| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2006 06:51:51 PM |
| Object: |
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet, they would have had a fit,
saying
"the Church is anti-Galileo, or the Church is anti-Science, or
the Church is this and the Church is that,
or our loose women sleep around, and the Church look the other way, or
We are full of credit card debts, and the Church did not stop the debt
collectors."
But when they are caught lying about Pluto, they say,
"Science corrects itself..."
May they perish all for their double standard.
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who votes Demon-Craps is an enemy of God.Demon-Craps want to
fund
research for SOCIAL INGENEERING. And we fund Traditional values.
.
|
|
| User: "Hotel Charlie One" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
06 Sep 2006 04:10:46 AM |
|
|
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
news:1157500311.427489.283980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet, they would have had a
fit,
saying
"the Church is anti-Galileo, or the Church is anti-Science, or
the Church is this and the Church is that,
or our loose women sleep around, and the Church look the other way,
or
We are full of credit card debts, and the Church did not stop the
debt
collectors."
But when they are caught lying about Pluto, they say,
"Science corrects itself..."
May they perish all for their double standard.
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who votes Demon-Craps is an enemy of God.Demon-Craps want to
fund
research for SOCIAL INGENEERING. And we fund Traditional values.
FESYS OZLSK NLLSN HKDEF ZNOSF LROKO ARNKN FSOGQ OYRKL UMFLN OPFGT GIFSK
FEHNM QGQIO OEGTD BNFQM TUTRO QLRQM AO
--
The actions of the disgraceful Clinton and Bush administrations
make it possible for me to say without shame that I deeply regret
the day I put the uniform of my country. The freedoms that I was
willing to protect with my life are being lost. The America of
our founders is dead. All we are waiting for now is rigor mortis.
HotelCharlieOne
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
05 Sep 2006 10:04:02 PM |
|
|
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1157500311.427489.283980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet, they would have had a fit,
saying
"the Church is anti-Galileo, or the Church is anti-Science, or
the Church is this and the Church is that,
or our loose women sleep around, and the Church look the other way, or
We are full of credit card debts, and the Church did not stop the debt
collectors."
But when they are caught lying about Pluto, they say,
"Science corrects itself..."
May they perish all for their double standard.
Which you have completely invented in your own mind.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
05 Sep 2006 10:27:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet, they would have had a fit,
saying
"the Church is anti-Galileo, or the Church is anti-Science, or
the Church is this and the Church is that,
or our loose women sleep around, and the Church look the other way, or
We are full of credit card debts, and the Church did not stop the debt
collectors."
But when they are caught lying about Pluto, they say,
"Science corrects itself..."
May they perish all for their double standard.
Call us when the scientific community decides to redefine the word
"church".
Olrik
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who votes Demon-Craps is an enemy of God.Demon-Craps want to
fund
research for SOCIAL INGENEERING. And we fund Traditional values.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
06 Sep 2006 01:01:58 AM |
|
|
On 5 Sep 2006 16:51:51 -0700, "codebreaker@bigsecret.com"
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote:
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet, they would have had a fit,
saying
"the Church is anti-Galileo, or the Church is anti-Science, or
the Church is this and the Church is that,
or our loose women sleep around, and the Church look the other way, or
We are full of credit card debts, and the Church did not stop the debt
collectors."
But when they are caught lying about Pluto, they say,
"Science corrects itself..."
May they perish all for their double standard.
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who votes Demon-Craps is an enemy of God.Demon-Craps want to
fund
research for SOCIAL INGENEERING. And we fund Traditional values.
Oh, shut the ***** up, you drooling imbecile.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
06 Sep 2006 08:59:22 AM |
|
|
On 5 Sep 2006 16:51:51 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157500311.427489.283980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet, they would have had a fit,
saying
"the Church is anti-Galileo, or the Church is anti-Science, or
the Church is this and the Church is that,
or our loose women sleep around, and the Church look the other way, or
We are full of credit card debts, and the Church did not stop the debt
collectors."
But when they are caught lying about Pluto, they say,
"Science corrects itself..."
May they perish all for their double standard.
I really do not understand you here and I sincerely would like to. The
change of status (name) clearly bothers you and I don't see why. The
astronomers involved changed their definition of the term planet, that
is all. Please, and again I ask sincerely, explain to me what about
that upsets you.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "BAM" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
06 Sep 2006 10:23:48 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:8tktf2l4p5n5qbcpt39cbfk1r3tt6m1vmg@4ax.com...
On 5 Sep 2006 16:51:51 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157500311.427489.283980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet, they would have had a fit,
saying
"the Church is anti-Galileo, or the Church is anti-Science, or
the Church is this and the Church is that,
or our loose women sleep around, and the Church look the other way, or
We are full of credit card debts, and the Church did not stop the debt
collectors."
