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.
I got time off for this, and we're not going over this again.Here a three questions for you?
Except integrity.And nothing of value was lost.
Except integrity.
And yet you continue to perpetrate the myth that astronomers who voted to demote Pluto are crooks.I got time off for this, and we're not going over this again.
And they'll determine who agrees upon it, won't they?
From the OP:
Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter.
I'm second to none in bringing up the flying squirrel.I doubt it.
I think they knew something we don't.
That's why they rigged it.And the ends justified the means, didn't it?Academia attempts that.
The problem is, they think they can succeed.
Sounds like it to me.Not really.
Yes, it seems that even astronomers cannot have an election without messing around with the process. Such is sadly now the case as the vote in Prague by the International Astronomical Union to demote Pluto from planet to dwarf planet has been exposed as a fraud.
Alan Stern, principal investigator with NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, derided the IAU resolution, stating that "the definition stinks, for technical reasons".
Public reception to the IAU decision was mixed. A resolution introduced in the California State Assembly facetiously called the IAU decision a "scientific heresy".
The Illinois Senate passed a similar 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."
Sounds like it to me.
The initial draft submitted which concluded that Pluto should retain its planetary status along with including Ceres, Charon and Eris did have involvement from planetary scientists.You complained that the "planetary scientists" weren't there, but as the material from the (12 year old) post you quoted in the OP notes:
That's right, the people you are so concerned can't participate in astronomical nomenclature, aren't astronomers.
The IAU decided to create a committee to gather opinions from a broad range of scientific interests, with input from professional astronomers, planetary scientists, historians, science publishers, writers and educators. Thus the Planet Definition Committee of the IAU Executive Committee was formed and quickly went about preparing a draft resolution to put to the members of the IAU. After the final meeting in Paris the draft resolution was completed. One crucial aspect of the resolution is described by Professor Owen Gingerich, Chair of the IAU Planet Definition Committee: "On the scientific side, we wanted to avoid arbitrary cut-offs simply based on distances, periods, magnitudes, or neighbouring objects". (read more in the IAU GA Newspaper, starting on page 16 of the PDF)
International Astronomical Union | IAUThe first draft proposal for the definition of a planet was debated vigorously by astronomers at the 2006 IAU General Assembly in Prague and a new version slowly took shape. This new version was more acceptable to the majority and was put to the members of the IAU for a vote at the Closing Ceremony on the 24 August 2006. By the end of the Prague General Assembly, its members voted that the resolution B5 on the definition of a planet in the Solar System would be as follows:
A celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
(read more)
Doesn't matter.That's right, the people you are so concerned can't participate in astronomical nomenclature, aren't astronomers.
Researchers on both sides of the debate gathered in August 2008, at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory for a conference that included back-to-back talks on the current IAU definition of a planet. Entitled "The Great Planet Debate", the conference published a post-conference press release indicating that scientists could not come to a consensus about the definition of planet. In June 2008, the IAU had announced in a press release that the term "plutoid" would henceforth be used to refer to Pluto and other planetary-mass objects that have an orbital semi-major axis greater than that of Neptune, though the term has not seen significant use.
No demoted Pluto, no change in the dictionary definition of "planet."
Then ignore me.Virtually nothing you say in response to any of these leads me to believe you are interested in an actual converstion.
All's well that ends well ... right?I see a lot of laypeople complaining about something that has absolutely zero effect on their day to day lives.
All's well that ends well ... right?
Here are the IAU bylaws.Doesn't matter.
SOURCE
Notice they "could not come to a consensus about the definition of planet"?
That, in my opinion, is what would have happened if the IAU vote had been done according to their own bylaws.
No demoted Pluto, no change in the dictionary definition of "planet."
Integrity.And yet, Pluto is still Pluto. It hasn't mysteriously disappeared, nor has it careened into the sun. So what?
Yup -- the ends justifies the means, doesn't it?Considering the world has not ended, nor God has come down to say "Pluto is a planet!", all is well as it could be in the world.
Integrity.
At least Pluto kept it.
Too bad others couldn't.
Yup -- the ends justifies the means, doesn't it?
Take that up with Laurele.Here are the IAU bylaws.
Show me how the Pluto vote violated these bylaws.
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?