It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Do you think Pluto should still be the ninth planet?(95 posts)(95 posts)
(95 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Posted November 12, 2012
avatar
Theta_Sigma: -snip-
avatar
PenutBrittle: It's only right to restore the status of the sun as orbiting the Earth.
It's only right to restore the status of the Earth as flat.
It's only right to restore the status of the sun as Apollo riding a chariot.

By your own logic, Pluto shouldn't even be a planet in the first place since we should restore the status of the solar system to having no planets as we once believed. So yeah, it's not based on "beliefs", it's just that we have a better understanding of astronomy and you disagree out of... nostalgia I guess?

This isn't something you can agree or disagree with. I mean, you can believe that all dwarf planets should just be known as planets, or you can consider Pluto a planet in your own head, but saying it should be "rightfully restored" is a dangerous and short sighted way of looking at the world with blinders on and saying science should be based on popular pressure, not objective research.

Also your metaphor is really stupid, because Pluto doesn't give a shit about its mortgage. The point of classifying planets in the first place is to make collaboration and discoveries easier to share, not to give human rights to a chunk of rock. In my opinion, comparing the two is borderline offensive.
This is exactly the annoyance I was trying to avoid, I am neither well enough to continue this fruitless debate, nor in the mood. This will be the last I say on the matter, if anyone else has an issue with MY opinion, you can take it up with my secretary.

Umm, if you want to take that line of reasoning, anyone's logic can be taken to such pointless extremes. Just because I believe that Pluto should be restored it's planetary status, do NOT confuse that with nostalgia.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I am calling for stagnation of scientific understanding, my point is Pluto is a planet (read IN MY OPINION in case that isn't clear enough), and I am sorry but this is getting annoying having to repeat that damn phrase again. If you don't like my point of view, tough. You're welcome to disagree, but please leave the insults at the door.

Like it or not, if scientists themselves are arguing this, then it isn't a "universally accepted fact" such as gravity, or Newtonian Laws. I am stead fast in my belief that Pluto's status should be restored. If you don't like that again, that really isn't my place to change your opinion. To say it's dangerous and short sighted is rather melodramatic, it is not saying science should be based on popularity. I think you mean peer pressure, to which it seems many things fall victim to. But, I hardly consider Pluto being classified a planet is hardly something that will cause the collapse of the scientific community, if it does that's laughable.

Please leave the belittling insults at the door, unless you wish to offer a constructive criticism then all you're being is just rude. You are missing the point, it was not to compare the two literally, it was meant in a figurative sense. I was also not claiming it gave ownership to a "chunk of rock". I wasn't putting it to be offensive, if you took it that way well, sorry I guess, meh. I find it hard to care about someone's sensibilities when they are acting callus to me.

Look, I never claimed you didn't have the right to believe what you want to. However, I have been trying to avoid degrading this to petty bickering and that really isn't happening. So, I am going to take the moral high ground and discontinue this now (as this is getting to the point of making my migrains worse trying to think clearly). You can either agree to disagree or not, but I'm tired of this and it's hard to really give a damn when you spend half the day with your head in a toilet expelling the contents of your stomach. It's your choice if you wish to disagree with me, but it would be nice if you remained civil and didn't resort to petty insults please, and thank you.

