The Pluto Issue

[AV1611VET]

How apt!

Too much science in the OP?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Too much science in the OP?

I already clarified my position on this fuss.

 

[Kylie]

This bears repeating:


(Now I don't have to go dig it up from my archives every time I need it. )

You do realise that changing what we call Pluto doesn't actually change anything about Pluto itself, right?

 

[Kylie]

What's this then?

Jude 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

That was a little after Adam's time ... but God's translators took care of it.

Okay, and how many planets does the Bible say there are?

 

[AV1611VET]

You do realise that changing what we call Pluto doesn't actually change anything about Pluto itself, right?

That is correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, and how many planets does the Bible say there are?

It doesn't say.

Thus, to be true to my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

... you would think I should claim there are eight.

But seeing as Pluto was demoted by way of a rigged vote, I'm sticking with nine.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Dr. Becky's recent video talk about the latest development on the 'planet' category might be interesting - see 16'19" into this video:

 

[AV1611VET]

Dr. Becky's recent video talk about the latest development on the 'planet' category might be interesting - see 16'19" into this video:

Interesting how she makes a distinction between the scientific definition of a planet and the common definition of a planet.

She talks about how the common people viewed the word, but makes it sound like scientists knew better.

When Pluto was discovered in 1930, she says it was a time when astronomers were more concerned with other things (expanding universe, space travel) and apparently overlooked some things.

Then, when the Space Race became popular, astronomers apparently got back on focus and caught their mistake.

I'm not buying it.

Had all that been true, the IAU would not have had to rig the vote that got Pluto demoted and the definition changed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Interesting how she makes a distinction between the scientific definition of a planet and the common definition of a planet.

She talks about how the common people viewed the word, but makes it sound like scientists knew better.

When Pluto was discovered in 1930, she says it was a time when astronomers were more concerned with other things (expanding universe, space travel) and apparently overlooked some things.

Then, when the Space Race became popular, astronomers apparently got back on focus and caught their mistake.

I'm not buying it.

Had all that been true, the IAU would not have had to rig the vote that got Pluto demoted and the definition changed.

Whatever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever.

All she is doing is widening the rift between science and the common people.

It was a SCIENTIST ... not a common person ... a SCI-EN-TIST that codified Pluto as a planet in the first place.

Then, when they demoted Pluto later, they expect the common and religious sectors of society to automatically agree with them immediately: no probationary period allowed.

History repeats itself, doesn't it?

Remember Galileo?

Scientists taught that Earth was the center of the solar system, if not the universe; and the Catholic Church followed suit.

Later, when Galileo dared disagree, scientists and Catholics had him placed under house arrest.

But scientists, acting under pressure to view new evidence and new discoveries, changed their mind.

But when the Catholic Church and general population refused to ... well ... look at how geocentrists are treated today.

Some are considered mental cases.

 

[AV1611VET]

Frumious, tell me why, at 16:55, she giggles like a schoolgirl when she talks about Pluto about to be re-classified as a planet?

Why didn't she frown?

To her credit, she does roll her eyes later, when she makes that point that a bunch of other objects will be considered planets, but this back-and-forth vacillation of Pluto's status smacks of Pluto being demoted prematurely.

You know? like by way of a rigged vote?

Nebraska Man was just the opposite.

First codified as a missing link, then PROPERLY plutoed to its proper place as a peccary tooth.

Pluto was first codified as a planet, then IMPROPERLY plutoed to a dwarf planet; and now is threatening to be reclassified back to its original status.

And I'm almost certain that, if that happens, any common person who would dare still consider Pluto a dwarf planet the next day will be considered by some to be a mental case.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually AV is right here. The term used in the original Greek version of that passage is "Asteres Planetai" which literally means "wandering star", but was the term that the Greeks gave to the planets, which is the source of the English word "planet".

And the Greeks had seven planets (each represented by a god) just like the seven days of the week. Hmmm.

One of these "wandering stars" was indeed a star. Five of them are still called planets. The last has been visited by people.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Frumious, tell me why, at 16:55, she giggles like a schoolgirl when she talks about Pluto about to be re-classified as a planet?

Why didn't she frown?

You'll have to ask her that, I don't speak for her.

 

[sjastro]

You'll have to ask her that, I don't speak for her.

There is a behind the scenes version of this video.
She is the unfortunate victim of a practical joke where she inadvertently put her right foot into bucket full of live eels.

 

[Kylie]

It doesn't say.

Thus, to be true to my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

... you would think I should claim there are eight.

But seeing as Pluto was demoted by way of a rigged vote, I'm sticking with nine.

So, you're willing to abandon your standards then.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you're willing to abandon your standards then.

I'm not going to go with what science says, if science rigged a vote to say it.

So, no.

I'm not abandoning my standards.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not going to go with what science says, if science rigged a vote to say it.

So, no.

I'm not abandoning my standards.

So when you say, "If the Bible says nothing and sceince says something, go with science," you really mean, "If the Bible says nothing and sceince says something, go with science if and only if I feel like it."

 

[AV1611VET]

So when you say, "If the Bible says nothing and sceince says something, go with science," you really mean, "If the Bible says nothing and sceince says something, go with science if and only if I feel like it."

No.

 

[Yttrium]

I'm not going to go with what science says, if science rigged a vote to say it.

So, no.

I'm not abandoning my standards.

Well, in this case you have a lot of support from many scientists.

 

[sjastro]

I'm not going to go with what science says, if science rigged a vote to say it.

So, no.

I'm not abandoning my standards.

You have no standards to speak of if you refuse to give names.
Who exactly rigged the vote?
Was Lars Lindberg Christensen one of them, who announced to the world the IAU's decision?
As I have mentioned previously Lars was very gracious in organizing information exchange between myself (a rank amateur astronomer) and professional astronomers at ESO on image processing as part IAU's philosophy of fostering closer ties between astronomers and the general public.
This doesn't seem to be consistent with the behaviour of a corrupt organization.

So who are these corrupt individuals plus the evidence they rigged the vote.