Subj : Re: Mothers Day
To   : Adept
From : Blue White
Date : Mon May 22 2023 15:07:29

-=> Adept wrote to boraxman <=-

 bo> As upset as I am (actually not all that much) about Pluto's demotion, it
 bo> makes sense to differentiate between planets which have regular circular
 bo> (or close to it) orbits, and other objects which don't.

 Ad> That's not the difference, though -- planets can have terribly
 Ad> elliptical paths, even if Pluto doesn't. But there can't be other
 Ad> similarly-sized objects in the vicinity.

The demotion of Pluto is actually one of the reasons I now question
"scientists" more.  The original demotion reasoning included the bit about
a planet must clear its own path.  Other astronomers, not included in the
demotion action, pointed out that the logic decided on would also rule out
several other planets.  The Earth, for example, does not exist in a cleared
path.  Neither do Mars or even Jupiter.  Mecury, OTOH, exists in a cleared
path but not because of its own size.  Rather, its proximity to the Sun
keeps its path cleared.

So, they had to go back and refine that reasoning to say it has to meet a
minimum likelihood of clearing its path at some point, then they drew a line
that specifically ruled out Pluto.

So instead of coming up with a theory and then proving it, they developed
a theory to specifically prove what they wanted it to (Pluto is not a
planet) while not proving anything they didn't want to (other planets are
not planets).


.... Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?
--- MultiMail/DOS
 * Origin: possumso.fsxnet.nz * SSH:2122/telnet:24/ftelnet:80 (21:4/134)

.