But when they are caught lying about Pluto, they say,
"Science corrects itself..."
May they perish all for their double standard.
I really do not understand you here and I sincerely would like to. The
change of status (name) clearly bothers you and I don't see why. The
astronomers involved changed their definition of the term planet, that
is all. Please, and again I ask sincerely, explain to me what about
that upsets you.
I believe he is saying that there was resistance to changing Pluto to an
asteroid (or whatever) and he was comparing that to the Catholic Church who
has been accused of being "enemies of progress".
I think.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
06 Sep 2006 10:34:40 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:23:48 -0400, in alt.atheism , "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> in
<6KBLg.5721$Ca4.3793@bignews7.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:8tktf2l4p5n5qbcpt39cbfk1r3tt6m1vmg@4ax.com...
On 5 Sep 2006 16:51:51 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157500311.427489.283980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet, they would have had a fit,
saying
"the Church is anti-Galileo, or the Church is anti-Science, or
the Church is this and the Church is that,
or our loose women sleep around, and the Church look the other way, or
We are full of credit card debts, and the Church did not stop the debt
collectors."
But when they are caught lying about Pluto, they say,
"Science corrects itself..."
May they perish all for their double standard.
I really do not understand you here and I sincerely would like to. The
change of status (name) clearly bothers you and I don't see why. The
astronomers involved changed their definition of the term planet, that
is all. Please, and again I ask sincerely, explain to me what about
that upsets you.
I believe he is saying that there was resistance to changing Pluto to an
asteroid (or whatever) and he was comparing that to the Catholic Church who
has been accused of being "enemies of progress".
I think.
But he does seem really upset at this change. There is something going
on with the reaction that I just don't understand. It is a bloody name
change, that is all.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
30 Sep 2006 09:34:27 PM |
|
|
In article <8tktf2l4p5n5qbcpt39cbfk1r3tt6m1vmg@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 5 Sep 2006 16:51:51 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157500311.427489.283980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet, they would have had a fit,
saying
"the Church is anti-Galileo, or the Church is anti-Science, or
the Church is this and the Church is that,
or our loose women sleep around, and the Church look the other way, or
We are full of credit card debts, and the Church did not stop the debt
collectors."
But when they are caught lying about Pluto, they say,
"Science corrects itself..."
May they perish all for their double standard.
I really do not understand you here...
That's because people off their meds are hard to understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
07 Oct 2006 06:17:19 PM |
|
|
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <8tktf2l4p5n5qbcpt39cbfk1r3tt6m1vmg@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 5 Sep 2006 16:51:51 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157500311.427489.283980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet, they would have had a fit,
saying
"the Church is anti-Galileo, or the Church is anti-Science, or
the Church is this and the Church is that,
or our loose women sleep around, and the Church look the other way, or
We are full of credit card debts, and the Church did not stop the debt
collectors."
But when they are caught lying about Pluto, they say,
"Science corrects itself..."
May they perish all for their double standard.
I really do not understand you here...
That's because people off their meds are hard to understand.
That is because monkey brains people can't think
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
07 Oct 2006 07:29:52 PM |
|
|
In article <1160263039.859629.218230@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote:
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <8tktf2l4p5n5qbcpt39cbfk1r3tt6m1vmg@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 5 Sep 2006 16:51:51 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157500311.427489.283980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet, they would have had a fit,
saying
"the Church is anti-Galileo, or the Church is anti-Science, or
the Church is this and the Church is that,
or our loose women sleep around, and the Church look the other way, or
We are full of credit card debts, and the Church did not stop the debt
collectors."
But when they are caught lying about Pluto, they say,
"Science corrects itself..."
May they perish all for their double standard.
I really do not understand you here...
That's because people off their meds are hard to understand.
That is because monkey brains people can't think
That's they need their meds.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
30 Sep 2006 10:56:57 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:34:27 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <8tktf2l4p5n5qbcpt39cbfk1r3tt6m1vmg@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 5 Sep 2006 16:51:51 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157500311.427489.283980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet, they would have had a fit,
saying
"the Church is anti-Galileo, or the Church is anti-Science, or
the Church is this and the Church is that,
or our loose women sleep around, and the Church look the other way, or
We are full of credit card debts, and the Church did not stop the debt
collectors."
