Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
danielost

time to redefine or define some terms.

49 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Waspie_Dwarf

Continued from above...

That is hiw we get one dwarf planet that is also considered an astriod due to its location in the astroid belt.

You may or may not be correct here. It is one of those "fuzzy" areas you spoke of.

When Ceres was re-designated a dwarf planet the IAU did not say whether Ceres should still be considered an asteroid or not. In fact at the 2006 IAU meeting the terms asteroid and comet were not used at all. Any object which is not designated a planet or a dwarf planet is now officially designated as a "Small Solar System Body".

The only reason they split the dwarfs out of the other planets is because they didn't want school kids to have to know a list of twenty or more planet name.

You are probably partly right, but there is more to it than that. The main reason they split the dwarf planets from the planets is for the same reason they stopped calling Ceres a planet in 1802, because they are tiny objects in a belt of vast numbers of other tiny objects.

But, we have already divided the planets into three catagories. Rockd, gas, and ice giants.

True, but the suggestion (and it wasn't my suggestion I hasten to add) was that these designations should become official and the term planet dropped altogether. We would not have a solar system consisting of 8n planets, but rather one of 4 terrestrial planets, 2 gas giants, 2 ice giants and assorted small objects.

Pluto and his friends are made up of mainly ice so we can call them ice planets.
Again, not entirely true. Eris is considerably more dense than Pluto and is likely to be composed mostly of rock, not ice (source: wikipedia). The IAU definitions ARE problematic. They are a compromise that pleases no one. They are however the best we have. Hopefully they will be further refined in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Lilly

Wow.. there is some serious bad mojo in here.

Not coming back to this thread - it's way too pointlessly angry for me.

The thing is, this is the science forum. This is supposed to be a place where opinions are left outside (there are plenty of other forums for peoples opinions). When one states something as being factual here...that's what it's supposed to be, factual. To redefine/over simplify/change scientific terminology is bound to be met with "bad mojo" because that's simply not what's done in science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The thing is, this is the science forum. This is supposed to be a place where opinions are left outside (there are plenty of other forums for peoples opinions). When one states something as being factual here...that's what it's supposed to be, factual. To redefine/over simplify/change scientific terminology is bound to be met with "bad mojo" because that's simply not what's done in science.

I have to quibble here a bit; scientists are rude and boisterous and lose their tempers at each other all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Here is the problem. Currently we call all star systems star systems whether or not they have planets that we know of. My proposal would remove the stars with no known planets, since we only refer to the, sta.r anyways.

Problem two we use solar system and planet system to mea he :amething. My propsal would reuse planet system to mean a planet and its moons. If a planet has no moon we just refer to it by its name/number.

Problem three is a fix for a problem we don't have yet. A moon with a moon, call it moonlet. Any body in space can have a moon, it only depends on the mass of the body compared to the two bodies it will orbit. To prove my point we put a probe into orbit around mercury. That is mass, speed and distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

The thing is, this is the science forum. This is supposed to be a place where opinions are left outside (there are plenty of other forums for peoples opinions). When one states something as being factual here...that's what it's supposed to be, factual. To redefine/over simplify/change scientific terminology is bound to be met with "bad mojo" because that's simply not what's done in science.

Science is nothing but opinion, until something becomes a law of nature.

Nothing changes until someone steps up to suggest the change.

When columbus proposed sailing west to get to the west, the wisdom at the time said it couldn't be done because it was too far. Better to go around africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

As for pluto and eris, what they are made of is dependent on what they have collected. Most of the materials out that far are different kinds of ices and of course rock. Eris may have more rock but it is still an ice planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

Science is nothing but opinion, until something becomes a law of nature.

This explains a lot about you. But sorry it's pure unadulterated provable hogwash.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

This explains a lot about you. But sorry it's pure unadulterated provable hogwash.

When it is pure unadulterated provable hogwash, it is a law of nature. Which I excluded from being only opinion and a guess. Anyone who says other wise is worshipping science. Which means anyone who disagrees with it has commited blasphamy against it.

The samething happens in any religion. When different groups believe slitily different things about the same god or being of worship. Which is why when I disagree with some theories, I get the "you just don't understand it." statement. The statedment is not true. I get upset over it becausd unlike most a and b average kids I actually had to work to get my grades. If it hadn't been for gym I would have had a b average. But, it was a couple of years after I relized I had bad ankles. Today, I can walk faster than run. That is if I could walk.

But, I don't see why we need a redunit name for solar system and sooner or later we will be able to detect moons orbiting out of system planets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Science is absolutely nothing like religion. Science is based on rational conclusions drawn from observation not divine revelation from mystics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Except if you make it where it can't be wrong. Then it is a religion. You might as well call it the gospel ( truth) of science. I make room for mistakes in all religions including my on beliefs.

The bible has been translat'ed at minimum three time into three languages not counting hebrew. So right there would some accadent mistakes. Then sometimes you had people with agendas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Except if you make it where it can't be wrong. Then it is a religion. You might as well call it the gospel ( truth) of science. I make room for mistakes in all religions including my on beliefs.

The bible has been translat'ed at minimum three time into three languages not counting hebrew. So right there would some accadent mistakes. Then sometimes you had people with agendas.