Again, I'm done, so have a wonderful day. :)
Post edited November 12, 2012 by Theta_Sigma
Posted November 12, 2012
avatar
Export: -snip-
Thank you! Always happy to learn something new.
Posted November 12, 2012
avatar
Theta_Sigma: Newtonian Laws
This has nothing to do with this argument, but actually wasn't at least one Newtonian Law found to be incorrect? I seem to remember reading that he said that if the Sun suddenly disappeared, the Earth would drift off into space, and that this would happen as soon as the Sun disappeared. That would mean that the gravity was moving considerably faster than the speed of light - something like 697,168,598 MPH faster than lightspeed, so more than double. Though to be fair, I think it was more of an oversight than a belief he held.
Post edited November 12, 2012 by Export
Posted November 12, 2012
avatar
Theta_Sigma: Newtonian Laws
avatar
Export: This has nothing to do with this argument, but actually wasn't at least one Newtonian Law found to be incorrect? I seem to remember reading that he said that if the Sun suddenly disappeared, the Earth would drift off into space, and that this would happen as soon as the Sun disappeared. That would mean that the gravity was moving considerably faster than the speed of light - something like 697,168,598 MPH faster than lightspeed, so more than double. Though to be fair, I think it was more of an oversight than a belief he held.
You could very well be correct, if that is the case I'll have to read up on it. That sounds like it would be an interesting subject to study up on. Thanks for the heads up, I'll do a search on that later. :)
Posted November 12, 2012
avatar
Export: if the Sun suddenly disappeared, the Earth would drift off into space, and that this would happen as soon as the Sun disappeared.
That's magick. A statement cannot be considered incorrect just because it does not play well with magick.
Posted November 12, 2012
avatar
Export: This has nothing to do with this argument, but actually wasn't at least one Newtonian Law found to be incorrect? I seem to remember reading that he said that if the Sun suddenly disappeared, the Earth would drift off into space, and that this would happen as soon as the Sun disappeared. That would mean that the gravity was moving considerably faster than the speed of light - something like 697,168,598 MPH faster than lightspeed, so more than double. Though to be fair, I think it was more of an oversight than a belief he held.
I'm not sure how you came up with that number - if the effects of the disappearance of the Sun were felt immediately, then gravity would propagate infinitely fast, not twice as fast as the speed of light.

In any case, Newtonian gravity is the weak-field, low velocity limit of general relativity. As such, it is not strictly correct - however, it is an excellent approximation to the relativistic theory unless you are dealing with extremely massive or dense objects (such as black holes, neutron stars...).

Of course, Newton didn't know about relativity, which was only discovered about 200 years after his death. That doesn't mean he was wrong though, he just didn't know the whole story.
Post edited November 12, 2012 by spindown
Posted November 12, 2012
avatar
Theta_Sigma: -snip-
I'm rather curious where you got any insults from. Calling your wrong beliefs wrong (and yeah, you're very wrong) is hardly an insult. And if you come into a thread announcing your wrong beliefs as right, do you really expect people not to debate you?

And yes, it's a big deal whether or not you call Pluto a planet. There are a ton of dwarf planets out there, and giving all of them planetary status because of peer pressure (which is exactly what you are advocating) causes a whole host of issues that, while not reaching your melodramatic heights of total scientific collapse, still matters. For starters, that means classifying a ton of other dwarf planets as "full" planets. That makes the solar system much more complex, makes it harder to learn (mnemonic devices start to get a bit unwieldy, no?), and removes any system of distinguishing between "normal" planets and the weirdo, chunks of rock with crazy oblong orbits. It's an unnecessary complication that only confuses the issue further and hinders scientists from doing their job. The simpler the classification systems, the more potential for real research.

Plus, this would be a matter of overturning a sensible classification system developed by really experienced astronomers who do this for a living in favour of popular, uninformed belief. That's a seriously fucked up line to cross, as it proves that popular opinion trumps careful research. What if tomorrow scientists have immutable proof of something else that contradicts Newton, or Einstein? If people reject that because it doesn't jive with their own opinions, should the scientific community bow to peer pressure again? Strike it from the record to keep from challenging people's "beliefs"? They did it for Pluto, so why shouldn't they for every scientific discovery?

Arguing a scientific point by saying "it's my belief" isn't science. It's a perfectly fine way to life one's life, though rather ignorant in my opinion. But to then flip it back and try to say your belief is the "rightful" one and should be enacted as such? That's trying to treat science like a religion, and I have massive issues with that.

So sorry you're sick, sorry you got a debate anyway and enjoy your moral high ground. You're still very wrong. If you think dwarf planets should be real planets, that's a perfectly valid position to hold if you have good reasons. "Because Pluto was always a planet" and "just because" are not good reasons at all.
Posted November 12, 2012
avatar
Theta_Sigma: Newtonian Laws
avatar
Export: This has nothing to do with this argument, but actually wasn't at least one Newtonian Law found to be incorrect? I seem to remember reading that he said that if the Sun suddenly disappeared, the Earth would drift off into space, and that this would happen as soon as the Sun disappeared. That would mean that the gravity was moving considerably faster than the speed of light - something like 697,168,598 MPH faster than lightspeed, so more than double. Though to be fair, I think it was more of an oversight than a belief he held.
No, what you're talking about is the realm of Relativistic Physics and IIRC that's the result of the fifth postulate falling apart. That postulate being disproven was what led to most of the major advances in physics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_postulate
Posted November 12, 2012
Pluto should be in its own special category of "honorary planet because we thought it was a planet for years".
Posted November 12, 2012
avatar
Theta_Sigma: -snip-
avatar
PenutBrittle: I'm rather curious where you got any insults from. Calling your wrong beliefs wrong (and yeah, you're very wrong) is hardly an insult. And if you come into a thread announcing your wrong beliefs as right, do you really expect people not to debate you?