But when they are caught lying about Pluto, they say,
"Science corrects itself..."
May they perish all for their double standard.
I really do not understand you here...
That's because people off their meds are hard to understand.
The drug hasn't been discovered yet that could bring 'Codebreaker' to
within shouting distance of sanity.
He's so far out in left field I sometimes think he just has to be a
Loki, but if that's the case, he's been telling the same joke for a
very long time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
07 Oct 2006 06:11:20 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:34:27 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <8tktf2l4p5n5qbcpt39cbfk1r3tt6m1vmg@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 5 Sep 2006 16:51:51 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157500311.427489.283980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet, they would have had a fit,
saying
"the Church is anti-Galileo, or the Church is anti-Science, or
the Church is this and the Church is that,
or our loose women sleep around, and the Church look the other way, or
We are full of credit card debts, and the Church did not stop the debt
collectors."
But when they are caught lying about Pluto, they say,
"Science corrects itself..."
May they perish all for their double standard.
I really do not understand you here...
That's because people off their meds are hard to understand.
The drug hasn't been discovered yet that could bring 'Codebreaker' to
within shouting distance of sanity.
So you don't know it all, right? Hmmmmmmmmmm....
Shame on you for advertizing falsehood
He's so far out in left field I sometimes think he just has to be a
Loki, but if that's the case, he's been telling the same joke for a
very long time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
06 Sep 2006 06:42:15 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I really do not understand you here and I sincerely would like to. The
change of status (name) clearly bothers you and I don't see why. The
It is not just a name change fool...Stop misleading people.
Pluto is no longer a planet and was demoted by vote. You call
this a simple name change?
astronomers involved changed their definition of the term planet, that
is all. Please, and again I ask sincerely, explain to me what about
that upsets you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
06 Sep 2006 06:55:03 PM |
|
|
On 6 Sep 2006 16:42:15 -0700, in alt.atheism
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
<1157586135.294687.151730@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I really do not understand you here and I sincerely would like to. The
change of status (name) clearly bothers you and I don't see why. The
It is not just a name change fool...Stop misleading people.
Pluto is no longer a planet and was demoted by vote. You call
this a simple name change?
The iceball is exactly the same as it was when we called it a planet.
The only difference is in the way we characterize objects around a star.
astronomers involved changed their definition of the term planet, that
is all. Please, and again I ask sincerely, explain to me what about
that upsets you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
06 Sep 2006 07:06:28 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006 16:42:15 -0700, in alt.atheism
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
<1157586135.294687.151730@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I really do not understand you here and I sincerely would like to. The
change of status (name) clearly bothers you and I don't see why. The
It is not just a name change fool...Stop misleading people.
Pluto is no longer a planet and was demoted by vote. You call
this a simple name change?
The iceball is exactly the same as it was when we called it a planet.
The only difference is in the way we characterize objects around a star.
This is what appears to be ARBITRARY
astronomers involved changed their definition of the term planet, that
is all. Please, and again I ask sincerely, explain to me what about
that upsets you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
06 Sep 2006 07:21:43 PM |
|
|
On 6 Sep 2006 17:06:28 -0700, in alt.atheism
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote in
<1157587587.958464.194970@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006 16:42:15 -0700, in alt.atheism
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
<1157586135.294687.151730@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I really do not understand you here and I sincerely would like to. The
change of status (name) clearly bothers you and I don't see why. The
It is not just a name change fool...Stop misleading people.
Pluto is no longer a planet and was demoted by vote. You call
this a simple name change?
The iceball is exactly the same as it was when we called it a planet.
The only difference is in the way we characterize objects around a star.
This is what appears to be ARBITRARY
The new system is less arbitrary than the old one. There are clearly
defined standards for what will qualify as a planet. Previously, planets
were whatever we called them, unless, like Ceres, we decided that they
weren't.
astronomers involved changed their definition of the term planet, that
is all. Please, and again I ask sincerely, explain to me what about
that upsets you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
07 Sep 2006 06:20:23 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006 17:06:28 -0700, in alt.atheism
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote in
<1157587587.958464.194970@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006 16:42:15 -0700, in alt.atheism
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
<1157586135.294687.151730@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I really do not understand you here and I sincerely would like to. The
change of status (name) clearly bothers you and I don't see why. The
It is not just a name change fool...Stop misleading people.
