How many of you believe the Earth is flat? Go.......

VonBonfire said:
Is pluto a planet or is it not? What defines a planet? What defines a planet today may not define a planet tomorrow. Today it's a planet, tomorrow it is not planet. Seems purely speculative and "truth" is then defined by consensus, rather than actual truth. Sounds kind of like today's political scene.
Click to expand...
Pluto is a dwarf planet. It hasn’t sufficiently cleared its orbit of objects besides its moons.
 
giphy.gif
 
VonBonfire said:
This is kinda why I don't believe. "Come, let us speculate so that we may know the truth."
Click to expand...
Anryir was like, "Yeah I totally knew that the moon was in Earth's atmosphere" ...that they decided in 2019, after they took another look at some data from a probe launched in 1995.
 
VonBonfire said:
Is pluto a planet or is it not? What defines a planet? What defines a planet today may not define a planet tomorrow. Today it's a planet, tomorrow it is not planet. Seems purely speculative and "truth" is then defined by consensus, rather than actual truth. Sounds kind of like today's political scene.
Click to expand...
A planet is 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.

They changed the definition to include (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit... Pluto therefore does not satisfy this.

The reason for adding (c) is really to exclude large Kuiper belt objects.
 
There is no such thing as transgender by the way. There is only male and female. The word trans-gender implies you can move across genders. That is impossible. You are the gender/sex that you were born with.
 
Thumbpicker said:
They changed the definition to include (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit... Pluto therefore does not satisfy this.
Click to expand...
Making it up as they go along, changing definitions, doesn't bolster their claims. First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is....
 
VonBonfire said:
Making it up as they go along, changing definitions, doesn't bolster their claims. First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is....
Click to expand...
The word planet goes back to antiquity and the ancients used to think it was simple - they used to know about the planets out to Saturn - that's it... but really any sized object can orbit a star from a pebble to gas giant. If you said a planet was something that orbits a star but it's the size of a pebble then most people would say well that's not a planet... but at what point does the pebble get big enough to constitute a planet... If we said it's when it's large enough that gravity forms it into a spheroidal object then that's well and good but how close to a sphere does it have to be... You see it's all very grey... Then when objects are out in the outer solar system with the comets are they a planet or a large comet? are they an asteroid... Most planets in the inner solar system clear out all the asteroids in their path and they become part of the planet. However way out in the oort cloud and the kuiper belt it's too far out to gather all the small asteroids into a larger body... They are really just large comets/asteroids etc... Also if an object is larger than a planet but is actually a moon and orbits a planet is that a planet? Some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are bigger than Mercury.

This is why I say the word planet is really just a convenience in our language. Better off just describing what the object really is and stop obsessing over the word.
 
acceptance said:
Click to expand...


wow, "oversimplifying scientific knowledge, misinterpreting research, and promoting false equivalences" is the perfect way to describe your posting habits here lol. I don't care to read the article, but that is also the most neat and succinct description of bullshit MAGA logic that I could ever imagine.
 
Aynirar27 said:
wow, "oversimplifying scientific knowledge, misinterpreting research, and promoting false equivalences" is the perfect way to describe your posting habits here lol. I don't care to read the article, but that is also the most neat and succinct description of bullshit MAGA logic that I could ever imagine.
Click to expand...
You’re going to have to be more specific Beaker. I haven’t bothered reading the article either but I can tell they are just using fancy words that might approximate “feelings” but aren’t truly applicable. Suspect you’re doing the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top