully ignorant than you do this thing we in the trade call "reading" - and many of us thought the whole uproar of Pluto being "demoted" unnecessary.

Just because you don't like to read things, don't tar us all with the same brush.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're also forgetting that those of us who aren't astronomers but nonetheless consider ourselves less wilfully ignorant than you do this thing we in the trade call "reading" - and many of us thought the whole uproar of Pluto being "demoted" unnecessary.

I'll bet not one of you 'less willfully-ignorant readers' would even think of voting against the demotion, would you?

You know both sides of the coin so well, that a vote against the ruling would be out of the question --- right?

In other words, you know more than the scientists who voted against it do?

(Yet none of you are astronomers? That's amazing!)

I'll bet if you guys saw a PRATT list against the Bible, you'd apply the same 'expertise' before you agreed with the list --- wouldn't you?

(Of course you guys would --- it shows.)

 

[Cabal]

I'll bet not one of you 'less willfully-ignorant readers' would even think of voting against the demotion, would you?

No, I'm sure there are non-astronomers in the same situation who read up on the issues and the points of view and came to the opposite conclusion.

You know both sides of the coin so well, that a vote against the ruling would be out of the question --- right?

No. Being against people generalising our situation to try and feebly score points against a discipline they're demonstrably prejudiced against, sure.

In other words, you know more than the scientists who voted against it do?

(Yet none of you are astronomers? That's amazing!)

No, we don't pretend to claim knowledge we don't have and then cast aspersions, that's your job.

(Remind if the USA is in the EU again?)

 

[Cabal]

I'll bet if you guys saw a PRATT list against the Bible, you'd apply the same 'expertise' before you agreed with the list --- wouldn't you?

(Of course you guys would --- it shows.)

Relevance?

I can't help it if people's attempts to explain away certain things are unsatisfactory.

Speaking of which, incest was ok before God un-ok'ed it, right? That's what you believe?

And what about things that God neither ok'ed or un-ok'ed? Are paedophilia and necrophilia ok?

 

[AV1611VET]

Speaking of which, incest was ok before God un-ok'ed it, right? That's what you believe?

No, that's not what I believe --- and you know it too --- don't you?

Let me refresh your memory: 407.