From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

[X-Post & F'up2 alt.astronomy]

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.

Most solar systems are distinguished by numbers.

There is only one Sol(ar) System. Other planetary systems, i.e. systems of exoplanets, are typically named after their primary (star) which in turn is often named after the astronomical project/group that investigated it and, perhaps, the respective planetary system, too. For example, TRAPPIST-1 is a star (the first one) that was investigated by a Belgian team of astronomers (who, tongue-in-cheek, chose an acronym such that it would refer to the renowned Belgian beer style as brewed by and after the fashion of the Trappists, an order of Catholic monks).
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

On 01/07/2026 12:29 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[X-Post & F'up2 alt.astronomy]

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.

Most solar systems are distinguished by numbers.

There is only one Sol(ar) System. Other planetary systems, i.e. systems of exoplanets, are typically named after their primary (star) which in turn is often named after the astronomical project/group that investigated it and, perhaps, the respective planetary system, too. For example, TRAPPIST-1 is a star (the first one) that was investigated by a Belgian team of astronomers (who, tongue-in-cheek, chose an acronym such that it would refer to the renowned Belgian beer style as brewed by and after the fashion of the Trappists, an order of Catholic monks).

The "prime" appellation is usually "the habitable planet".

Or, you know, the planet in the habitable zone,
of which there is usually not more than one,
though it's course imaginable that in a multitude
of worlds that intelligent life could develop on
warmer or colder or various chemically worlds
than that of Terra, Gaia, Urth, Earth, this
blue-green gem in an icy field of stars.

Parking lot, ....

Of course "multiple worlds hypothesis" is
non-scientific non-explanation of contingency,
given usual notions of a clock hypothesis and
the laws of physics being the same everywhere,
then that a "multitude of worlds" is a usual
enough notion since antiquity of intelligent
life in the universe after things like the Drake
equation, Sullivan's "Are We Not Alone",
Fontenelle's "Conversations on the Plurality of
Worlds", von Daniken, stories since antiquity,
and so on.

Much like "multiple worlds hypothesis" in physics
is unfalsifiable by definition thus non-scientific,
then also "pluralism" is not to be confused with
"plurality of inhabited worlds", where "pluralism"
is non-mathematical.


The sky survey offers examples of apparent
super-luminal motion. So, ..., notions like
"The Macroscope" aren't without inherent
scientific merit.


Did you know the Batavia-Baikal neutrinophone
essentially communicates in real time, ....


Ever notice that Barnard's Star moves, ....


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, ....


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

[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:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscope_(science_concept)>

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).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard%27s_Star#Planetary_system>

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:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad>

Probably someone has told you that before.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

On 01/08/2026 06:06 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[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:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscope_(science_concept)>

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).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard%27s_Star#Planetary_system>

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:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad>

Probably someone has told you that before.

Hm. I dispute that and suggest instead that you don't
have already the context where what I emit is quite
thoroughly sound and valid and the connections are clear.
Then, when you say that the only result you get from
reading it as crazy, I read that as simply being bereft
of context, then that your reaction is rejection. Then,
as we recall the more extended conversation and all the
matters of scientific fact and definition where you've either
decided or felt compelled to simply enter catatonia instead
of rejection, like about the 1/2/3 or the premier theories
being falsified, I wonder that the only way that you can
consider a critical sort of account of matters of perceived
fact is as of insanity, how brittle and desperate your own
grasp on it must be.



Here for example there's a modal, temporal, relevance logic
in a super-classical setting of the idealistic and analytical
traditions, with the "axiomless" after principles of inversion
and sufficient, _and thorough_, reason, instead of non-contradiction
and merely-inductive reason, resulting an axiomless mono-heno-theory
the includes thusly arriving at geometry, that's always going to
be True, as it's a theory of Truth where Truth is what's both
elementary and conserved, as a sort of pick-it-up-and-put-it-down
theory, it's always available and demands the least and gives the most.


Everyone here has sat at least a lot of a standard linear
curriculum, for example getting a degree or for example
regularly intructing material according to a standard
sort of account of a standard sort of linear curriculum,
here the above is considered a greater one.


So, besides the ideas 1/2/3 about Dark Matter and Dark Energy
having definitely falsified premier theories, then about
the unexplained empirical observations after Magnus effect
of the gyroscopic effects into ballistics and other usual
naive account of the rotational, then as was mentioned
"apparent super-luminal motion" isn't anything except
obviously that, then here for somebody to explain how
physics isn't broken and the world remains real according
to there being a "the laws of physics" same everywhere,
I definitely have an account of that.


I think what might help fellow researchers in foundations
the most is making sure when making logic to reject and omit
the "quasi-modal" aspects like "material implication", which
is immune to inductive reasoning yet has many examples of
being wrong besides just the temporal and modal and relevance
logic itself, and to make it so that it's a relevance logic.


Then, knowing that using these terms, I eschew the quasi-modal,
then it's reflected that what I write has a very, very
comprehensive connectedness, and a thorough sort of wholeness.


Consider for example the "T-theory, A-theory, theatheory" thread
from a few months ago - it's at least a "theory of everything" starting
with "theory of theory".


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2