It was my understanding that latin terms for the solar bodies are valid scientific references regardless of your native tongue.
That's always been my understanding as well. Just the same as any other scientific term.
It was my understanding that latin terms for the solar bodies are valid scientific references regardless of your native tongue.
Yes, this is my issue with the definition.And I don't think there's anything wrong with the label "dwarf planet." If we can have dwarf stars and dwarf galaxies, why not dwarf planets? The only problem with it is the bizarre and self-contradictory assertion that a dwarf planet is not a planet at all. A dwarf star is still a star, and a dwarf galaxy is still a galaxy. I say we should just consider dwarf planets to be a particular subset of planets, just as giant planets are.
That's only if you ever accepted what the "scientists" said. I have no problem, because Pluto is a planet. Deal with it.I love that you put "scientists" between quotes, as if members of the International Astronomical Union do not deserve the name. People that spent their lives studying celestial objects, expanding our knowledge of the cosmos and, you know, making a living out of doing science.
Be careful with your quotes, or somebody will remember the hissy fit you threw about having "writer" under your name...![]()
There's nothing wrong with my quotes... as others have pointed out, science always changes, that is exactly WHY I refuse to accept the notion that Pluto is not a planet.
Who is to say that at some point in the future, the measure of what is regarded as a planet won't change yet again? The simple fact is, that we don't know enough about the universe yet to make that call, and it's utterly retarded that the call was made to say Pluto is not a planet. After all, all we know from "hands-on" experience, is what we have in our own solar system, and what we have been able to glean from imagery of exoplanets, so there is still a LOT for us to learn, before we can define with CERTAINTY, what constitutes a true planet, and what does not.
And if anyone disagrees with my regarding Pluto a planet, good for them... we're all entitled to our opinions, and I have mine.
it helps avoid confusion if there ever is a risk (the moon vs. a moon).
Pluto supporters may like to hear that the astronomer who promoted its demotion to a new class of minor planets has died.
Pluto supporters may like to hear that the astronomer who promoted its demotion to a new class of minor planets has died.
Pluto supporters may like to hear that the astronomer who promoted its demotion to a new class of minor planets has died.
Thats a very twisted thing to say.
I second everything said here.I'm not a moderator, and I don’t play one on television. But here’s my two credits’ worth:
Goliath: For heaven’s sake, there’s nothing wrong with referring to Earth’s Moon as “Luna,” especially, as Christopher pointed out, in a science-fiction context. It’s like calling the Earth “Terra” or the Sun “Sol.” Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
Christopher: You're overreacting a bit, I think. Yes, there are formal rules for quoting and editing someone else’s text. In actual writing. This is a bunch of geeks schmoozing on an internet BB.
In any case, “Fixed it for you” is cheapened when it’s used merely to “correct” another person’s usage or grammar. It should properly be used when altering someone else's words in a snide or sarcastic way, usually in the context of a political or sociological discussion. Like on TNZ.
Meanwhile, back on Pluto . . .
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.