Proving that Links Exist

[AV1611VET]

When God created the first elementary school science book in the early 1900s, He put Pluto in there with the Planets. Which brings up the question what Pluto was before God put it in the textbook as a planet. WFTH-I

God didn't write our science books.

If He did, I'm sure it wouldn't be anything like they are now.

For the record, I'm fond of calling our academic science textbooks:

AV2024 King James [McGraw-Hill] Version

 

[SelfSim]

Whatever.

It is what it is.

No ... Its whatever science demonstrates to us it is.

I don't think anyone really knows what it is now.

Until they figure it out for sure, I'll just consider it a planet.

We now know what it is .. from the images sent back by New Horizons and other measurement data.

 

[AV1611VET]

We now know what it is ..

A comet?

 

[SelfSim]

A comet?

No .. its a bunch of images, measurements and data.

 

[AV1611VET]

No ..

Credit to The Barbarian in Post 57 for this:

Over a decade ago, Pluto was downgraded from a planet to a dwarf planet. Now, scientists have a new theory about the celestial body: that it is a huge comet.

SOURCE

.. its a bunch of images, measurements and data.

Yup.

The researchers used data collected from NASA's New Horizons space interplanetary space probe to Pluto and the European Space Agency's Rosetta mission to the comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.

SOURCE: Ibid.

Yet you have the tenacity to say: "We now know what it is."

So I'm asking you:

Is it a planet, dwarf planet, or comet?

 

[SelfSim]

Yup.

The researchers used data collected from NASA's New Horizons space interplanetary space probe to Pluto and the European Space Agency's Rosetta mission to the comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.

SOURCE: Ibid.

Yet you have the tenacity to say: "We now know what it is."

So I'm asking you:

Is it a planet, dwarf planet, or comet?

'Tenacity'? Tenacity is a virtue .. and we still know what Pluto is.

Here's the Orbital data:

and here is the physical:

 

[SelfSim]

Oh (@AV1611VET) .. and here is the answer you seek:

 

[dlamberth]

Is it a planet, dwarf planet, or comet?

Yet more downgrade?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's the Orbital data:


and here is the physical:

Thank you for the info.

Just fyi, from the link I provided:


Pluto May Be a Giant Comet, According to New Research

Published May 28, 2018 at 6:22 AM EDT

Is your information more up-to-date?

If so, then I'll take Barbarian's post as an example of how quickly science information changes.

And also if so, why wasn't a retraction made?

I've said this before, and it bears repeating:

... don't put discoveries on Page One then retract them on Page Sixteen,

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh (@AV1611VET) .. and here is the answer you seek:

Thank you.

When did this information come out?

After May of 2018?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet more downgrade?

I think I know what needs to be downgraded.

And it's not Pluto.

 

[SelfSim]

Thank you for the info.

Just fyi, from the link I provided:


Pluto May Be a Giant Comet, According to New Research

Published May 28, 2018 at 6:22 AM EDT

Is your information more up-to-date?

Did you read the paper your article is based on?

Its purpose is to examine an hypothesis .. and not to reclassify Pluto's designation, or change the records of its bulk measurements:

The purpose of this paper is to examine the hypothesis of a primordial origin of N2, which represents an effort to take a step forward in determining the origin of Pluto's N2. How consistent with the available data is the notion that N2 was obtained from the formation environment of Pluto in that chemical form?

If so, then I'll take Barbarian's post as an example of how quickly science information changes.

And also if so, why wasn't a retraction made?

I've said this before, and it bears repeating:

No .. it does not bear repeating because of your warped sense of how science goes about its business.

 

[SelfSim]

Thank you.

When did this information come out?

After May of 2018?

Irrelevant question ..

 

[Ophiolite]

This is for the lurkers, in an effort to bring clarity to the table.

Pluto is Pluto. Whatever we call it, it remains as what it is, subject to the slow changes inherent in its character, history , environment and orbit.

Its name is a human appelation that has no significance to its character, history , environment and orbit. It is a convenient label to allow humans to discuss it with ease.

Further, to facilitate deeper discussion, it is classified /labelled in various additional ways (thanks to @SelfSim for the list). Minor planet, dwarf planet, plutino, Kuiper belt object (KBO), Trans Neptunian Object (TNO). These are artifical categories, with various degrees of specificity. None of them have the slightest impact upon the character, history , environment and orbit of the object we call Pluto.

Attaching an unwarranted significance to how we label it betrays a failure to understand the function of classification systems. Certainly, one may question how appropriate certain labels may be, whether others should be added, or the parent definition modified. But those debates relate to the effectiveness of the classification system and the appropriateness of the labelling for the object known as Pluto.

The musical skills of the The Artist Formerly Known as Prince did not change when he stopped being called Prince. Pluto is still Pluto even if you choose to call it a brotwurst sandwich.

 

[Estrid]

This is for the lurkers, in an effort to bring clarity to the table.

Pluto is Pluto. Whatever we call it, it remains as what it is, subject to the slow changes inherent in its character, history , environment and orbit.

Its name is a human appelation that has no significance to its character, history , environment and orbit. It is a convenient label to allow humans to discuss it with ease.

Further, to facilitate deeper discussion, it is classified /labelled in various additional ways (thanks to @SelfSim for the list). Minor planet, dwarf planet, plutino, Kuiper belt object (KBO), Trans Neptunian Object (TNO). These are artifical categories, with various degrees of specificity. None of them have the slightest impact upon the character, history , environment and orbit of the object we call Pluto.

Attaching an unwarranted significance to how we label it betrays a failure to understand the function of classification systems. Certainly, one may question how appropriate certain labels may be, whether others should be added, or the parent definition modified. But those debates relate to the effectiveness of the classification system and the appropriateness of the labelling for the object known as Pluto.

The musical skills of the The Artist Formerly Known as Prince did not change when he stopped being called Prince. Pluto is still Pluto even if you choose to call it a brotwurst sandwich.

What does unwarrented attention to endless
yammering do for deeper discussion.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is does unwarrented attention to endless
yammering do for deeper discussion.

He said the exact same thing I said in Post 44.

I said:

Despite what they say about Pluto on paper, Pluto is not going to change one single atom of its structure to accommodate any designation scientists give it.

He said:

Pluto is Pluto. Whatever we call it, it remains as what it is, subject to the slow changes inherent in its character, history , environment and orbit.
Its name is a human appelation that has no significance to its character, history , environment and orbit. It is a convenient label to allow humans to discuss it with ease.

That's why I didn't respond to him.

 

[SelfSim]

He said the exact same thing I said in Post 44.

I said:

Despite what they say about Pluto on paper, Pluto is not going to change one single atom of its structure to accommodate any designation scientists give it.

Yet, you still don't know what you mean when you use the term 'Pluto'.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thanks for the like.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yet you have the tenacity to say: "We now know what it is."

So I'm asking you:

Is it a planet, dwarf planet, or comet?

Yes.

 

[Estrid]

Did you read the paper your article is based on?

Its purpose is to examine an hypothesis .. and not to reclassify Pluto's designation, or change the records of its bulk measurements:



No .. it does not bear repeating because of your warped sense of how science goes about its business.

It will be repeated as long as someone is
fool enough to take the bait.