Hehe, I think it's a lovely color-scheme. Brown and green go so well together...

In reply to this comment by arvana:
Thanks!

And... AAAAAARGH! MY EYES!!! 

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Is it a purity ring or would we be getting married..?

*quality use of Ave Maria

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
*promote

Thanks!

And... AAAAAARGH! MY EYES!!! 

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Is it a purity ring or would we be getting married..?

*quality use of Ave Maria

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by arvana:
Good call!

In reply to this comment by brycewi19:
I think when you're dealing with the "what if", you're delving in to the area of *scifi.

Your video, What if Earth had rings like Saturn?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^gwiz665:
Is it a purity ring or would we be getting married..?
quality use of Ave Maria


I was thinking a space junk ring.

Good call!

In reply to this comment by brycewi19:
I think when you're dealing with the "what if", you're delving in to the area of *scifi.

That California resolution makes far more sense than the nonsense adopted by four percent of the IAU, most of whom are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately rejected by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto.

The IAU definition makes no sense for two reasons. One, it states that dwarf planets are not planets at all. That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear. It is also inconsistent with the use of the term "dwarf" in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies.

Second, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is simply unusable.

The controversy could easily be solved if the IAU amends its 2006 resolution to make dwarf planets a subcategory of the broader term "planet."

At the very least, the moon causes tides, so all those types of life that depend on tidal pools would not exist without it and would probably become extinct if the moon moved away. But more imporantly, if Earth had no Moon, its axis of rotation would wander chaotically, rendering the emergence and survival of life more difficult (according to the European Space Agency)

On life after 40: I think rembar is right in that it must have some kind of evolutionary explanation. Socrates, for example, had rather little access to modern medicine, but still had to be actively killed in his late 70's to stop him "corrupting" the youth of Athens.