Pluto is no longer a planet and was demoted by vote. You call
this a simple name change?
The iceball is exactly the same as it was when we called it a planet.
The only difference is in the way we characterize objects around a star.
This is what appears to be ARBITRARY
The new system is less arbitrary than the old one. There are clearly
Then we are all in trouble. Who knows If there would be a new NEW...?
defined standards for what will qualify as a planet. Previously, planets
were whatever we called them, unless, like Ceres, we decided that they
weren't.
astronomers involved changed their definition of the term planet, that
is all. Please, and again I ask sincerely, explain to me what about
that upsets you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
07 Sep 2006 07:02:38 PM |
|
|
On 7 Sep 2006 16:20:23 -0700, in alt.atheism
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
<1157671223.055416.171720@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006 17:06:28 -0700, in alt.atheism
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote in
<1157587587.958464.194970@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006 16:42:15 -0700, in alt.atheism
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
<1157586135.294687.151730@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I really do not understand you here and I sincerely would like to. The
change of status (name) clearly bothers you and I don't see why. The
It is not just a name change fool...Stop misleading people.
Pluto is no longer a planet and was demoted by vote. You call
this a simple name change?
The iceball is exactly the same as it was when we called it a planet.
The only difference is in the way we characterize objects around a star.
This is what appears to be ARBITRARY
The new system is less arbitrary than the old one. There are clearly
Then we are all in trouble. Who knows If there would be a new NEW...?
Changing the way you organize things is not a very big deal. Scientists
use this kind of organization to understand the relationship of things
with common characteristics. As they learn more, they adjust to the
facts.
defined standards for what will qualify as a planet. Previously, planets
were whatever we called them, unless, like Ceres, we decided that they
weren't.
astronomers involved changed their definition of the term planet, that
is all. Please, and again I ask sincerely, explain to me what about
that upsets you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
07 Sep 2006 08:09:07 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "codebreaker@bigsecret.com"
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> posting the following on 7 Sep 2006
16:20:23 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
The new system is less arbitrary than the old one. There are clearly
Then we are all in trouble. Who knows If there would be a new NEW...?
At the time the Bible was written, there were five known planets.
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
The next revolution came with Copernicus and Galieo, who showed that
Earth was a planet.
Then Sir William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1787; Neptune followed
in 1846. Ceres, the largest of the asteroids, was discovered in 1801
and considered a planet for several decades before Sir William
Herschel coined the term "asteroid" to describe it and the other
objects like it.
Pluto was discovered in 1930. Charon, Pluto's co-world, wasn't found
until 1979.
We continue to find new things in the solar system, and outside it?
The first extra-solar planet was found around Gamma Cephei in 1988.
The first Brown Dwarf star was also located in 1988, GD 165B.
All of these discoveries have allowed us to refine our knowledge and
terminology. Of course there will be new breakthroughs and changes in
the labels we give things. It's the nature of science; as new
information is gained, we adjust our theories to match.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Lee Elifritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
07 Sep 2006 08:19:24 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and "codebreaker@bigsecret.com"
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> posting the following on 7 Sep 2006
16:20:23 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
The new system is less arbitrary than the old one. There are clearly
Then we are all in trouble. Who knows If there would be a new NEW...?
At the time the Bible was written, there were five known planets.
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
The next revolution came with Copernicus and Galieo, who showed that
Earth was a planet.
Then Sir William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1787; Neptune followed
in 1846. Ceres, the largest of the asteroids, was discovered in 1801
and considered a planet for several decades before Sir William
Herschel coined the term "asteroid" to describe it and the other
objects like it.
Pluto was discovered in 1930. Charon, Pluto's co-world, wasn't found
until 1979.
We continue to find new things in the solar system, and outside it?
The first extra-solar planet was found around Gamma Cephei in 1988.
The first Brown Dwarf star was also located in 1988, GD 165B.
All of these discoveries have allowed us to refine our knowledge and
terminology. Of course there will be new breakthroughs and changes in
the labels we give things. It's the nature of science; as new
information is gained, we adjust our theories to match.
Only an ignorant American would have to be informed of these
developments on the usenet. The rest of us are up to date.
Being up to date as we are, we understand the fallacy of lane clearing
as a distinguishing trait for planets. Clearly then, Ceres and Pluto are
planets. More specifically, on the Meghar Scale of Planetary Mass, Ceres
is an asteroid planet, and Pluto is a dwarf planet, and their associated
belts are the asteroid belt and the Kuiper belt, but both are planets
nevertheless. It's the gravitational relaxation and differentiation that
does it, not the IAU lane clearing nonsense. That will surely fail.