And yes, it's a big deal whether or not you call Pluto a planet. There are a ton of dwarf planets out there, and giving all of them planetary status because of peer pressure (which is exactly what you are advocating) causes a whole host of issues that, while not reaching your melodramatic heights of total scientific collapse, still matters. For starters, that means classifying a ton of other dwarf planets as "full" planets. That makes the solar system much more complex, makes it harder to learn (mnemonic devices start to get a bit unwieldy, no?), and removes any system of distinguishing between "normal" planets and the weirdo, chunks of rock with crazy oblong orbits. It's an unnecessary complication that only confuses the issue further and hinders scientists from doing their job. The simpler the classification systems, the more potential for real research.

Plus, this would be a matter of overturning a sensible classification system developed by really experienced astronomers who do this for a living in favour of popular, uninformed belief. That's a seriously fucked up line to cross, as it proves that popular opinion trumps careful research. What if tomorrow scientists have immutable proof of something else that contradicts Newton, or Einstein? If people reject that because it doesn't jive with their own opinions, should the scientific community bow to peer pressure again? Strike it from the record to keep from challenging people's "beliefs"? They did it for Pluto, so why shouldn't they for every scientific discovery?

Arguing a scientific point by saying "it's my belief" isn't science. It's a perfectly fine way to life one's life, though rather ignorant in my opinion. But to then flip it back and try to say your belief is the "rightful" one and should be enacted as such? That's trying to treat science like a religion, and I have massive issues with that.

So sorry you're sick, sorry you got a debate anyway and enjoy your moral high ground. You're still very wrong. If you think dwarf planets should be real planets, that's a perfectly valid position to hold if you have good reasons. "Because Pluto was always a planet" and "just because" are not good reasons at all.
I was stating rude, not on what you were saying, but how you said it as being insulting and belittling, at least that's how it came across. I have already said I'm finished debating this, now please just drop it. I am not advocating peer pressure, but believe whatever you wish, I am really not going to discuss this any further. Actually, because it will probably be nagging me later, I'll explain a few things.

As I have previously stated, I was purposely keeping much of my view points on the subject of the matter (and still have actually) rather ambiguous, because I have been purposely trying to avoid debating with how ill I've been feeling lately. It is actually rather physically draining for me to muster the physical energy to write out long detailed points of my views.

I will clarify, and perhaps it will solve your questions (since i find you to be more civil in how you are wording things at this juncture). I believe that all dwarf stars should be classified as planets (read if sub-groups are needed that is fine, but a main categorization of planet), and through that they should re-classify Pluto AS a planet. I realize there is more detailing needed into my reasoning, but I really don't have the mental fortitude right now to do much beyond keeping upright.

Thanks for the concern about being sick, I do honestly appreciate it. Perhaps, I was being a bit curmudgeon-y with the "moral high ground" bit, but to be honest I get rather irritable when I'm feeling like this, and I was trying to avoid being rude. I hope my previous paragraph clarifies my reasoning. It's getting harder to focus, so I'm not really sure if my points are coming across or if it's incoherent. Ugh, I really don't like how groggy these meds are making me. LOL Well groggy and loopy, to be honest. I could sure go for a cup of tea and some more curry...Sorry train of thought is getting derailed...I'll end there.
avatar
maycett: Pluto should be in its own special category of "honorary planet because we thought it was a planet for years".
Or change it's name to Goofy! :D
Post edited November 12, 2012 by Theta_Sigma
Posted November 12, 2012
avatar
Theta_Sigma: Or change it's name to Goofy! :D
No. Change its name to Yuggoth.
Posted November 12, 2012
avatar
Theta_Sigma: I will clarify, and perhaps it will solve your questions (since i find you to be more civil in how you are wording things at this juncture). I believe that all dwarf stars should be classified as planets (read if sub-groups are needed that is fine, but a main categorization of planet), and through that they should re-classify Pluto AS a planet. I realize there is more detailing needed into my reasoning, but I really don't have the mental fortitude right now to do much beyond keeping upright.
Oh there are already sub-groups within the over all category of planet, terrestrial planets and gas giants. But when this happens it means things usually get further divided up, rather than more things being brought into the definition. Already terrestrial planet and gas giants are very different beasts and it might be argued that calling both these things planets is not all that useful.

