No, because absolute size is not what makes a moon a moon. Our Moon is a moon because it directly orbits a planet, not a star. Charon is massive enough relative to Pluto that the former does not directly orbit the latter, but instead they both orbit a common barycenter located between them, making them a binary planetary system.
The barycenter between earth and the moon is within the earths crust. The barycenter between charon and pluto is outside of plutos surface. For those who dont understand, this means that the center of gravity between the earth and moon is INSIDE the earth. So the moon orbits a point within the earth. Not so with the charon pluto system. Both worlds orbit a point in space.
If the moon was to have its own orbital path around the sun, then sure. It would be a planet imo. It's rounded by its own gravity... and it would orbit the sun.
But I guess if we want to the meat of the subject about what defines a planet in the most basic sense, it would be things that make Earth a planet, since we pretty much all agree Earth is a planet. So.. rounded... Orbits the sun... What else would you say describes the Earth?
“I can’t survive above 38.0 C for very long as well.”
OP must be weak. I had a fever above 38.0 °C for over a week once. Finally went to the hospital and my fever was gone by the time I arrived. Our bodies do some weird sh*t sometimes.
I think the lever here is a stand-in for mechanical advantage. I don’t believe anyone is seriously proposing they lifted the blocks with a very long stick.
Lol of course you can. They were invented at one point. And before that point… You didn’t have them. I recommend: Let’s Learn Everything episode 49: Goosebumps, (Not) Alien Pyramids, and Nessie & Cryptids.
I find the H option (from the float package iirc) to work much better than h! for my needs. The picture will still end up on the next page if it doesn’t fit in the current one, but it won’t fill the rest of the page with the text I wanted after the picture and mess everything up
It’s fair to imagine the challenges a building team would face 2k plus years ago.
Like in this example, building levers that are strong enough to lift the load. I bet they broke a bunch of stuff.
But eventually they figured it out, via trial and error. Levers, ramps, etc. They probably couldn’t describe why those things were inherently the best way, but more approached from the “we tried 9 other ways and they suck. This is the best way.”
Next, the phrase “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” is relevant here, but in a backwards way.
Since we struggle to imagine what it would take for an ancient society to master the techniques to build these things, we therefore begin to grasp for unrealistic conclusions (magic…read…aliens).
Same goes for Europeans building cathedrals and stuff, the trick is the history, the methods and the results were more documented and understood.
There are some racism concerns that I think go beyond and around what I’ve discussed, which is more abstract. I’m not discounting the other topics, just not covering them here.
For some reason people seem to think they’re fundamentally smarter than people were back then.
Yeah, you may have technically had a better education, but you’re not inherently more intelligent than the average person back then, and a genius from that time is still miles ahead of you.
Yeah, it’s been linked to systemic racist thought patterns (which are often unintentional but should be acknowledged). I explain it to people like this: take a handful of sand and turn your fist so that your palm faces perpendicular to the ground. Now release the sand slowly… What shape does it form? It isn’t rocket science.
Pyramids = basic engineering shape for a sturdy structure. Wide base, tapered top. A lot of early monumental structures were constructed with that basic concept in mind.
mander.xyz
Active