NFUN

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bHel0htRUxVUKDcH9JdWF8BnsH-j37AO/view?usp=sharing

the fact jupiter has trojans is evidence it does dominate its orbit. and i'm not sure how a gas planet could even fail to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, but you do you

I graduated from there this year and I've never heard of that guy. Weird.

this isn't how loveing language works. This is the worst argument and everybody who makes it should feel embarassed And filter, believe me, this is me being polite

categories exist because they're useful. they have a meaning and, by knowing something is in a given category, you know something useful about it. "Planet" has a useful scientific meaning when defined. Saying that it should be gotten rid of in favor of a completely different definition with no justification of why it's obsolete is just, well, stupid. Especially when for most scenarios I can think of, knowing even its vaguest orbital properties is more useful than knowing if it's gaseous or not. And with your logic, why does it even matter if it's rounded or not? A rocky unrounded planet could be more massive than an icy one in equilibrium, and you can do and talk about all of the same things with them as you can a rounded body. That distinction certainly feels more arbitrary than "orbits around another big honking object". So really, "worlds" should just refer to any non-gaseous body, and then I suppose we can use a term for whether they orbit another world and whether they're rounded... how about "moon" and "planet". We're back at the start, and then may as well split off dwarf planets due to the reasons that have been spit out a hundred times. It's really not that hard to remember, unless four terms is too many to keep in mind.

That logic works identically for arguing Titan or Europa or Luna should be planets

so minor planets are planets?

yeppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

please

You need a framework to explain why that happens, obviously, but not a framework to explain the effect, as opposed to stuff like Mercury's orbital precision, which was just magic after other causes were ruled out. And let's be honest. Basically anything could've toppled our theory of light back then. Hell, the Michelson-Morley experiment already had, two decades before SR was published.

this is special relativity (and gravitational lensing is pretty easily explicable by saying that light is felt by gravity too, you don't need a whole framework to explain it

My favorite variant of this was when, in some Star Trek episode, communications or technology was being disrupted by the planet's reservoirs of astatine

1/2^n, for arbitrarily large values of n

I could go for a Starship called "New Falcon Ship Name"

Spiral arms actually have nothing to do with galactic rotation curves. The popular theory is that they're density waves--basically traffic jams of dust--that aren't created by groups of co-orbiting stars and gas, but rather are made up of starbursts created when increased density of gas triggered star formation. Stars don't remain in the arms forever, and they tend to be bluer as they're made of new stars, while the smaller, older stars that last long enough to escape them are left behind

Somewhat related:

I'm being subjected to Charmed, a show that I've long since trying to apply any kind of logic to, let any science. But this episode is absolutely bonkers. Bad things are happening because it's a blue moon. Sure, whatever. Then a character says the next blue moon won't be for 50 years. I object (because they happen every year or two), and I'm told that the blue moon that they're referring to is the second blue moon in a month. I'm in awe

In lieu of the question, here's the answer I found after an hour of searching small variations of the same damn terms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Network

Literally every episode of Scorpion, which is frustrating because they often get like 80% of the way to being correct but decide to stop in territory that makes them more wrong than if they were just making stuff up. The "I know enough about computers to break them but not to fix them" of fiction. Some of my favorite examples: There was a solar storm strong enough to send powerful auroras down to at least LA and it all it did was cause a power outage that was fixed in like a day An Andromeda Strain plot that seemed to make absolutely no sense A particle accelerator was built 3km under the ground to discover WIMPs (no, not a particle detector in a mine, a full LHC-esque particle accelerator) that accelerated particles to 30 TeV, with everybody worried about it creating black holes that would destroy the world despite how a 30 TeV black hole would evaporate in less than a Planck second... Additionally, anybody underground becomes an idiot because of increased air pressure. The science team also ran experiments on prairie dogs to research this effect, because as prairie dogs routinely go up to ten feet (!) underground, it would be illuminating to research any physiological changes they experience, since, as we all know, this behavior is both extremely relevant to being a mile below the surface and something completely foreign to human beings And so much more! So infuriating. I didn't have a choice in being exposed to it, ftr I also think, for the last point, they were worried about it making a black hole because the protagonists accidentally changed it from running at half-capacity to full... so, even taking for granted that this is a real threat, why the love would they build a particle accelerator that everybody involved knew would kill everybody if ran as designed??

This is what we get for pinning our hopes on Florida

remember the cant

If the wheels are frictionless the plane won't move, no matter how fast the treadmill is going.

Apparently the core missed the barge

F ;_;