In the mean time Plutoid is a very real category, although not that widely used and will probably eventually fall out of usage all together.
Posted November 12, 2012
avatar
Theta_Sigma: Actually for starters, that is kind of part of my point, (as I have previously stated in other posts), it's all a matter of opinion. To me Pluto will always be a planet, and I think it's only right to restore it's previous status. It still isn't a majority when it's only the opinions of a few deciding what is to be thought by the whole. I realize this is usually how it works, but it doesn't make it right, either.
You have every right to think that way, and while I think your opinion about that is complete bullshit I accept your right to believe that, and speaking said opinion in a civilized manner. My point is newer, isn't always better, take for example how medical science has gone from certain foods being good...then bad...then good for you again. Many of said studies on the subject come from the same place as well. Sometimes the old ways are the best ways, not always but sometimes.
Pluto not being a planet is not matter of opinion. It is a fact. Nothing to belief nothing to have an opinion. It is simply a scientific fact.
You can question the definition by providing reasons why it is wrong which would make a pluto a planet.
but it is not an opinion of yours whether Pluto is or is not a planet.
My point if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, what is it? A duck.
Your point is wrong because it does not quack like a duck it does not look like a duck and it does not act like a duck.
its tiny (smaller than our moon)
it didn't clear its surroundings
it is 'eight planet' for 1/3 of its year
has lots of neighbours which are similar.

I do not make the argument for Pluto because it is what I was taught, so much as, I do it because it is what I actually believe, despite what another group thinks I should believe. Again, as I stated previously, if it looks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck, what is it? A duck.

That all being said, you are still entitled to believe as you wish, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions, just voicing mine.
again:

it is not matter of belief or opinion. Pluto is a dwarf planet. this is a fact, undisputed in every way.
The definition of what consists a planet is something you can argue against. You can provide reasons why it is flawed. You did not....
your argument is: 'just because it was a planet when i was growing up' is not a reason.
and again:
Majority chose the definition of the planet.

Anyway:
Pluto never again is going to be a ninth planet. It can be tenth because ceres will be fifth if pluto ever becomes a planet.
avatar
Theta_Sigma: Newtonian Laws
avatar
Export: This has nothing to do with this argument, but actually wasn't at least one Newtonian Law found to be incorrect? I seem to remember reading that he said that if the Sun suddenly disappeared, the Earth would drift off into space, and that this would happen as soon as the Sun disappeared. That would mean that the gravity was moving considerably faster than the speed of light - something like 697,168,598 MPH faster than lightspeed, so more than double. Though to be fair, I think it was more of an oversight than a belief he held.
if sun disappeared it would take eight minutes for us to notice for earth to 'fly away" gravity indeed 'travel' at speed of light.

Newtonian laws are pretty much all bullshit nowadays. They work fairly okay in everyday life but they are nothing more than fairly good approximation of the world
avatar
Theta_Sigma: ["universally accepted fact" such as gravity
the arguments about gravity faaar outweigh the arguments about pluto. there are hypothesis which actually state that gravity as we common folks understand it does not actually exists.
really picked a bad example


anyhow
pluto being not a planet is not an opinion. it is a fact.
Post edited November 12, 2012 by lukaszthegreat
Posted November 12, 2012
avatar
Ash360: In the mean time Plutoid is a very real category, although not that widely used and will probably eventually fall out of usage all together.
I really don't know why they didn't adopt the term of Plutoid as an official category. It's much more descriptive than "dawrf planet", which would suggest that they are just tiny planets, even though they aren't.
"Plutoid" on the other hand means "like Pluto". So one would only need to look at Pluto (made of ice, very small, but still large enough to have a spherical shape) and would know the exact definition of a Plutoid.
Much better than "dawrf planet".
Post edited November 12, 2012 by Fesin
Posted November 12, 2012
My opinion is that pluto is the only planet.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Do you think Pluto should still be the ninth planet?(95 posts)(95 posts)
(95 posts)