Philosophy Forum

 		Log In New Topics New Posts

Necessarily, the number of planets is nine. ?!

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » Necessarily, the number of planets is nine. ?!
  4. » Page 5

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 05:51 pm
@Magnus phil,
Magnus;123921 wrote:
Pluto isn't really a planet, so the number is actually 8.


You certainly know how to get right to the heart of the matter.
 
Magnus phil
 
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 06:06 pm
@kennethamy,
That was just a joke.

I have to type in 16 characters to respond?
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 04:47 am
@Magnus phil,
Magnus;123937 wrote:
That was just a joke.

I have to type in 16 characters to respond?


Old joke is old. W?ll you stop derailing the thread now?

And yes, you need some number of characters to post. That is sometimes annoying if a good post could consist of a simple "Yes", answer.
 
Magnus phil
 
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 12:26 pm
@Owen phil,
I'm sorry. I thought I just made that joke up myself. I didn't mean to derail the thread. sorry...
 
Magnus phil
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 04:08 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;123622 wrote:
Pluto was defined as a planet between 1930 (discovery) and 2006 when we discovered object heavier and further away from the Sun. By consensus Pluto in now a dwarf-planet, so the number of Solar-planets is agreed upon as eight.

If a premises is no longer true, how about the arguments?


Now they are saying there should be more planets based on the current criteria.

New Planets
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 04:10 pm
@Magnus phil,
Magnus;124461 wrote:
Now they are saying there should be more planets based on the current criteria.

New Planets


Once again, straight to the heart of the matter.
 
Angra Mainyu
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 07:36 pm
@Magnus phil,
Magnus;124461 wrote:
Now they are saying there should be more planets based on the current criteria.

New Planets


As kennethamy pointed out, that's not relevant to the matter at hand, but also, it's incorrect (which is also not relevant to the thread's subject, but if we're nitpicking, let's at least nitpick properly Smile).


Actually, the link you provide is to a comment on one of the proposed definitions of "planet" before the 2006 decision that established a different definition.

So, no new definition any time soon.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » Necessarily, the number of planets is nine. ?!
  4. » Page 5
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 12:44:32
▲ ▼