Originally posted by royalchickenIt's good advice to never trust a philosopher whose last name starts with 'H'. Hegel, Habermas, Heidegger, Husserl, etc., all of them produced nothing but bunk.
Counting the planets...
Around 1800, Hegel published a metaphysical proof that there are exactly 7 planets in our solar system, just weeks before Gauss predicted the orbit of the minor planet Ceres, which was later confirmed by observation.
Cosmic ph*ckup or the dialectic at work 😉?
Originally posted by royalchickenBut perhaps Hegel's proof is sound and there really are 7 planets. That would mean that two (or three now, i guess) objects we take to be planets really are not.🙄
Counting the planets...
Around 1800, Hegel published a metaphysical proof that there are exactly 7 planets in our solar system, just weeks before Gauss predicted the orbit of the minor planet Ceres, which was later confirmed by observation.
Cosmic ph*ckup or the dialectic at work 😉?
Originally posted by geniusI've heard of this too, i forget which planet was the most recently discovered by im pretty sure it was that one. Im thinking Venus, although the fact im thinking that makes it highly unlikely 😉
isn't there also a so-called "planet X", which distorts pluto's orbit? something about pluto's orbit being all weird so there's gotta be another planets gavity working on it or something like that?...*isn't too sure*
"unter planet" and "ober planet" are the most officially recognized terms when classifying planets.
The new one is about a 1000 miles in diameter so will undoubtedly be known as an "unter planet" if it reaches the status of planet at all. It will probably just be classified as a KBO... "Kuiper Belt Object" of which there are more being discovered each day. The first "big ones" started showing up in 1998 or so. This latest one is on average about 8 billion miles from the sun, or about twice as far out as Pluto/Charon
Most concider Pluto/Charon to be an "unter binary" planet system.
For more on the mysterious object known as "Nemisis" go to this site or just type in "Oort Cloud Nemesis" in your favorite search engine ... This is one theory that trys to explain the "cyclical" nature of astroid based extinctions that earth has undergone. You might find it interesting to know that we are at the point, error + - million years, of the point when our next great extinction is due. That means us this time. 😲
http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1996Jan/msg00467.html
Originally posted by StarValleyWyi did read an article claiming a cyclical cosmic cataclysm was down to a planet called "TIAMAT",which was originally in an orbit which led to a collision with another large object/planet and every so many years(11000-25000 is most popular) TIAMAT follows its extreme eliptical orbit resulting in it entering our inner solar system.
"unter planet" and "ober planet" are the most officially recognized terms when classifying planets.
The new one is about a 1000 miles in diameter so will undoubtedly be known as an "unter planet" if it reaches the status of planet at all. It will probably just be classified as a KBO... "Kuiper Belt Object" of which there are more being disco ...[text shortened]... is due. That means us this time. 😲
http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1996Jan/msg00467.html
Originally posted by bbarrAw, come on, that's a little harsh, don't you think? Maybe they're not as influential as Mr. fancy pants Kant, but surely they produced more than bunk. Heidegger did produce a lot of bunk (especially in his Nazi phase), but I don't think all of his output can be so summarily dismissed. There must be something worthwhile in Being and Time, for example. Surely there must.
It's good advice to never trust a philosopher whose last name starts with 'H'. Hegel, Habermas, Heidegger, Husserl, etc., all of them produced nothing but bunk.
Originally posted by rwingettI'm still wondering whether Bennett intended to slander Hume like that...
Aw, come on, that's a little harsh, don't you think? Maybe they're not as influential as Mr. fancy pants Kant, but surely they produced more than bunk. Heidegger did produce a lot of bunk (especially in his Nazi phase), but I don't think all of his output can be so summarily dismissed. There must be something worthwhile in Being and Time, for example. Surely there must.