“A religion is as much a progressive unlearning of false ideas concerning God as it is the learning of the true ideas concerning God.”

signum-crucis:

Of what use is it to make the Sign of the Cross upon your body if the Sign of the Cross is not upon your heart?
God does not want us to simply make pictures of His signs,
but to act upon them.

— St Augustine, On Psalm 50:1

(via awgusteen)

kvotheunkvothe:

castiel-rosebluetardis:

reservoir-fantasy:

It was Hermione.

"But she didn’t look like Hermione at all. She had done something with her hair; it was no longer bushy but sleek and shiny, and twisted up into an elegant knot at the back of her head. She was wearing robes made of a floaty, periwinkle-blue material…” - Ch23 | THE YULE BALL


Wasn’t her dress pink?


kvotheunkvothe:

castiel-rosebluetardis:

reservoir-fantasy:

It was Hermione.

"But she didn’t look like Hermione at all. She had done something with her hair; it was no longer bushy but sleek and shiny, and twisted up into an elegant knot at the back of her head. She was wearing robes made of a floaty, periwinkle-blue material…” - Ch23 | THE YULE BALL


Wasn’t her dress pink?


kvotheunkvothe:

castiel-rosebluetardis:

reservoir-fantasy:

It was Hermione.

"But she didn’t look like Hermione at all. She had done something with her hair; it was no longer bushy but sleek and shiny, and twisted up into an elegant knot at the back of her head. She was wearing robes made of a floaty, periwinkle-blue material…” - Ch23 | THE YULE BALL


Wasn’t her dress pink?


kvotheunkvothe:

castiel-rosebluetardis:

reservoir-fantasy:

It was Hermione.

"But she didn’t look like Hermione at all. She had done something with her hair; it was no longer bushy but sleek and shiny, and twisted up into an elegant knot at the back of her head. She was wearing robes made of a floaty, periwinkle-blue material…” - Ch23 | THE YULE BALL


Wasn’t her dress pink?

kvotheunkvothe:

castiel-rosebluetardis:

reservoir-fantasy:

It was Hermione.

"But she didn’t look like Hermione at all. She had done something with her hair; it was no longer bushy but sleek and shiny, and twisted up into an elegant knot at the back of her head. She was wearing robes made of a floaty, periwinkle-blue material…” - Ch23 | THE YULE BALL

Wasn’t her dress pink?

image

(via myghostoflannisters)

makanidotdot:

lok is my fave sitcom
makanidotdot:

lok is my fave sitcom
makanidotdot:

lok is my fave sitcom
makanidotdot:

lok is my fave sitcom

awgusteen:

prosperosfootnotes:

awgusteen:

I want to watch A Man for All Seasons but it’s like 100000 hours long and I already have enough Anglican Guilt about St. Thomas More

Wanna know the Fun Part?

The Anglican Communion named him a saint - a ‘martyr of the Reformation’ - a few years back. We feel so damned guilty about him that we, the ones that did the martyring, have declared him a martyr.

I wonder how he feels about that

At least he believed in saints, unlike some people we commemorate…

by-grace-of-god:

Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis — 20 different artists covered 83,000 square feet with mosaics (41.5 million pieces of glass). Mosaics started in 1912 and were completed in 1988.
Photo sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, more photos 
See also: 360 degree panoramic views
by-grace-of-god:

Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis — 20 different artists covered 83,000 square feet with mosaics (41.5 million pieces of glass). Mosaics started in 1912 and were completed in 1988.
Photo sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, more photos 
See also: 360 degree panoramic views
by-grace-of-god:

Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis — 20 different artists covered 83,000 square feet with mosaics (41.5 million pieces of glass). Mosaics started in 1912 and were completed in 1988.
Photo sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, more photos 
See also: 360 degree panoramic views
by-grace-of-god:

Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis — 20 different artists covered 83,000 square feet with mosaics (41.5 million pieces of glass). Mosaics started in 1912 and were completed in 1988.
Photo sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, more photos 
See also: 360 degree panoramic views
by-grace-of-god:

Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis — 20 different artists covered 83,000 square feet with mosaics (41.5 million pieces of glass). Mosaics started in 1912 and were completed in 1988.
Photo sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, more photos 
See also: 360 degree panoramic views
by-grace-of-god:

Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis — 20 different artists covered 83,000 square feet with mosaics (41.5 million pieces of glass). Mosaics started in 1912 and were completed in 1988.
Photo sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, more photos 
See also: 360 degree panoramic views
by-grace-of-god:

Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis — 20 different artists covered 83,000 square feet with mosaics (41.5 million pieces of glass). Mosaics started in 1912 and were completed in 1988.
Photo sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, more photos 
See also: 360 degree panoramic views
by-grace-of-god:

Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis — 20 different artists covered 83,000 square feet with mosaics (41.5 million pieces of glass). Mosaics started in 1912 and were completed in 1988.
Photo sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, more photos 
See also: 360 degree panoramic views
by-grace-of-god:

Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis — 20 different artists covered 83,000 square feet with mosaics (41.5 million pieces of glass). Mosaics started in 1912 and were completed in 1988.
Photo sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, more photos 
See also: 360 degree panoramic views
by-grace-of-god:

Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis — 20 different artists covered 83,000 square feet with mosaics (41.5 million pieces of glass). Mosaics started in 1912 and were completed in 1988.
Photo sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, more photos 
See also: 360 degree panoramic views

by-grace-of-god:

Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis — 20 different artists covered 83,000 square feet with mosaics (41.5 million pieces of glass). Mosaics started in 1912 and were completed in 1988.

Photo sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, more photos 

See also: 360 degree panoramic views

(via mogen-david)

amyblitz:

Lady of the Lake, 2014
lucrezianoin:

scribblingface:

prokopetz:

cause-shes-bittersweet:

neverendingnovels:

tattoosidlike:

rocketssurgery:

Decided to make a handy graphic after seeing a lot of misinformation spread around tumblr. Current science isn’t perfect and definitions are bound to change, but I wanted to push back against the hostile attitude against it because it seems like a lot of people are being hostile for the wrong reasons.
Please let me know if there are any factual errors, thank you :)

I…..huh

Oh

HAH

The only real inaccuracy is the suggestion that Pluto’s status as a planet was uncontroversial prior to its reclassification in 2006. That’s not quite the case. While school textbooks and such will cite the date of Pluto’s discovery as a planet as 1930, the truth is rather more complicated than that.
In a nutshell, since the late 19th Century, it had been suspected that there was a ninth planet, based on apparent irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. This as-yet-hypothetical planet, whose gravitational influence would have accounted for those irregularities, was termed “Planet X”. The trouble is, nobody could find the thing, no matter how hard they looked. That seemed to have changed in 1930, when a new moving object was finally detected on the outskirts of the Solar system. When word of this discovery got out, the media declared that Planet X had been found, and the object was subsequently named “Pluto”.
However, there was a problem with the newly dubbed Pluto: its faint albedo and lack of a visible disk suggested that it was much too small to be Planet X. In fact, while school textbooks treated the matter as resolved, the truth of the matter is that we had no idea what Pluto was - we didn’t even know for sure whether it was a planet at all, much less that it was Planet X. Though little reported-on by the mainstream press, the search continued.
It wasn’t until 1992 that data from the Voyager flyby of Neptune revealed that prior estimates of the masses of the outer planets had been slightly out of whack. With the corrections enabled by Voyager, the apparent anomaly in Uranus’ orbit was proven to be a math error: there was no Planet X after all.
So what the hell was Pluto?
Eventually, it was determined that Pluto had less than 0.2% of its initially estimated mass, and that its appearance near the predicted position of Planet X’s orbit was just a bizarre coincidence. In spite of this, it retained its provisional planetary status; the fact that Pluto was the only “planet” to have been discovered by an American created enormous political pressure against classifying it as anything else. This would remain the status quo until the discovery of additional outer-Solar-system objects as large or larger than Pluto in the mid 00s - most notably Eris - forced the classification issue to be resolved.
TL/DR version: Pluto was never uncontroversially classified as a planet in the first place. It just happened to coincidentally be near the orbit of a hypothetical ninth planet that was later proven not to exist, and sort of inherited the planetary status of its phantom sibling on a provisional basis due to a combination of institutional inertia and political pressure.

wow, the more you know!

yes, finally.
lucrezianoin:

scribblingface:

prokopetz:

cause-shes-bittersweet:

neverendingnovels:

tattoosidlike:

rocketssurgery:

Decided to make a handy graphic after seeing a lot of misinformation spread around tumblr. Current science isn’t perfect and definitions are bound to change, but I wanted to push back against the hostile attitude against it because it seems like a lot of people are being hostile for the wrong reasons.
Please let me know if there are any factual errors, thank you :)

