Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "Why we should teach astronomy" video.

  1. There's a myriad of things other people are interested in and you aren't.
    4
  2. Come on, it SHOULD be called astrology. And it would be called astrology if the term wasn't taken.
    2
  3. You mean the low density. It could be infinite in size and dense. Or low in density and small.
    1
  4. Those term are arbitrary and fuzzy anyways. Planetary scientists don't share the astronomical association's definition of a planet. Even from planets to stars it's a smooth gradient.
    1
  5.  @Mike-zf4xg  Your understanding of "significance" is nil. Insignificant to whom?
    1
  6. As a scientist you should understand that interviews like this don't estimate an "average". You should also understand that it doesn't matter that it's not called "astrology" and that it should be called "astrology" and that it would be called "astrology" if that term wasn't already taken. If anything you should be happy that they're calling astronomy astrology, because that means they don't believe in astrology.
    1
  7. He should be more clear about speaking about the OBSERVABLE universe. Especially when talking to people, who don't know what a star is. I think most of them came away with the idea that the entire universe is finite in size. The entire scale thing and feeling large or small goes completely out of the window if the cosmos is infinite.
    1
  8. What's "among" the stars? Maybe she thinks anywhere off the planet counts. As for other star systems, you'd be missing by speed, yes. Like trying to throw a paper ball into the bin and instead throwing it into the next city.
    1
  9.  @supernova82  Pretty much no one knows the current estimate of galaxies in the observable universe - including you smartass. It's also completely irrelevant unless you're a physicist or sci fi author.
    1
  10. The only people, who need to know the diameter of the galaxy are physicists and sci fi nerds.
    1