Oh, I assure you, religion can be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

I know that but don't tell those above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
spacecowboy342

Except if you make it where it can't be wrong. Then it is a religion. You might as well call it the gospel ( truth) of science. I make room for mistakes in all religions including my on beliefs.

The bible has been translat'ed at minimum three time into three languages not counting hebrew. So right there would some accadent mistakes. Then sometimes you had people with agendas.

When is science made where it can't be wrong? The very essence of the scientific method is falsifiability unlike religion where those who dispute beliefs can be stoned or burned at the stake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
... The very essence of the scientific method is falsifiability unlike religion where those who dispute beliefs can be stoned or burned at the stake

Exactly, the first thing one does with a scientific hypothesis is attempt to falsify it. If your hypothesis doesn't quite 'cut it' then it's back to the drawing board. Religion does not operate in this manner. Religion is based on faith. Science is based on observation, evidence, experimentation...and no matter how sound ones hypothesis seems it still can be demonstrated as incorrect if evidence to the contrary surfaces.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Why is danielost suddenly derailing his own topic to attack science?

Well I did say this:

In science it is totally the responsibility of the person making the claim to support their case. Scientifically speaking if danielost can not provide evidence to back his claim then his claim fails. I am under no obligation to provide evidence that he is wrong, yet I have done so anyway.

My challenge to him is support his claim. That is not only a reasonable request, it is a scientific requirement.

I challenge him in a scientific way to back his claims, he then attacks science?

I will leave it to the individual to decide if the two are related or if it is just a massive coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

I am not attacking science. I am defending my right to voicing(typing) my opinion.

Science is a .great tool but that is all it is. Religion sis a -great tool but again that is all it is. Opinion/guiessing is what starts the scienti.fic pro'cess, if they are correc't. They become laws and are o longer a guess or opinion. Opinion/guessing also begins the religious pro'cess. These become beliefs or religous law.

Both .groups g.et upset if someone attac'ks their faith in either belief system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

I did support my claim and provided a link to photos of the jupiter system. Including one from nasa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

You guys never answered my guestion so I will ask again.

Which is more resonable the trillion plus accidents t.,hat scince said happenedm to make a human and a livable planet.

Or, that someone/being/thing created a human and a livable planet.

There is one other option both are correc't to a point. Ie life began as a single cell and evolution was controlled to make a human and livable planet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Evolution is a natural process, not a series of accidents, and the earth seems designed for us because we evolved here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

I am not attacking science. I am defending my right to voicing(typing) my opinion.

Science is a .great tool but that is all it is. Religion sis a -great tool but again that is all it is. Opinion/guiessing is what starts the scienti.fic pro'cess, if they are correc't. They become laws and are o longer a guess or opinion. Opinion/guessing also begins the religious pro'cess. These become beliefs or religous law.

Both .groups g.et upset if someone attac'ks their faith in either belief system.

I would, to quote something Voltaire probably never said, defend to the death your right to express your opinion, though mine differs from it. Some subjects do enflame passions I would agree that both science and religion are tools to try to explain the mysteries of the universe though in my opinion religion is an outmoded and inflexible method while science isn't afraid to overturn old ideas when new evidence is uncovered. It seems religion can't really do this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Back to the topic of the thr,ead.

I only suggested two changes. 1. Stop using planera,ry system, from meaning solar system and make it represent a planet and its moons. 2. Redifine moonlet to mean a moon orbiting a moon. Nasa already call jupiter, and the other giants by the name with system to represntthe planet and its moons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

You guys never answered my guestion so I will ask again.

Which is more resonable the trillion plus accidents t.,hat scince said happenedm to make a human and a livable planet.

Or, that someone/being/thing created a human and a livable planet.

There is one other option both are correc't to a point. Ie life began as a single cell and evolution was controlled to make a human and livable planet

You misstate the idea of evolution, which is nonrandom survival of random mutation. The universe did not come about by a trillion accidents but by physical laws.To assume a creator you assume an entity that must be more complex than the universe it created, which, of course begs the question, where did the creator come from? To paraphrase Carl Sagan, if you assume the creator needs no creator, why not skip a step and assume the universe needs no creator? Occam's razor says that the simplest solution is usually the best. If we can explain the existence of the universe by natural processes, why add the complication of proposing a creator except to satisfy a preconceived idea that there was one?

As far as the idea that evolution was guide by the hand of God and not natural selection, I would suggest God must be pretty inept as for every million mutation only a few are beneficial for survival. Natural selection makes more sense to me,

Edited by spacecowboy342

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Back to the topic of the thr,ead.

I only suggested two changes. 1. Stop using planera,ry system, from meaning solar system and make it represent a planet and its moons. 2. Redifine moonlet to mean a moon orbiting a moon. Nasa already call jupiter, and the other giants by the name with system to represntthe planet and its moons.

Has any one ever observed a moon orbiting a moon? I am having difficulty imagining a stable orbit for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Has any one ever observed a moon orbiting a moon? I am having difficulty imagining a stable orbit for this.

I don't think so (not that I've heard of anyway). The moons we currently know of are tidally locked and therefore any satellite of such a body could not remain in stable orbit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.