I…..huh

Oh

HAH

The only real inaccuracy is the suggestion that Pluto’s status as a planet was uncontroversial prior to its reclassification in 2006. That’s not quite the case. While school textbooks and such will cite the date of Pluto’s discovery as a planet as 1930, the truth is rather more complicated than that.
In a nutshell, since the late 19th Century, it had been suspected that there was a ninth planet, based on apparent irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. This as-yet-hypothetical planet, whose gravitational influence would have accounted for those irregularities, was termed “Planet X”. The trouble is, nobody could find the thing, no matter how hard they looked. That seemed to have changed in 1930, when a new moving object was finally detected on the outskirts of the Solar system. When word of this discovery got out, the media declared that Planet X had been found, and the object was subsequently named “Pluto”.
However, there was a problem with the newly dubbed Pluto: its faint albedo and lack of a visible disk suggested that it was much too small to be Planet X. In fact, while school textbooks treated the matter as resolved, the truth of the matter is that we had no idea what Pluto was - we didn’t even know for sure whether it was a planet at all, much less that it was Planet X. Though little reported-on by the mainstream press, the search continued.
It wasn’t until 1992 that data from the Voyager flyby of Neptune revealed that prior estimates of the masses of the outer planets had been slightly out of whack. With the corrections enabled by Voyager, the apparent anomaly in Uranus’ orbit was proven to be a math error: there was no Planet X after all.
So what the hell was Pluto?
Eventually, it was determined that Pluto had less than 0.2% of its initially estimated mass, and that its appearance near the predicted position of Planet X’s orbit was just a bizarre coincidence. In spite of this, it retained its provisional planetary status; the fact that Pluto was the only “planet” to have been discovered by an American created enormous political pressure against classifying it as anything else. This would remain the status quo until the discovery of additional outer-Solar-system objects as large or larger than Pluto in the mid 00s - most notably Eris - forced the classification issue to be resolved.
TL/DR version: Pluto was never uncontroversially classified as a planet in the first place. It just happened to coincidentally be near the orbit of a hypothetical ninth planet that was later proven not to exist, and sort of inherited the planetary status of its phantom sibling on a provisional basis due to a combination of institutional inertia and political pressure.

wow, the more you know!

yes, finally.
lucrezianoin:

scribblingface:

prokopetz:

cause-shes-bittersweet:

neverendingnovels:

tattoosidlike:

rocketssurgery:

Decided to make a handy graphic after seeing a lot of misinformation spread around tumblr. Current science isn’t perfect and definitions are bound to change, but I wanted to push back against the hostile attitude against it because it seems like a lot of people are being hostile for the wrong reasons.
Please let me know if there are any factual errors, thank you :)

I…..huh

Oh

HAH

The only real inaccuracy is the suggestion that Pluto’s status as a planet was uncontroversial prior to its reclassification in 2006. That’s not quite the case. While school textbooks and such will cite the date of Pluto’s discovery as a planet as 1930, the truth is rather more complicated than that.
In a nutshell, since the late 19th Century, it had been suspected that there was a ninth planet, based on apparent irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. This as-yet-hypothetical planet, whose gravitational influence would have accounted for those irregularities, was termed “Planet X”. The trouble is, nobody could find the thing, no matter how hard they looked. That seemed to have changed in 1930, when a new moving object was finally detected on the outskirts of the Solar system. When word of this discovery got out, the media declared that Planet X had been found, and the object was subsequently named “Pluto”.
However, there was a problem with the newly dubbed Pluto: its faint albedo and lack of a visible disk suggested that it was much too small to be Planet X. In fact, while school textbooks treated the matter as resolved, the truth of the matter is that we had no idea what Pluto was - we didn’t even know for sure whether it was a planet at all, much less that it was Planet X. Though little reported-on by the mainstream press, the search continued.
It wasn’t until 1992 that data from the Voyager flyby of Neptune revealed that prior estimates of the masses of the outer planets had been slightly out of whack. With the corrections enabled by Voyager, the apparent anomaly in Uranus’ orbit was proven to be a math error: there was no Planet X after all.
So what the hell was Pluto?
Eventually, it was determined that Pluto had less than 0.2% of its initially estimated mass, and that its appearance near the predicted position of Planet X’s orbit was just a bizarre coincidence. In spite of this, it retained its provisional planetary status; the fact that Pluto was the only “planet” to have been discovered by an American created enormous political pressure against classifying it as anything else. This would remain the status quo until the discovery of additional outer-Solar-system objects as large or larger than Pluto in the mid 00s - most notably Eris - forced the classification issue to be resolved.
TL/DR version: Pluto was never uncontroversially classified as a planet in the first place. It just happened to coincidentally be near the orbit of a hypothetical ninth planet that was later proven not to exist, and sort of inherited the planetary status of its phantom sibling on a provisional basis due to a combination of institutional inertia and political pressure.

