Are we going to vote on some more science now?

The_Metatron wrote:Are we going to vote on some more science now?

Isn't that how it's done?????

The_Metatron wrote:Are we going to vote on some more science now?

I hear that that's the way it's done....

kennyc wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Are we going to vote on some more science now?

Isn't that how it's done?????

ha ha!! great minds think alike eh?

campermon wrote:

kennyc wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Are we going to vote on some more science now?

Isn't that how it's done?????

ha ha!! great minds think alike eh?

..or perhaps it was 'synchronicity'.......









Nah!

campermon wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Are we going to vote on some more science now?

I hear that that's the way it's done....

It's what the IAU does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet

They voted as to what a "planet" is.

Space Trucker wrote:

campermon wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Are we going to vote on some more science now?

I hear that that's the way it's done....

It's what the IAU does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet

They voted as to what a "planet" is.

Nomenclature is not science.

This guy didn't format his paper in such a way for anyone to take seriously. He should have taken a note from the Time Cube guy (http://www.timecube.com/)

Regardless I was planning on asking different questions in regards to the UFO phenomenon in a different section of this forum.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:This guy didn't format his paper in such a way for anyone to take seriously. He should have taken a note from the Time Cube guy (http://www.timecube.com/)

I can't make sense of this at all.

campermon wrote:

Space Trucker wrote:

campermon wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Are we going to vote on some more science now?

I hear that that's the way it's done....

It's what the IAU does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet

They voted as to what a "planet" is.

Nomenclature is not science.

All scientific papers I have seen have nomenclature.

Space Trucker wrote:

campermon wrote:

Space Trucker wrote:

campermon wrote:

I hear that that's the way it's done....

It's what the IAU does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet

They voted as to what a "planet" is.

Nomenclature is not science.

All scientific papers I have seen have nomenclature.

Indeed. Agreeing nomenclature is important; it means that scientific ideas can be communicated with clarity. However, the only 'voter' for scientific ideas is nature itself.

Yes I see. My next question would be then stated:

1. Why doesn't the scientific establishment have a definition for exo-planet yet?

"The official definition of "planet" used by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) only covers the Solar System and thus does not apply to exoplanets"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#Definition

I agree that definitions are used to communicate scientific ideas with clarity, but how does one clarify the fact that "exoplanets" have been found well above the 13 Jupiter mass limit (thus classifying them as brown dwarfs?)

In other words the definition of brown dwarf overlaps the previous definition of "planet".

In other words, a brown dwarf is a "star" right? Right now the issue is this, since there is no definition for exoplanet, we can apply the definition for planet to brown dwarf stars. Thus "star = planet".

See my point? Sure nature does as she pleases, but when people make definitions they have to be clear or else we get these whacko's making stuff up just to suit their fancy!

^it doesn't matter what we label these objects. The important bit is understanding their nature.

Space Trucker wrote:Yes I see. My next question would be then stated:

1. Why doesn't the scientific establishment have a definition for exo-planet yet?

"The official definition of "planet" used by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) only covers the Solar System and thus does not apply to exoplanets"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#Definition
......

So what? you skipped over the actual definition provided by wiki:

An exoplanet or extrasolar planet is a planet outside the Solar System. Around 1800 such planets have been discovered[5][6][7] (1783 planets in 1105 planetary systems including 460 multiple planetary systems as of 18 April 2014).[8]

Many things in science, particularly relatively new things have no official definition and in fact as far as science is concerned there is no such thing as an official definition as everything is potentially up for revision.

I get the feeling that you really just want to argue about shit instead of discuss it or debunk it or whatever. This silly-ass paper you linked to deserves no respect whatsoever nor does idiocy like attacking science for not having an official definition of exoplanet. Please, just lighten up, let science work.

On the other hand maybe you are here to push pseudoscience which is maybe even a step above the linked paper.

campermon wrote:^it doesn't matter what we label these objects. The important bit is understanding their nature.

that's my point. The limiting mass for deuterium fusion inside of stars according to mathematical models is 13 Jupiter masses.

But there are exo-planets that have masses well above 25 Jupiter masses, meaning that either exoplanets are also fusing elements like stars, or stars are not fusing elements! All because we didn't cover our bases with basic definitions! That's what this guy has done!

Which is why he completely ignores stars as nuclear powered, even though we all know that stars are powered via nuclear reactions! All because of one tiny definition.

kennyc wrote:

Space Trucker wrote:Yes I see. My next question would be then stated:

1. Why doesn't the scientific establishment have a definition for exo-planet yet?

"The official definition of "planet" used by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) only covers the Solar System and thus does not apply to exoplanets"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#Definition
......

So what? you skipped over the actual definition provided by wiki:

An exoplanet or extrasolar planet is a planet outside the Solar System. Around 1800 such planets have been discovered[5][6][7] (1783 planets in 1105 planetary systems including 460 multiple planetary systems as of 18 April 2014).[8]

Many things in science, particularly relatively new things have no official definition and in fact as far as science is concerned there is no such thing as an official definition as everything is potentially up for revision.

I get the feeling that you really just want to argue about shit instead of discuss it or debunk it or whatever. This silly-ass paper you linked to deserves no respect whatsoever nor does idiocy like attacking science for not having an official definition of exoplanet. Please, just lighten up, let science work.

On the other hand maybe you are here to push pseudoscience which even a step above the linked paper.

The IAU definition which you skipped over has a planet:

1. A "planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.


Exoplanets don't orbit the Sun. Thus to say exoplanet by definition is to place the Sun at the center of the Universe.

Oh For Fucks Sake!



I'm outta here.