Ceres - The Fifth Planet from a Star Called the Sun.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=166
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
08 Sep 2006 04:59:46 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Thomas Lee Elifritz
<cosmic@lifeform.org> posting the following on Thu, 07 Sep 2006
20:19:24 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
Only an ignorant American would have to be informed of these
developments on the usenet. The rest of us are up to date.
***** you very much. I'm an American, an American discovered Pluto,
and we've been at the forefront of astronomy for decades.
Being up to date as we are, we understand the fallacy of lane clearing
as a distinguishing trait for planets. Clearly then, Ceres and Pluto are
planets. More specifically, on the Meghar Scale of Planetary Mass, Ceres
is an asteroid planet, and Pluto is a dwarf planet, and their associated
belts are the asteroid belt and the Kuiper belt, but both are planets
nevertheless. It's the gravitational relaxation and differentiation that
does it, not the IAU lane clearing nonsense. That will surely fail.
Probably, as we learn more.
Ceres - The Fifth Planet from a Star Called the Sun.
Actually its name is Sol.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
06 Sep 2006 11:55:32 PM |
|
|
On 6 Sep 2006 16:42:15 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157586135.294687.151730@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I really do not understand you here and I sincerely would like to. The
change of status (name) clearly bothers you and I don't see why. The
It is not just a name change fool...Stop misleading people.
Pluto is no longer a planet and was demoted by vote. You call
this a simple name change?
It was a change in what "planet" means. But that is not what I am
interested in. Why does this bother you so much?
astronomers involved changed their definition of the term planet, that
is all. Please, and again I ask sincerely, explain to me what about
that upsets you.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
30 Sep 2006 09:34:58 PM |
|
|
In article <ug9vf21qkai4jcge807n9kg3jj0n5pmkm5@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006 16:42:15 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157586135.294687.151730@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I really do not understand you here and I sincerely would like to. The
change of status (name) clearly bothers you and I don't see why. The
It is not just a name change fool...Stop misleading people.
Pluto is no longer a planet and was demoted by vote. You call
this a simple name change?
It was a change in what "planet" means. But that is not what I am
interested in. Why does this bother you so much?
He's off his meds?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
07 Oct 2006 06:15:44 PM |
|
|
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <ug9vf21qkai4jcge807n9kg3jj0n5pmkm5@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006 16:42:15 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157586135.294687.151730@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I really do not understand you here and I sincerely would like to. The
change of status (name) clearly bothers you and I don't see why. The
It is not just a name change fool...Stop misleading people.
Pluto is no longer a planet and was demoted by vote. You call
this a simple name change?
It was a change in what "planet" means. But that is not what I am
interested in. Why does this bother you so much?
He's off his meds?
We heard that nonsense before. You have only one explanation
for every phenomenon: The person is on medication or he is deluded
and Patati and patata... This is called lazyness
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
07 Oct 2006 07:29:15 PM |
|
|
In article <1160262944.292702.209940@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote:
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <ug9vf21qkai4jcge807n9kg3jj0n5pmkm5@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006 16:42:15 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157586135.294687.151730@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I really do not understand you here and I sincerely would like to. The
change of status (name) clearly bothers you and I don't see why. The
It is not just a name change fool...Stop misleading people.
Pluto is no longer a planet and was demoted by vote. You call
this a simple name change?
It was a change in what "planet" means. But that is not what I am
interested in. Why does this bother you so much?
He's off his meds?
We heard that nonsense before. You have only one explanation
for every phenomenon: The person is on medication or he is deluded
and Patati and patata... This is called lazyness
In this case it's called accurate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
07 Sep 2006 06:25:07 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
It was a change in what "planet" means. But that is not what I am
interested in. Why does this bother you so much?
It is a change in what "Planet" means you said? Meaning that the first
definition
was not correct and not scientific?
Who knows If the new definition is really a correct one?
After all it was adopted by vote and some scientists voted against it.
Folks, they will never know what planet really is and whether or not
Pluto was really a planet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
07 Sep 2006 08:46:02 PM |
|
|
On 7 Sep 2006 16:25:07 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157671507.350277.262850@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
It was a change in what "planet" means. But that is not what I am
interested in. Why does this bother you so much?