wow, the more you know!

yes, finally.
lucrezianoin:

scribblingface:

prokopetz:

cause-shes-bittersweet:

neverendingnovels:

tattoosidlike:

rocketssurgery:

Decided to make a handy graphic after seeing a lot of misinformation spread around tumblr. Current science isn’t perfect and definitions are bound to change, but I wanted to push back against the hostile attitude against it because it seems like a lot of people are being hostile for the wrong reasons.
Please let me know if there are any factual errors, thank you :)

I…..huh

Oh

HAH

The only real inaccuracy is the suggestion that Pluto’s status as a planet was uncontroversial prior to its reclassification in 2006. That’s not quite the case. While school textbooks and such will cite the date of Pluto’s discovery as a planet as 1930, the truth is rather more complicated than that.
In a nutshell, since the late 19th Century, it had been suspected that there was a ninth planet, based on apparent irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. This as-yet-hypothetical planet, whose gravitational influence would have accounted for those irregularities, was termed “Planet X”. The trouble is, nobody could find the thing, no matter how hard they looked. That seemed to have changed in 1930, when a new moving object was finally detected on the outskirts of the Solar system. When word of this discovery got out, the media declared that Planet X had been found, and the object was subsequently named “Pluto”.
However, there was a problem with the newly dubbed Pluto: its faint albedo and lack of a visible disk suggested that it was much too small to be Planet X. In fact, while school textbooks treated the matter as resolved, the truth of the matter is that we had no idea what Pluto was - we didn’t even know for sure whether it was a planet at all, much less that it was Planet X. Though little reported-on by the mainstream press, the search continued.
It wasn’t until 1992 that data from the Voyager flyby of Neptune revealed that prior estimates of the masses of the outer planets had been slightly out of whack. With the corrections enabled by Voyager, the apparent anomaly in Uranus’ orbit was proven to be a math error: there was no Planet X after all.
So what the hell was Pluto?
Eventually, it was determined that Pluto had less than 0.2% of its initially estimated mass, and that its appearance near the predicted position of Planet X’s orbit was just a bizarre coincidence. In spite of this, it retained its provisional planetary status; the fact that Pluto was the only “planet” to have been discovered by an American created enormous political pressure against classifying it as anything else. This would remain the status quo until the discovery of additional outer-Solar-system objects as large or larger than Pluto in the mid 00s - most notably Eris - forced the classification issue to be resolved.
TL/DR version: Pluto was never uncontroversially classified as a planet in the first place. It just happened to coincidentally be near the orbit of a hypothetical ninth planet that was later proven not to exist, and sort of inherited the planetary status of its phantom sibling on a provisional basis due to a combination of institutional inertia and political pressure.

wow, the more you know!

yes, finally.
lucrezianoin:

scribblingface:

prokopetz:

cause-shes-bittersweet:

neverendingnovels:

tattoosidlike:

rocketssurgery:

Decided to make a handy graphic after seeing a lot of misinformation spread around tumblr. Current science isn’t perfect and definitions are bound to change, but I wanted to push back against the hostile attitude against it because it seems like a lot of people are being hostile for the wrong reasons.
Please let me know if there are any factual errors, thank you :)

