The 12th Planet

[Perfection]

I also never leave my room, and spend more time playing civ2 and flying celestia, and less time studying.

Well then your ignorance is self-imposed and therefore isn't my problem. You'll have to learn to back up your arguements some day, better to make your first attempts at an annonymous internet forum then in real life.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

You'll have to learn to back up your arguements some day, better to make your first attempts at an annonymous internet forum then in real life.

That's true. That's true.

 

[wtiberon]

Perfection I think its time to lay off the guy. Evidence is all about corroberation anyway and people once "believed" the earth was flat until other people began to "believe" the earth was round...all without any proof. Fact of the matter is you or I have no clue if the earth is flat or round since we personally have not traveled around it but instead we rely on information published by others. In my mind Pluto's theory is just as legitamate as any theory on the development of our society.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Evidence is all about corroberation anyway and people once "believed" the earth was flat until other people began to "believe" the earth was round...all without any proof. Fact of the matter is you or I have no clue if the earth is flat or round since we personally have not traveled around it but instead we rely on information published by others.

That is very true, and only those who have travelled in space know for sure whether the earth is round.

 

[Perfection]

Perfection I think its time to lay off the guy. Evidence is all about corroberation anyway and people once "believed" the earth was flat until other people began to "believe" the earth was round...all without any proof.

Incorrect, there was much evidence to a round earth the bahavior of shadows on different points of the earth, the fact that euclidian geometry doesn't work. There was numerous evidence to support a round earth.

Fact of the matter is you or I have no clue if the earth is flat or round since we personally have not traveled around it but instead we rely on information published by others.

So we shouldn't accept the validity of published information? Even if it is coherent makes lots of examples, and gives much supportive information from independant sources? How paranoid are you to not accept anything you read in a book?!?!?! A critical mind is one thing, but this is taking things way to far!

In my mind Pluto's theory is just as legitamate as any theory on the development of our society.

So you consider a handful of books and a video published by a small group of people to be equal to volumes and volumes of work based on billions of dollars of expirimentation and corroboration and thousands of people who make it their life's work to study this phenomenon.

You, my friend, stand for everything I am against, that is the dismissal of science in favor of crack-pot ill-thought-out and poorly evidenced hooey!

 

[Perfection]

That is very true, and only those who have travelled in space know for sure whether the earth is round.

Well then how can you KNOW that Nibru exists when you've never even left your room!

 

[Cuivienen]

Well, you called the thread "The 12th Planet" then said the sun is one of those 12 planets. Why didn't you call it "The 10th Planet"?

Responding to an old post, but there is a tenth planet. Sedna.

 

[Perfection]

Responding to an old post, but there is a tenth planet. Sedna.

Sedna is not considered a planet because scientists theorize that there are much more Inner Oort objects so instead of being a unique planet it is merely a member of a large population of objects, just like Ceres isn't considered a planet, merely an asteroid, and why IMNSHO pluto shouldn't be considered a planet as well. If you want to argue further I suggest you look at my arguements in the "Terraform Pluto thread" you can grab the link in PlutonianEmpire's sig

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Well then how can you KNOW that Nibru exists when you've never even left your room!

Actually, I do leave my room. I go to college, (i'm on acedemic probation for not passing a website class ), I go out with my family to dinners, I read my books (including all that stuff about Nibiru), and some other stuff.

 

[Perfection]

Actually, I do leave my room. I go to college, (i'm on acedemic probation for not passing a website class ), I go out with my family to dinners, I read my books (including all that stuff about Nibiru), and some other stuff.

Have you ever been to Nibiru? Have you ever seen it?

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Perhaps in previous lifetime? He he....

 

[Perfection]

Perhaps in previous lifetime? He he....

I'll take that as a no.

The thing is if you deride me for basing a lot of information on stuff I haven't directly seen and do the same thing yourself then it's hypocrisy.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

I remember this saying about tv, and it think it applies here: IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU SEE, CHANGE THE CHANNEL!!!! So if you don't like what I say in this thread, then you can just choose to not look at this thread. Simple as that.

 

[wtiberon]

Incorrect, there was much evidence to a round earth the bahavior of shadows on different points of the earth, the fact that euclidian geometry doesn't work. There was numerous evidence to support a round earth.

I'm not contesting the Earth is round I'm contesting the fact that YOU personally have never proved the earth was round and simply pointed out the fact that you use others test and observations to create your own conclusions. My point is that nothing is 100 percent conclusive...nothing.

So we shouldn't accept the validity of published information? Even if it is coherent makes lots of examples, and gives much supportive information from independant sources? How paranoid are you to not accept anything you read in a book?!?!?! A critical mind is one thing, but this is taking things way to far!

Again you've misunderstood my point but I'm hardly suprised. My point...once again...is to prove to you that YOU personally cannot be 100 percent sure what is fact and what is fiction. Just as people believed with unflinching certainty the Earth is flat you believe it to be round...whats the difference. They also had books and experts to support their theory and also the land before them stretch flat for miles so they had were able to make observational theories.

So you consider a handful of books and a video published by a small group of people to be equal to volumes and volumes of work based on billions of dollars of expirimentation and corroboration and thousands of people who make it their life's work to study this phenomenon.

All great theories start with one mind and one book. I put no stock in the amount of literature or dollars spent on one paticular theory since I have seen theories that have stood the test of time come crumbling down in the face of new evidence.

You, my friend, stand for everything I am against, that is the dismissal of science in favor of crack-pot ill-thought-out and poorly evidenced hooey!

You are everything I stand against. So entrenched in your scientific theories you become blind to anyone elses theories or ideas. You are following a blind faith my friend and I hope one day you wake up and realize that science is not the great puzzle solver you may think it is.

