Jump to content

Shower thoughts


p1t1o
 Share

Recommended Posts

Many thousands of years of learning and understanding where you hope wisdom would be gained. Yet we are still trying to fit the solar system and greater universe to our world view rather than adjust our world view to take in to account what we have observed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planets are planets and moons are moons whether we can see them or not. It is almost like saying "it can't rain in New Zealand because I live in Great Britain and can't see, hear, or feel it rain anywhere but here!"

There are times our intelligence becomes a victim of our own overthinking. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Planets are planets and moons are moons whether we can see them or not. It is almost like saying "it can't rain in New Zealand because I live in Great Britain and can't see, hear, or feel it rain anywhere but here!"

Idk, idk...

How much simple it was...

Spoiler

signruler.png


...and what it has turned into, when somebody decided to add U, N, P.

Spoiler

signrulers.png

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to Dulok after Shrek left?

On the one hand, the removal of a tyrannical despot with a Napoleon complex would be a good thing, but on the other hand there didn’t appear to be anyone obvious to step up and fill the power vacuum- which history has shown time and again will only lead to more problems down the line. All three of the sequels focus on Far Far Away whereas Dulok doesn’t even get a mention in any of them (to my knowledge at least), it seems a bit weird that after doing all that worldbuilding they’d just abandon it completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2021 at 4:08 PM, ColdJ said:

Pluto was a planet when I was born and shall remain so till I die.

I agree. However, with Pluto's largest  "moon," Charon being nearly the same size as it, maybe we should consider Pluto and Charon as a binary planetary system. :) Just a thought.

And I will probably incur the wrath of the forum for even suggesting that.

On 11/21/2021 at 4:49 PM, ColdJ said:

I am not sure they were ever thought of as planets. But they definely wouldn't be happy finding out that they weren't Gods.

I have some college first year students who are about to find out that the universe does not orbit around their giant egos. Yeah finals are in two weeks. And I have nine in one class that have no mathematical way of passing the class - even if they make a perfect score on the exam. So, they are about to discover that they are not gods and they don't even rate to be a small moon, planetoid, or other heavenly body! :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

However, with Pluto's largest  "moon," Charon being nearly the same size as it, maybe we should consider Pluto and Charon as a binary planetary system. :) Just a thought.

I agree. We need that, because then we would have a binary planet system. Might as well make Ceres a planet while we’re at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2021 at 3:25 PM, kerbiloid said:

How much simple it was...

Those two diagrams look identically confusing to me.

I will admit though that I'm biased against astrology because I don't believe in it at all. Which is just what you'd expect from a Virgo with Jupiter ascending I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Those two diagrams look identically confusing to me.

While the original, classic one is symmetric (except for the Sun and the Moon), and every classic planet rules two signs (and thus, houses), the modified one has Uranus, Neptune, Pluto which replace the classic Jupiter, Saturn, Mars in their homes and bring chaos, but at the same time they are kinda same planet, but kinda their higher alternative.
And at the same time, as their orbital period exceeds anything reasonable in terms of human lifespan, they weren't required at all.

I.e. the simple like hand classic scheme has been replaced with a mess just because somebody discovered those Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, and decided to call them planets.
The silliness of this way got obvious since other plutos have been discovered, but the evil deed already has been done.

3 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

against astrology because I don't believe in it at all

Like if I do.
But the only actual reason the astronomers do their holywar about the planet definition, is "is it worth joining the Classic Planets", which are totally astrological thing.

2 hours ago, Admiral Fluffy said:

Hey does anyone know what this is?

I've never seen this planet before.

It's written "dres" there.

Afaik, "dres" is a "tracksuit" in Polish, and a slang word for the street/school hooligans.

Anyway, some kind of trash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

But the only actual reason the astronomers do their holywar about the planet definition, is "is it worth joining the Classic Planets", which are totally astrological thing.

wat

Maybe that's the problem. Quit calling them planets so the woo woos can have their word back.

I propose "planerts"

Is Pluto a Planet? Sure. Or no. Whatever. Who cares that's the weird word astrologers use. Ask them.

Is Pluto a Planert? No, because of this definition of Planert that has nothing to do with if you're going to find the love of your life this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

Is Pluto a Planet? Sure. Or no. Whatever. Who cares that's the weird word astrologers use. Ask them.

