- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 17,868
- Reaction score
- 9,832
Needed a change for a while and I found my old Davis shoop that I love.
I'm on my phone a lot lately and often forget what I have.
Bring back serious cat!
Needed a change for a while and I found my old Davis shoop that I love.
I'm on my phone a lot lately and often forget what I have.
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.
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.
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.
Bring back serious cat!
Zack, found you a sig
"in principle, I gtg with the gay man vs the MILF" --Doughbelly
Didn't realise people cared. It will come back soon enough.
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.
Zack, found you a sig
"in principle, I gtg with the gay man vs the MILF" --Doughbelly
Avarice this is a big deal I didn't even recognize you at first.
So being gay the punchline to a joke? SMH
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.
Can you show me on this bear where did the Bad Liberal touched you?
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.
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.