Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!/cd6lVY8Z/mQ7QUEKAKGKw.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 21:24:30 -0700 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Message-ID: <62637F7E.6ED8@ix.netcom.com> References: <41ddb03a-b0a9-4e3d-b83b-4b7b5e029220n@googlegroups.com> <626041C5.21EC@ix.netcom.com> <626048D8.873@ix.netcom.com> <891f7bbf-967f-44d1-b421-3ec577baaf8cn@googlegroups.com> <90a3c8b8-e43a-4740-9510-16508737d4f8n@googlegroups.com> <62624560.4281@ix.netcom.com> <62624976.669B@ix.netcom.com> <626376B7.3B84@ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="60446"; posting-host="/cd6lVY8Z/mQ7QUEKAKGKw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org"; X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220422-4, 04/22/2022), Outbound message X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:583782 The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > >> The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)... > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the > > > > > >>> International Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the > > > > > >>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International > > > > > >>> Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> The votes are rigged. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and > > > > > >>> belongs in the trash can. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> you should know dis by now. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the > > > > > >>> IAU members, except the big guy.) > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they > > > > > >>> kill him. > > > > > >> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth > > > > > >> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare) > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > > > >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > > > > >> and challenge > > > > > >> the unchallengeable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the > > > > > > Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason. > > > > > > > > > > > [snip meltdown] > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess. There are no planets other than Mercury and Venus, since > > > > > all the other "planets" all have moons, so their orbits are not cleared > > > > > of objects other than themselves. > > > > > > > > Read my post, above, with detailed info directly from IAU database, imbecile. > > > > > > > > It's the Apr 20, 2022, 2:39:19 AM post (your local time, mine minus one hour). > > > > > > Jupiter not a planet? > > > > > > If they are going to use 'definitions' to define planet, then the Earth > > > is not a planet... > > > since there ain't anything like it anywhere in the universe. > > > > Truth is...the word "dwarf planets" was invented when they voted Pluto > > not a planet. Before that, the term "dwarf planets" never existed. > > > > They just made it up. > > Hell, they made up everything! > > The vote took place at the August 2006 IAU meeting in Prague, which > included 424 voting members (out of a total membership of 9,000). The > majority vote was for Pluto to be redesignated as a dwarf planet > > "Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially, > eight planets in the solar system." > > The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of > a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague. > > "I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New > Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research > Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted." > > "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com. > > The vote was scheduled at the end of a 10 day conference in Prague when > almost everyone had left. Only 424 of nearly 10,000 members remained. > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers, opened the session stating that the IAU > was asked to act on the planet definition issue. He stressed that prior > proposals were delayed because cultural and popular issues needed to be > considered. > > Ekers stated that this was not just a scientific debate and that the > issue cannot be resolved by science alone. "This is not just a > scientific issue of what is correct. There is no correct answer to this > question." > > "The question is; what is a sensible compromise that will not just work > for the professionals in the field but will work for everybody who is > interested the sky, the planets, is curious, is educating and so on." > > After Mr. Ekers and a panel member read two overwhelmingly positive and > zero dissenting messages from colleagues on the pending resolutions he > called for a show of hands however; 15 IAU members stepped forward to > speak. The first 14 speakers were dissenting, and generally cut off by > Mr. Ekers. The contentious and angry dissention included voters "not > being properly consulted" and receiving the changed resolutions "just > now as entering the session." > > The response from Ekers; "the last step of the proposals was done in > secret to keep them from the press." It seems that a lot of people were > interested in this outcome and were getting in the way of the desired > outcome of the rogue scientists. > > These IAU members strongly dissented stating that the decision to vote > was rushed, more debate needs to take place, the vote should be > postponed and that "what was being presented was an insult to the entire > astronomical institution." > > The 15th and final speaker was recognized and stated that he was no > scientist but that he wanted to say that the committee was doing a great > job. > > A movement by prominent scientists to meet mid-2007 to organize an > electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed. > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers is the motherfucker. A crank. Of course, IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers doesn't want electronic voting... https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81m1ZFcggzL._AC_SL1000_.jpg -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.