nexguy
@nexguy@lemmy.world
No thoughts
- Comment on Tankie 3 days ago:
I don’t care at all of this is im14andthisisdeep. I love it
- Comment on Sad Ganymede noises 4 days ago:
Can you explains the knitpicking? They specifically decided that only objects orbiting our star can be Planets. It wasn’t an oversight but intentional. How can that be explained? Why do that?
Also, how can mercury be explained? It clearly violated one of the 3 rules with no given exception other than they just decided it can be a planet. Why?
25% of the 8 objects they wrote rules for needed an exception to make the cut. That doesn’t seem odd?
- Comment on Sad Ganymede noises 4 days ago:
There is nothing difficult to grasp. They made rules then decided for no reason to let mercury break the rule. Why? Why not make mercury a dwarf planet instead of allowing it with no rule exception other than…just because.
This is not bioligical… those MUST follow the rules. This was a traditional unscientific last… Exactly like constellations. Why not start removing stars from constellations because they are too far away? Except a couple of them just because.
This IAU conference vote was not unanimous… it was very contentious and many wanted a more geological and broad definition rather than an earth centered definition that literally ONLY applies to our solar system. “Planets” can only exist around OUR Sun. Think about that.
- Comment on Sad Ganymede noises 4 days ago:
I understand the exception created for Neptune. But they had to create this exception… for their own brand new rule… in order to classify 8 things. Notice the exception is written very specifically just to keep pluto from “clearing” is orbit.
Another IAU rule is that the body must assume hydrostatic equilibrium(nearly round). Mercury does NOT assume hydrostatic equilibrium. They knew this.
Guess what? They just…decided…Mercury doesn’t have to follow that rule.
It was all done very unscientifically.
- Comment on Sad Ganymede noises 4 days ago:
It’s a fine metaphor but it doesn’t work for scientific definitions which are exact. The IAU came up with the rule then had to make an exception to their own brand new rule in order to have Neptune remain a planet but not pluto even though both fail the rule. The exception is real and written down, not assumed.
Yet again another of the IAU rules is the body has to be assume hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round). Mercury is NOT in hydrostatic equilibrium and they knew this. So they just…decided… that Mercury is a planet anyway and does not have to follow that rule.
So two planets don’t even follow the rules they made yet were unscientifically decided to be planets. Why? What was the point of it? Certainly wasn’t done for any scientific reason.
- Comment on Sad Ganymede noises 4 days ago:
If the definition of a planet is that it has cleared is orbit then how is Neptune a planet? It shares its orbit with the dwarf planet pluto therefore they should both be dwarf planets correct?
- Comment on Sad Ganymede noises 4 days ago:
The definition of planet should be what it is, a traditional unscientific category based on history… like constellations. Calling Mercury a planet and Jupiter a planet as though they are similar in almost any way is silly scientifically.
Perhaps leave the traditional planets category alone and create new categories that could pertain to all systems not just ours. Maybe something like terrestrial planets, gas planets, dwarf planets… etc. Categories that won’t have to change any time a new discovery is made.
- Comment on Sad Ganymede noises 5 days ago:
I agree except in this instance the goal was to keep Earth’s classification important. No other scientific objective. Just seemed very geocentric to me.
- Comment on Sad Ganymede noises 5 days ago:
Yes, that’s the made up exception. And for neptune not clearing its orbit due to pluto crossing that orbit? Well we have to make an exception for that so…um…the resonance between neptune and pluto. Exception achieved!
The rules are so contrived that it would not make sense for almost any other system except exactly ours. Whatever it takes to keep Earth’s category of “planet” important… you know… for reasons.
Very unscientific but very human.
- Comment on Sad Ganymede noises 5 days ago:
Well of course that was the exception they had to come up with for their contrived rule. The exception is: “whatever it takes to make pluto not a planet”. Since the vote was agenda fueled and not a scientific discussion.
Once something new is discovered and breaks the rules they will have to modify the contrived rule to keep pluto not a planet.
- Comment on Sad Ganymede noises 5 days ago:
Jupiter has a permanent cloud of asteroids that follow it and neptune crosses the orbit of pluto so neither of those have cleared their orbits so of course they made exceptions so that their contilrived definition fits.
- Comment on Sad Ganymede noises 5 days ago:
You would think this is the case but they specifically decided through a vote that a dwarf planet is NOT a planet but a completely separate type of object. The whole vote was ridiculous and done at the very end of the conference so that only a fraction of the members were there to vote on pluto.
- Comment on Mom with the real questions 1 week ago:
Sounds like they get to turn a studio into a loft for free.
- Comment on Internet picture of a monkey 1 week ago:
You can have a duplicate made for a few bucks. Not free but when the difference is $1 to $1000 or $0 to $1000, no one wants your beanie baby just as much as no one wants your nft monkey picture.
Both can be authenticated to say you own the only blockchain backed copy of an nft or a rare beanie baby. Almost no one cares about either.
- Comment on Internet picture of a monkey 1 week ago:
A beanie baby did exist yet provably cost $1 to make and sold for hundreds…pretty valid comparison.
- Comment on Check mate, atheists. 1 week ago:
The whole point of faith is that you accept it blindly without evidence and should not even try to find evidence as this would be s sign of weak faith.
Well isn’t that convenient
- Comment on Why do you hate AI? 4 weeks ago:
The post says nothing about exclusivity. Just attributing it to his own race but not at the exclusion of others.
- Comment on "No eating for free allowed! You must only watch it rot on the beach!" 4 weeks ago:
You need to leave alone the earthly process of food falling off container ships. It’s nature’s way.
- Comment on Trump wants the NFL to change its name so that soccer is the only sport called football: ‘We have to come up with another name for the NFL stuff’ 5 weeks ago:
Let me guess, the “Foot Force”
- Comment on same shit every day, on god 1 month ago:
Are these going to be just…kettles for the U.K.?
- Comment on idk 1 month ago:
Sounds like something someone who hasn’t had a life changing water boiling event in their life would say.
- Comment on Anon lives in 2056 1 month ago:
“I’ve said if
IvankaBarron weren’t mydaughterson, perhaps I’d be datingherhim” - Comment on One more internet meme 1 month ago:
… Would these beans actually do much of anything to hold up this legobrick building?
- Comment on Bank Workers, Rejoice! 1 month ago:
I’ll take a 90% 1,000 year loan please.
- Comment on The Confederacy (or whatever) 1 month ago:
If you take out the rack I think…i think it makes it worse.
- Comment on I've heard New Yorkers are devastated 1 month ago:
I agree with Kid Rock. How could he have time to sing to anyone but his full schedule of fascist supporters?
- Comment on Go Green 2 months ago:
…so ppl gotta try smoking tomatoes?
- Comment on Fictional 2 months ago:
So dumb/ass = c
Multiply both sides by ass.
Dumb = c*ass
Hmmmmmmmm
- Comment on $1,000 richer 2 months ago:
I’ll do it for free. You are beautiful.
- Comment on Banana 2 months ago:
So they can feed disease too? Is there anything bananas can’t do?