XPost: alt.astronomy   
   From: PointedEars@web.de   
      
   [F'up2 alt.astronomy again]   
      
   Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   > On 01/07/2026 12:29 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   >> Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>> On 01/07/2026 08:00 AM, cld wrote:   
   >>>> Our solar system should have a name, to distinguish it from all the   
   >>>> other solar systems.   
   >>>   
   >>> It's usually called "the Terran" or "Terra".   
   >>   
   >> No.  "Terra" is a (arguably a mostly language-neutral, thus astronomically   
   >> more feasible) name for the planet that is called "Earth" in English   
   instead.   
   >>   
   >>> We live on Terra-prime or Terra-3, it's called Earth,   
   >>   
   >> No, the Sol(ar) System is NOT called "Earth".  "Earth" is the name for a   
   >> planet, NOT a planetary system.   
   >>   
   >> "Terra-3" is NOT proper astronomical naming.  Planets are numbered after the   
   >> stars that they orbit, from closer to it than farther away from it, and one   
   >> uses _Roman_ numerals to number them.  The star that Terra orbits is Sol, so   
   >> the correct designation for the former would be "Sol III".   
   >>   
   >> "Terra Prime" instead is a name used *in science-fiction and fantasy* to   
   >> refer to Earth as the home planet of humans, indicating that there is a   
   >> similar planet either in our universe (sometimes called "Earth 2") or in   
   >> parallel universes in which sometimes the story happens as well.   
   >> [...]   
   >   
   > The "prime" appellation is usually "the habitable planet".   
      
   No.  "prime" *literally* means "the first" or "number one", from Latin   
   /primus/.   
      
   > Of course "multiple worlds hypothesis" is non-scientific non-explanation   
   > of contingency, [confused nonsense]   
      
   The "_many_ worlds" _interpretation_ of quantum mechanics is something very   
   different.   
      
   It does not have to do with planets /per se/, but other (parallel)   
   universes: In this interpretation, possible measurement outcomes that were   
   however not observed in our universe/reality are realized, and thus would be   
   observed, in other ("parallel") universes/realities that have the same space   
   as ours.   
      
   > The sky survey offers examples of apparent super-luminal motion.   
      
   There is not only one ("the") sky survey, thus your statement is useless.   
      
   > So, ..., notions like "The Macroscope" aren't without inherent   
   > scientific merit.   
      
   Nobody even said it would be:   
      
      
      
   > Ever notice that Barnard's Star moves, ....   
      
   It does move because it has a planet (and three other planets).  But that   
   was not confirmed before the 2024 (and 2025).   
      
      
      
   > A lot's been learned about Lyman lines and   
   > spectra since Rayleigh-Jeans, about ye olde   
   > hydrogen line, and "standard candles".   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > Apparent superluminal motion falsifies usual   
   > naive accounts of the light speed limit,   
   > so, ....   
      
   The subject of this discussion are the names and designations of celestial   
   objects.  You are missing the point and are babbling incoherently, moving   
   from one topic to an unrelated next one, like a mentally ill person:   
      
      
      
   Probably someone has told you that before.   
      
   --   
   PointedEars   
      
   Twitter: @PointedEars2   
   Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)