Pluto is no longer a planet?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

esteemedleader said:

They fine-tuned the system.

To their own liking.

[EsteemedLeader©]

Well yes, since it is THEIR system. Unless you want them to continue using a faulty system just because you can't get over a superficial definition change.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

esteemedleader said:

Well yes, since it is THEIR system. Unless you want them to continue using a faulty system just because you can't get over a superficial definition change.

Well my point was more or less who determines whether it was stupid or not. We define our world and what's around us. Someone could say it's a planet tomorrow and change it back, therefore making it a planet. So who is right and wrong is totally vague and subjective as we've seen. Who defined flat? Was flat pre-defined? No. We use things as a means to communicate and what is convienent for us.

[EsteemedLeader©]

'Flat' and 'planet' are hardly comparable.

Flat is flat. We're never going to recieve information that challenges 'flat'.

But the more we learn about the universe, the more gray we get between the black and white. As the efficiency of the term changed, the term itself changed.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

esteemedleader said:

'Flat' and 'planet' are hardly comparable.

Flat is flat. We're never going to recieve information that challenges 'flat'.

They're very comparable because we labeled all of these things and conditions apply or they're exceptions to all of them. None of mankinds systems for definitions are perfect... for example:

esteemedleader said:

But the more we learn about the universe, the more gray we get between the black and white. As the efficiency of the term changed, the term itself changed.

Just because there was an area of gray, or some ambiguitiy doesn't mean it had to be removed, I'm sure the change was minor. Here's an ambiguity.

Rhombos: A shape that has at least 2 90 degree angles.

Rectangle: A shape that has 4 90 degree angles.

Squre: A shape that has 4 90 degree angles and 4 even sides.

Now, taking higher level math you can see conditions in which the Rectangle and Rhombus completely fill the specifications required to be a square, because there are times when a rectangle *can* have all even sides, and there is a time when a rhombus can have even angles and sides. So is there a point to having a square?

[EsteemedLeader©]

Yes, because it helps to organize the data. Whether we need it or not, doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea.

The idea is that we now have a smoother running system. Now it will be easier to define other celestial bodies.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

esteemedleader said:

Yes, because it helps to organize the data. Whether we need it or not, doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea.

The idea is that we now have a smoother running system. Now it will be easier to define other celestial bodies.

But if you agree that this is vague like you did about the planet, then that is basically saying there is no need to remove Pluto. If you disagree, then you are saying there's no point to the square. What is this "defining" system, because it wasn't hard in the first place.

[EsteemedLeader©]

To put it in the simplest terms I possibly can:

Pluto was never really a planet in the first place. Eventually, they looked back and said "Why the fuck is this called a planet? Let's change it."

It's like a dolphin. Earlier people called it a fish, because it swam and lived in the ocean. But dolphins breathe air and do not lay eggs, so "fish" came to mean a creature that lived in the ocean, breathed water, and laid eggs. And the dolphin was now a mammal.

But it was really always a mammal in the first place.

See?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

esteemedleader said:

To put it in the simplest terms I possibly can:

Pluto was never really a planet in the first place. Eventually, they looked back and said "Why the fuck is this called a planet? Let's change it."

It's like a dolphin. Earlier people called it a fish, because it swam and lived in the ocean. But dolphins breathe air and do not lay eggs, so "fish" came to mean a creature that lived in the ocean, breathed water, and laid eggs. And the dolphin was now a mammal.

But it was really always a mammal in the first place.

See?

So what makes what a planet then? You already agreed the terminology was vague.

[EsteemedLeader©]

admin said:

esteemedleader said:

To put it in the simplest terms I possibly can:

Pluto was never really a planet in the first place. Eventually, they looked back and said "Why the fuck is this called a planet? Let's change it."

It's like a dolphin. Earlier people called it a fish, because it swam and lived in the ocean. But dolphins breathe air and do not lay eggs, so "fish" came to mean a creature that lived in the ocean, breathed water, and laid eggs. And the dolphin was now a mammal.

But it was really always a mammal in the first place.

See?

So what makes what a planet then? You already agreed the terminology was vague.

They're making it less vague. That's the point.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

esteemedleader said:

admin said:

So what makes what a planet then? You already agreed the terminology was vague.

They're making it less vague. That's the point.

My point is everything is subjective in the corest of forms.

[EsteemedLeader©]

No. If it works better for them, then it works better for them.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

esteemedleader said:

No. If it works better for them, then it works better for them.

Then that could be said to anything that appeals to any person correct? Why should we go by it? It's about what appeals to the majority really.

But in the end, it all comes down to the fact that noone really cares in the first place.

[warmunger]

I care, I think it's kinda f**ked up we live in a world based entirely off smart sounding, yet can be completly wrong, ramblings that is science. Not that I hate science or think it is 100% wrong, I just hate when people look to it as truth and the ansewer ALL THE DAMN TIME! When will people learn that there isn't a scientific explanation for every thing.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

warmunger said:

I care, I think it's kinda f**ked up we live in a world based entirely off smart sounding, yet can be completly wrong, ramblings that is science. Not that I hate science or think it is 100% wrong, I just hate when people look to it as truth and the ansewer ALL THE DAMN TIME! When will people learn that there isn't a scientific explanation for every thing.

There isn't a scientific explanation for the simplest things, much less everything.

[warmunger]

admin said:

warmunger said:

I care, I think it's kinda f**ked up we live in a world based entirely off smart sounding, yet can be completly wrong, ramblings that is science. Not that I hate science or think it is 100% wrong, I just hate when people look to it as truth and the ansewer ALL THE DAMN TIME! When will people learn that there isn't a scientific explanation for every thing.

There isn't a scientific explanation for the simplest things, much less everything.

The words of a genius.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

warmunger said:

admin said:

There isn't a scientific explanation for the simplest things, much less everything.

The words of a genius.

Why thanks kind sir...