Not to say that I don't believe in some of its theories but those our MY opinions and ones opinions and theories are no more valid than anothers...especially yours.

 

[Perfection]

I remember this saying about tv, and it think it applies here: IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU SEE, CHANGE THE CHANNEL!!!! So if you don't like what I say in this thread, then you can just not post on this thread. Simple as that.

Actually I quite enjoy debunking hooey, not as much as I enjoy discussing real science, but hey, it beats watching TV!

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

So entrenched in your scientific theories you become blind to anyone elses theories or ideas. You are following a blind faith my friend and I hope one day you wake up and realize that science is not the great puzzle solver you may think it is.

Well done!

@Perfection
Although it doesn't seem like it, I actually love science, and I have a subscription to Scientific American. (Although I only read the intersting stuff, like nukes and astronomy and some physics.)

 

[Perfection]

I'm not contesting the Earth is round I'm contesting the fact that YOU personally have never proved the earth was round and simply pointed out the fact that you use others test and observations to create your own conclusions. My point is that nothing is 100 percent conclusive...nothing.

True, but I fail to see how this applies to the situation.

Again you've misunderstood my point but I'm hardly suprised. My point...once again...is to prove to you that YOU personally cannot be 100 percent sure what is fact and what is fiction. Just as people believed with unflinching certainty the Earth is flat you believe it to be round...whats the difference. They also had books and experts to support their theory and also the land before them stretch flat for miles so they had were able to make observational theories.

True but I fail to see how this applies to the situation.

All great theories start with one mind and one book. I put no stock in the amount of literature or dollars spent on one paticular theory since I have seen theories that have stood the test of time come crumbling down in the face of new evidence.

So we shouldn't beleive any theory because some theories were proven false? I'll should take away all that technology that you use because of the validity of those theories! Also, you speak of new evidence making it cumble, I fail to see any new evidence.

You are everything I stand against. So entrenched in your scientific theories you become blind to anyone elses theories or ideas.

How am I entrenched, I constantly modify my theories with the data. Should I beleive a theory that has no data? The current model of the solar system has a whole lot of credence to it, should I dump it in favor of this unsubstantiated book. I'm very open minded when someone actually has evidence, but to say that theories with no evidence are equal to theories with plenty of evidence is stupid.

You are following a blind faith my friend and I hope one day you wake up and realize that science is not the great puzzle solver you may think it is.

Blind faith?!?! I'm sorrounded by objects that come from scientific thought and theories! I'm a pragmatist, I go with what works. Can you give me absolutly any better philosophy to follow then science?

Not to say that I don't believe in some of its theories but those our MY opinions and ones opinions and theories are no more valid than anothers...especially yours.

That's wrong! My theories are well thought out based on much research and can explain a whole hell of a lot as well as being put through the wringer of the scientific method. Why shouldn't I express my theories? If theories aren't discussed how can we determine if they are valid or not? Science progresses by discussion!

 

[Perfection]

Well done!

Never clap until you hear the rebuttal

@Perfection
Although it doesn't seem like it, I actually love science, and I have a subscription to Scientific American. (Although I only read the intersting stuff, like nukes and astronomy and some physics.)

If you love it, then why must you believe in a theory that you cannot substantiate? Science is all about the evidence, if you try to pass off a theory without evidence you are slapping the face of science!

 

[wtiberon]

True, but I fail to see how this applies to the situation.

True but I fail to see how this applies to the situation.

Because you refuse to accept other notions that may be or may not be true because current trends do not point that way

So we shouldn't beleive any theory because some theories were proven false? I'll should take away all that technology that you use because of the validity of those theories! Also, you speak of new evidence making it cumble, I fail to see any new evidence.

Your missing the point...again. I'm simply stating that you shouldn't utterly refute a theory if you have no evidence to refute it with.

How am I entrenched, I constantly modify my theories with the data. Should I beleive a theory that has no data? The current model of the solar system has a whole lot of credence to it, should I dump it in favor of this unsubstantiated book. I'm very open minded when someone actually has evidence, but to say that theories with no evidence are equal to theories with plenty of evidence is stupid.

You have become entrenched in the idea that what science says must be the truth...you take the newest scientific data and ear mark it as truth...thats very very very scary. The things that Pluto believes in DOES have some validity...just as much as what you believe in.

Blind faith?!?! I'm sorrounded by objects that come from scientific thought and theories! I'm a pragmatist, I go with what works. Can you give me absolutly any better philosophy to follow then science?

What I mean by blind faith is your forced to believe what science says simply because you actively cannot prove otherwise. You recieve data from test that you yourself did not witness and say "o well the scientists says it true so it must be." I suppose science is just as good of a thing to believe in as any but DO NOT begin to critize other theories simply because you do not believe them to have enough "evidence".

That's wrong! My theories are well thought out based on much research and can explain a whole hell of a lot as well as being put through the wringer of the scientific method. Why shouldn't I express my theories? If theories aren't discussed how can we determine if they are valid or not? Science progresses by discussion!

You should express your theories but you shouldn't critize other's theories lest you be critized. Your young but you'll understand in time I'm sure .

 

[Xen]

I'm going to disagree, in ths forum I've argued things that have later been shown to be false, and have won them. I recall an arguement about chemistry that I convinced the other side that steroisomerism was the same thing as chirality, which it is not.

but I'm sure you'll agree; that with what facts were presented in your argument, and the facvts presented in the counter-argument certianlyl weighed in your favor, until new facts, or at least facts that had not been presented previouslly, disproved your argument at a later date.