Astronomer & author Neil F. Comins has written a series of hypotheticals about how our Earth would be different if various factors changed. (Click on my name for his works page) One of these included a scenario where Earth orbited “sideways” the way Ouranos does. That was titled “A New Slant on Earth” and published as an article in the July 1992 issue of ‘Astronomy’ magazine and makes for interesting reading if folks can get hold of a copy. It may be included in his text ‘What if the Moon Didn’t Exist’ (published by HarperCollins, 1993) although I’m not sure if it is or not, as I lack a copy myself.

Actually I think the name 34 Tauri has priority – that being the very first name that planet was charted as – although that could potentially cause some confusion! (The 34 Tauri story is on page 160, ‘Patrick Moore’s New Guide to the Planets’,Sidgwick & Jackson, 1993.)

Of course, restoring Flamsteed’s 34 Tauri moniker would be rather unfair to William Herschel given Flamsteed’s failure to understand the non-stellar nature of the green “star” he’d charted. Mind you, it took Herschel a while to understand what he’d found too – he first thought Ouranos was a comet and wrote it up as such. Curiously, Ouranos has thus been considered to be a star, a comet then a planet!

Hmm .. better not tell the IAU this though – if Ouranos can be confused with a star and a comet clearly its planetary status must be questionable and needing a downgrade to mere “dwarf planetary” status!

Moving on, Herschel as Ouranos’es discoverer also suggested a name for his find which gives a third alternative for renaming the planet between Saturn and Neptune – ‘Georguium Sidus’ or “George’s Star” in honour of the monarch of the time. Slight problem there in that (I think) that was the “mad King” George III who lost the then colony of America to the Americans, which may not be a reign worth commorating really.

So 34 Tauri, Georgium Sidus or Ouranos? Take your pick folks!

PS. Good video on the triple named planet linked to my name here now.

Has the theory how the Moon was formed changed? I was under the impression that it wasn’t a glancing collision. Theia was in the same orbit as the proto-earth, but following it. Gravity eventually caused Theia to catch up and combine in a low velocity collision, adding to the core and ejecting crust material to form the Moon, so the Earth has an unusually large core and a thinner crust, allowing tectonic plate movements.

It sure has! Over time ..

Once we had a number of different ideas ranging from our Moon being part of our planet that was thrown off through to it being an independent planet itself that was captured into orbit.

Current thinking is it was created in the “Big Splash” impact between the proto-Earth and a Mars sized impacter.As I see (#19.) Wayne Robinson has already mentioned in more detail.

Although the newest suggestion here :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=two-moons-smaller

is that we once (relatively briefly) had two moons before our current Moon collected it’s secondary Earthly partner forming its highland areas.

BTW. Thinking latest news and items outer planets~wise this :

http://www.space.com/13229-neptune-day-length-calculated.html

from Neptune may be of interesty to some folks here perhaps? I hope.

@ 16. Togan :

“All the planets except one are named after Roman gods, and Ouranos is the one exception. Unfortunately it has become the brunt of joke after joke due to a Latinization of the original Greek name, Ouranos. We do not call Poseidon Posidon, so why make Ouranos the exception? Ouranos is a magnificent planet that has been subject to a bromidic and stale joke for far too long.”

Source : The ‘Ouranos not Uranus’ group on facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=189939051777

I strongly agree with (& am a proud member of) that group.

Actually I think the name 34 Tauri has priority – that being the very first name that planet was charted as – although that could potentially cause some confusion!

(The 34 Tauri story is on P. 160, ‘Patrick Moore’s New Guid eto the Planets’,Sidgwick & Jackson, 1993.)

I just finished re-watching Pitch Black. I loved Vin Diesels comment, “I absolutely believe in God,,,and I absolutely hate the Fraker”.

Gary 7

My screen actually got moist from the irony oozing from that comment…

It’s tough being intelligent, yet having no sense of irony,,,

Gary 7

“This is impossible. Only God makes planets, and He’s perfect. So the orientations of the planets have to be perfect too, in perfect circular orbits around the Earth, plus some epicycles we don’t talk about in polite company…..”

I sincerely hope you are joking. Not only are you refuting intriguing scientific experiments and observations, but you are also saying to stop these in the name of “god”?
One more proof that religious people are scared to death of science, they will end-up proving all your little 2000 years ago scriptures wrong.

We’re not there yet, but definitely closer then you.

Re 19: Thin crust eh? So the Moon is made of green cheese, but the Earth is the pizza?

(tongue planted firmly in cheek for the 1% of you who couldn’t tell)

I’ll note Earth’s magnetic field isn’t well aligned with our spin axis either, but at least it has the courtesy to be centered on the center of our planet!

Actually, that’s not quite true; the Earth’s dipole moment is not concentric with the planet. Read about the South Atlantic Anomaly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly

No you are not. Right now hundreds of people are suppressing the urge to comment. They will not lower themselves to cheap jokes about Uranus.

Phil, I’m surprised. I’d never have expected such a blue Uranus joke. I like it.