What is the moon? A star or a planet?

They are both right in a sense. But he didn't know what the sun is, so he doesn't know shite. The moon is a planetary body, which I think they both knew (not by term). But it's not a planet in laymen terms (or other), and they were obviously talking in laymen terms.

She jumps from not being a planet to the moon being a star while he's sticking with planet (I can't watch this more than once, so ;P) so in principle, I gtg with the gay man vs the MILF.

Even in layman's terms, when you land on Endor (satellite of a planet) it's still a planet.
 
See, I think that's the problem with the way science is taught. Almost all definitions in classification schemes are by inherently arbitrary when defining the borders between groups of taxons. Taxons used here in the broader classification sense, not the organism sense. But organisms, too.

Instead of learning the principle characteristics of groups or clusters of objects and why they can be seen one way or another, you have people like this women reciting that they learned what the planets were and that's what they are.

The general population's reaction to this in 2006 is indicative of just this thing. They were offended that something they were taught was "wrong" and a lot of anti-science people took this to be a sign of how science was always full of error, ignoring the fact that as your knowledge expands, how you see and classify the world should change.

Lots of scientists don't even fully grasp the nature of science. I really don't expect the average Joe to understand it for the most part.
 
She jumps from not being a planet to the moon being a star while he's sticking with planet (I can't watch this more than once, so ;P) so in principle, I gtg with the gay man vs the MILF.

Even in layman's terms, when you land on Endor (satellite of a planet) it's still a planet.

Zack, found you a sig

"in principle, I gtg with the gay man vs the MILF" --Doughbelly
 
See, I think that's the problem with the way science is taught. Almost all definitions in classification schemes are by inherently arbitrary when defining the borders between groups of taxons. Taxons used here in the broader classification sense, not the organism sense. But organisms, too.

Instead of learning the principle characteristics of groups or clusters of objects and why they can be seen one way or another, you have people like this women reciting that they learned what the planets were and that's what they are.

The general population's reaction to this in 2006 is indicative of just this thing. They were offended that something they were taught was "wrong" and a lot of anti-science people took this to be a sign of how science was always full of error, ignoring the fact that as your knowledge expands, how you see and classify the world should change.

that just shows that most ppl dont have an understanding of how science works or r 2 stubborn to accept change

science is constantly changing with new results accommodating and modifying old information
 
Zack, found you a sig

"in principle, I gtg with the gay man vs the MILF" --Doughbelly

44a1f2eb1bc7d123d7137e6a9e63619a.320x240x158.gif


mortalwombat.jpg
 
She jumps from not being a planet to the moon being a star while he's sticking with planet (I can't watch this more than once, so ;P) so in principle, I gtg with the gay man vs the MILF.

Even in layman's terms, when you land on Endor (satellite of a planet) it's still a planet.

It's just searching for alternative terms which it could be, there's not a whole lot of conviction in thinking it is a star. Confusion doesn't represent well what one actually thinks. I'm on team FEMALE. Gay guy can go fuck a black hole.

In laymen terms it's either a planet or a moon, so I'd say a moon. A satellite is what poor peeps have to adjust their TV antenna to.
 
It's just searching for alternative terms which it could be, there's not a whole lot of conviction in thinking it is a star. Confusion doesn't represent well what one actually thinks. I'm on team FEMALE. Gay guy can go fuck a black hole.

In laymen terms it's either a planet or a moon, so I'd say a moon. A satellite is what poor peeps have to adjust their TV antenna to.

You have a green account, start a poll. Endor, planet, moon, satellite or star? Choose one.
 
I think the moon is a star because I see it at night. Because it's my opinion, that makes it worth listening to. Everyone deserves to have their opinion listened to. If you disagree that's fine but don't try to hold me back for having an opinion. We can all have opinions about things like this and they are all valid.
 
I think the moon is a star because I see it at night. Because it's my opinion, that makes it worth listening to. Everyone deserves to have their opinion listened to. If you disagree that's fine but don't try to hold me back for having an opinion. We can all have opinions about things like this and they are all valid.

Large-Steiff-Hannes-Teddy-Bear.jpg


Can you show me on this bear where did the Bad Liberal touched you?
 
Large-Steiff-Hannes-Teddy-Bear.jpg


Can you show me on this bear where did the Bad Liberal touched you?

I was thinking of anti-science people when I wrote that. "I believe (vaccines cause autism/evolution is a theory/global warming isn't being caused by humans/I have any idea what's going on when I talk about stem cells/etc.) and I'm not in any way qualified to have an opinion, but please publish it in your publications."

Infuriating. If you're a farmer, you're probably an expert at farming so shut the holy hell up about astronomy.
 
The 2006 IAU definition of planets is dumb for several reasons, one of them being that it doesn't define what a "natural satellite" is. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the Moon is a captured satellite that was its own planet at some point.

I would argue that the Earth-Moon system, despite having a barycenter within the Earth is a binary planet as opposed to a natural satellite. Trajectory of the Earth-Moon orbit around the Sun.

640px-Moon_trajectory1.svg.png


Note that the Moon never has retrograde motion in relation to the Earth or Sun as defined by it's Solar orbital path. That means the Moon is more heavily influenced by the gravity of the Sun than it is by the gravity of the Earth.

In this case, Pluto-Charon would definitely be a binary planet because not only does Charon orbit the Sun more than it orbits Pluto, its common barycenter is outside of Pluto's diameter.

I thought that the Moon's near circular orbit made the capture theory questionable.

Also, here's a quote I once read in a book by some dude named Bruce Cathie (fringe researcher). Your post reminded me of it and I found it interesting.

"The Moon does not actually revolve around the Earth as it would first appear. What in fact occurs is that the two bodies mutually revolved around their centre of mass. This point is called the barycentre. One complete revolution occurs during one sidereal month. Calculation by modern instruments shows that the mean distance of the barycentre from the centre of the Earth is 4,672 kilometres. Therefore, the point of revolution is approximately 1,694.58 kilometers below the Earth's surface."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top