Calling our moon by it's scientific name isn't that surprising - it took us until around 1600 (1609?) when Galelio found 4 of the Jovian Moons. For most of History, our moon was the only one we knew of - why call it anything else?
brewcrew4you wrote:Calling our moon by it's scientific name isn't that surprising - it took us until around 1600 (1609?) when Galelio found 4 of the Jovian Moons. For most of History, our moon was the only one we knew of - why call it anything else?
"Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, FIGARO!"
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
brewcrew4you wrote:Calling our moon by it's scientific name isn't that surprising - it took us until around 1600 (1609?) when Galelio found 4 of the Jovian Moons. For most of History, our moon was the only one we knew of - why call it anything else?
brewcrew4you wrote:Calling our moon by it's scientific name isn't that surprising - it took us until around 1600 (1609?) when Galelio found 4 of the Jovian Moons. For most of History, our moon was the only one we knew of - why call it anything else?
Coppermine wrote:This is slightly, but not completely, off topic... is Pluto really a planet?
Depends on who you ask. new wave thinking says no, but newnew wave thinking says there may be moons around Pluto.
I thought they recently discovered a "moon" around Pluto, but some scientists claim it can't even be classified a moon because they're like 30 miles in diameter.
Did you know that the scientific name for our moon is 'moon.' Real original you astronomer dorks.
My $0.02... I don't think Pluto should be a planet anymore, but can remain so only because of the condition which exists from "my very energetic mother just served us nine."
I mean, the whole thing's nothing without the pizzas.
Did you know that the scientific name for our moon is 'moon.' Real original you astronomer dorks.
No different than calling a fly a fly. Genius at work right there in both cases.
Yeah, but a fly isn't a fly... there are different kinds of flies, each with ridiculously difficult to pronounce scientific names; I can understand the naming conventions as a way of keeping the terminology universal.
For instance, all flies in science are actually called Diptera; the most common known as the House fly (Musca domestica).
Yeah, yeah, leave it to you to bring out the smart guy stuff .
Lol.
You're right of course, guess my joke was really that bad.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Coppermine wrote:This is slightly, but not completely, off topic... is Pluto really a planet?
Depends on who you ask. new wave thinking says no, but newnew wave thinking says there may be moons around Pluto.
I thought they recently discovered a "moon" around Pluto, but some scientists claim it can't even be classified a moon because they're like 30 miles in diameter.
Did you know that the scientific name for our moon is 'moon.' Real original you astronomer dorks.
My $0.02... I don't think Pluto should be a planet anymore, but can remain so only because of the condition which exists from "my very energetic mother just served us nine."
I mean, the whole thing's nothing without the pizzas.
Did you know that the scientific name for our moon is 'moon.' Real original you astronomer dorks.
No different than calling a fly a fly. Genius at work right there in both cases.
Yeah, but a fly isn't a fly... there are different kinds of flies, each with ridiculously difficult to pronounce scientific names; I can understand the naming conventions as a way of keeping the terminology universal.
For instance, all flies in science are actually called Diptera; the most common known as the House fly (Musca domestica).
Yeah, yeah, leave it to you to bring out the smart guy stuff .
Lol.
You're right of course, guess my joke was really that bad.
It's what I do
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
I think Disney isn't going to be very happy about this. What is up with this, their excuse is to make the solar system smaller??!?!?!!! I find this stupid -_-;;, and somewhat entertaining lol.
mikewzz wrote:I think Disney isn't going to be very happy about this. What is up with this, their excuse is to make the solar system smaller??!?!?!!! I find this stupid -_-;;, and somewhat entertaining lol.
mikewzz wrote:I think Disney isn't going to be very happy about this. What is up with this, their excuse is to make the solar system smaller??!?!?!!! I find this stupid -_-;;, and somewhat entertaining lol.
Well, I heard the actual "debate" on NPR yesterday. It sounded about as excited as C-SPAN 2 on a Tuesday afternoon. They discussed and debated what classifies a planet. It makes sense given the definition they gave. I guess the striking blow against pluto is that to be a planet,
1. The object must be in orbit around a star, but not be a star itself.
2. The object must be massive enough to be a sphere by its own gravitational force.
3. It must have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.
Pluto fails to meet condition 3; that is, "clearing the neighborhood" means that bodies in and around its orbit either become part of it or disturbed to another orbit. Pluto shares the orbital path of Neptune... but the context is a little science-heavy.
In other words, Pluto is pretty small and pathetic. Time to rewrite the science books (this would be a good time for Kansas to start adding stuff about intelligent design).
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by brewcrew4you » Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:17 am 
.
![:-]](./images/smilies/smirk.gif "Scottie")