But the ony reason why Mercury (and for boomers also Pluto) are "planets", while Ganymede and Triton aren't, is that the latter belong to another planet, deserving to be on the classic Olympus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

deserving to be on the classic Olympus.

I don't know what that means, but my definition of Planert is that an object is a Planert if:

  1. It must orbit a star (in our cosmic neighborhood, the Sun).
  2. It must be big enough to have enough gravity to force it into a spherical shape.
  3. It must be big enough that its gravity cleared away any other objects of a similar size near its orbit around the Sun.

(I got these from NASA's definition of a Planet, which of course was trying to redefine that old term Planet)

My new definition of the word Planet is that an object is a Planet if:

  1. You have feels that it should be a Planet.

There. Now I get the real definition on a new word, and the arguments about whether or not Disney's animated puppy isn't cute enough are off the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

I don't know what that means, but my definition of Planert is that an object is a Planert if:

  1. It must orbit a star (in our cosmic neighborhood, the Sun).
  2. It must be big enough to have enough gravity to force it into a spherical shape.
  3. It must be big enough that its gravity cleared away any other objects of a similar size near its orbit around the Sun.

(I got these from NASA's definition of a Planet, which of course was trying to redefine that old term Planet)

My new definition of the word Planet is that an object is a Planet if:

  1. You have feels that it should be a Planet.

There. Now I get the real definition on a new word, and the arguments about whether or not Disney's animated puppy isn't cute enough are off the table.

Like I said before.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

I don't know what that means, but my definition of Planert is that an object is a Planert if:

  1. It must orbit a star (in our cosmic neighborhood, the Sun).
  2. It must be big enough to have enough gravity to force it into a spherical shape.
  3. It must be big enough that its gravity cleared away any other objects of a similar size near its orbit around the Sun.

Why at all is there a need to distinguish Mercury from Ganymede or Triton?
Why at all need some VIP celestial bodies? Aren't they all created equal?

46 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

There. Now I get the real definition on a new word, and the arguments about whether or not Disney's animated puppy isn't cute enough are off the table.

Why at all do you need to highlight several celestial bodies between many thousands of others?

***

The only reason of the "planet/non-planet" discrimination is that there is a VIP lounge for several bodies known since the Sumerian voodoo, which were being used for astrology for millenia.
In the ancient times they were the only ones, visibly moving. Thus, they were used for astrological purposes.

When people started discovering new moving spots in the sky, they started adding them to this VIP lounge.

Now they have known many thousands of them, and the VIP lounge is overcrowded.
So, the astronomers are fighting for the definitions, which astronomical object deserves to be a part of the astrological VIP club.
No other need in any "planet" definitions.

Stop astronomical racism! Ganymede is a planet!

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Why at all is there a need to distinguish Mercury from Ganymede or Triton?

Dunno. I didn't come up with the definition.

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Why at all need some VIP celestial bodies? Aren't they all created equal?

Why is my coupe not an SUV? Isn't it special enough for you why do you hate mutt car?

I never said Plane(r)ts were better. I don't know why you think they are supposed to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it orbits the Sun without also orbiting something else that also orbits the Sun = Planet.

If it also orbits something else = Moon.

If it gets into fights all the time = Asteroid.

If it goes on long holidays and only visits occasionally = Visitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Maria Sirona said:

If a meteoroid is a small rock in space, a meteor one in the atmosphere, and a meteorite is one that has hit the surface, should asteroids in a planet's atmosphere be called aster and should those which have already landed be called asterite?

Considering the size required to be an asteroid, I think the landed 1 would be called Crater, and "world altering event"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Maria Sirona said:

If a meteoroid is a small rock in space, a meteor one in the atmosphere, and a meteorite is one that has hit the surface, should asteroids in a planet's atmosphere be called aster and should those which have already landed be called asterite?

20 minutes ago, ColdJ said:

Considering the size required to be an asteroid, I think the landed 1 would be called Crater, and "world altering event"

I was going to say, if you're still around after the asteroid lands you're welcome to call it whatever you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Maria Sirona said:

If a meteoroid is a small rock in space, a meteor one in the atmosphere, and a meteorite is one that has hit the surface, should asteroids in a planet's atmosphere be called aster and should those which have already landed be called asterite?

"Asterite" sounds like a good name for the mineral layer left behind on the entire surface of the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...