It is a change in what "Planet" means you said? Meaning that the first
definition
was not correct and not scientific?
Nope. The first meaning of "Planet" was wanderer because they moved
across the sky against the "fixed" stars. Planet, at that time, did
not include the Earth. As we learned more about what the planets are
we changed the meaning to, roughly, "large things orbiting the Sun"
and included the Earth. Now as we that we have found more large items,
some larger than Pluto, orbiting the Sun we have to re-visit our
categories.
Who knows If the new definition is really a correct one?
There is no such thing as a "correct" definition. Definitions are
useful or not, that is it. If a term usefully delineates something in
the world, if we can use it to communicate something we want to
communicate, then it is as correct as a definition can get.
After all it was adopted by vote and some scientists voted against it.
Folks, they will never know what planet really is and whether or not
Pluto was really a planet
Pluto is what it is no matter what we call it. It has its own size,
shape, obit, etc. That it is something to vote on in the first place
shows you that it is not an objective issue. The astronomers decided,
by that vote, that the useful (for them) definition of "planet" was
such that Pluto was not included.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
08 Sep 2006 04:53:55 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 7 Sep 2006 16:25:07 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157671507.350277.262850@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
It was a change in what "planet" means. But that is not what I am
interested in. Why does this bother you so much?
It is a change in what "Planet" means you said? Meaning that the first
definition
was not correct and not scientific?
Nope. The first meaning of "Planet" was wanderer because they moved
across the sky against the "fixed" stars. Planet, at that time, did
not include the Earth. As we learned more about what the planets are
we changed the meaning to, roughly, "large things orbiting the Sun"
and included the Earth. Now as we that we have found more large items,
some larger than Pluto, orbiting the Sun we have to re-visit our
categories.
A meaning that can change arbitrary is not really a meaning at all.
What guaratee I HAVE THAT THIS NEW MEANING WILL never change.
Science is in the hands of people who don't know what they are
talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
09 Sep 2006 07:23:56 AM |
|
|
On 8 Sep 2006 14:53:55 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157752435.815608.199830@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 7 Sep 2006 16:25:07 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157671507.350277.262850@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
It was a change in what "planet" means. But that is not what I am
interested in. Why does this bother you so much?
It is a change in what "Planet" means you said? Meaning that the first
definition
was not correct and not scientific?
Nope. The first meaning of "Planet" was wanderer because they moved
across the sky against the "fixed" stars. Planet, at that time, did
not include the Earth. As we learned more about what the planets are
we changed the meaning to, roughly, "large things orbiting the Sun"
and included the Earth. Now as we that we have found more large items,
some larger than Pluto, orbiting the Sun we have to re-visit our
categories.
A meaning that can change arbitrary is not really a meaning at all.
The meaning has changed twice over hundreds of years, both times after
significant consideration and quite a bit more observation. That is
not arbitrary.
What guaratee I HAVE THAT THIS NEW MEANING WILL never change.
Science is in the hands of people who don't know what they are
talking about.
If you meaning has not changed, then is Charon a planet? How about
2003 UB313? It is fine to keep definitions constant, but when your
understanding and knowledge changes you then need new words.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Had The Church Classified Pluto As A Planet... |
10 Sep 2006 05:11:43 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 8 Sep 2006 14:53:55 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157752435.815608.199830@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 7 Sep 2006 16:25:07 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in
<1157671507.350277.262850@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
It was a change in what "planet" means. But that is not what I am
interested in. Why does this bother you so much?
It is a change in what "Planet" means you said? Meaning that the first
definition
was not correct and not scientific?
Nope. The first meaning of "Planet" was wanderer because they moved
across the sky against the "fixed" stars. Planet, at that time, did
not include the Earth. As we learned more about what the planets are
we changed the meaning to, roughly, "large things orbiting the Sun"
and included the Earth. Now as we that we have found more large items,
some larger than Pluto, orbiting the Sun we have to re-visit our
categories.
A meaning that can change arbitrary is not really a meaning at all.
The meaning has changed twice over hundreds of years, both times after
significant consideration and quite a bit more observation. That is
not arbitrary.
What guaratee I HAVE THAT THIS NEW MEANING WILL never change.
Science is in the hands of people who don't know what they are
talking about.
If you meaning has not changed, then is Charon a planet? How about
2003 UB313? It is fine to keep definitions constant, but when your
understanding and knowledge changes you then need new words.
Have they run a test on this lastest definiton? Is it testable?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