I…..huh

Oh

HAH

The only real inaccuracy is the suggestion that Pluto’s status as a planet was uncontroversial prior to its reclassification in 2006. That’s not quite the case. While school textbooks and such will cite the date of Pluto’s discovery as a planet as 1930, the truth is rather more complicated than that.
In a nutshell, since the late 19th Century, it had been suspected that there was a ninth planet, based on apparent irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. This as-yet-hypothetical planet, whose gravitational influence would have accounted for those irregularities, was termed “Planet X”. The trouble is, nobody could find the thing, no matter how hard they looked. That seemed to have changed in 1930, when a new moving object was finally detected on the outskirts of the Solar system. When word of this discovery got out, the media declared that Planet X had been found, and the object was subsequently named “Pluto”.
However, there was a problem with the newly dubbed Pluto: its faint albedo and lack of a visible disk suggested that it was much too small to be Planet X. In fact, while school textbooks treated the matter as resolved, the truth of the matter is that we had no idea what Pluto was - we didn’t even know for sure whether it was a planet at all, much less that it was Planet X. Though little reported-on by the mainstream press, the search continued.
It wasn’t until 1992 that data from the Voyager flyby of Neptune revealed that prior estimates of the masses of the outer planets had been slightly out of whack. With the corrections enabled by Voyager, the apparent anomaly in Uranus’ orbit was proven to be a math error: there was no Planet X after all.
So what the hell was Pluto?
Eventually, it was determined that Pluto had less than 0.2% of its initially estimated mass, and that its appearance near the predicted position of Planet X’s orbit was just a bizarre coincidence. In spite of this, it retained its provisional planetary status; the fact that Pluto was the only “planet” to have been discovered by an American created enormous political pressure against classifying it as anything else. This would remain the status quo until the discovery of additional outer-Solar-system objects as large or larger than Pluto in the mid 00s - most notably Eris - forced the classification issue to be resolved.
TL/DR version: Pluto was never uncontroversially classified as a planet in the first place. It just happened to coincidentally be near the orbit of a hypothetical ninth planet that was later proven not to exist, and sort of inherited the planetary status of its phantom sibling on a provisional basis due to a combination of institutional inertia and political pressure.

wow, the more you know!

yes, finally.
lucrezianoin:

scribblingface:

prokopetz:

cause-shes-bittersweet:

neverendingnovels:

tattoosidlike:

rocketssurgery:

Decided to make a handy graphic after seeing a lot of misinformation spread around tumblr. Current science isn’t perfect and definitions are bound to change, but I wanted to push back against the hostile attitude against it because it seems like a lot of people are being hostile for the wrong reasons.
Please let me know if there are any factual errors, thank you :)

I…..huh

Oh

HAH

The only real inaccuracy is the suggestion that Pluto’s status as a planet was uncontroversial prior to its reclassification in 2006. That’s not quite the case. While school textbooks and such will cite the date of Pluto’s discovery as a planet as 1930, the truth is rather more complicated than that.
In a nutshell, since the late 19th Century, it had been suspected that there was a ninth planet, based on apparent irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. This as-yet-hypothetical planet, whose gravitational influence would have accounted for those irregularities, was termed “Planet X”. The trouble is, nobody could find the thing, no matter how hard they looked. That seemed to have changed in 1930, when a new moving object was finally detected on the outskirts of the Solar system. When word of this discovery got out, the media declared that Planet X had been found, and the object was subsequently named “Pluto”.
However, there was a problem with the newly dubbed Pluto: its faint albedo and lack of a visible disk suggested that it was much too small to be Planet X. In fact, while school textbooks treated the matter as resolved, the truth of the matter is that we had no idea what Pluto was - we didn’t even know for sure whether it was a planet at all, much less that it was Planet X. Though little reported-on by the mainstream press, the search continued.
It wasn’t until 1992 that data from the Voyager flyby of Neptune revealed that prior estimates of the masses of the outer planets had been slightly out of whack. With the corrections enabled by Voyager, the apparent anomaly in Uranus’ orbit was proven to be a math error: there was no Planet X after all.
So what the hell was Pluto?
Eventually, it was determined that Pluto had less than 0.2% of its initially estimated mass, and that its appearance near the predicted position of Planet X’s orbit was just a bizarre coincidence. In spite of this, it retained its provisional planetary status; the fact that Pluto was the only “planet” to have been discovered by an American created enormous political pressure against classifying it as anything else. This would remain the status quo until the discovery of additional outer-Solar-system objects as large or larger than Pluto in the mid 00s - most notably Eris - forced the classification issue to be resolved.
TL/DR version: Pluto was never uncontroversially classified as a planet in the first place. It just happened to coincidentally be near the orbit of a hypothetical ninth planet that was later proven not to exist, and sort of inherited the planetary status of its phantom sibling on a provisional basis due to a combination of institutional inertia and political pressure.

wow, the more you know!

yes, finally.
lucrezianoin:

scribblingface:

prokopetz:

cause-shes-bittersweet:

neverendingnovels:

tattoosidlike:

rocketssurgery:

Decided to make a handy graphic after seeing a lot of misinformation spread around tumblr. Current science isn’t perfect and definitions are bound to change, but I wanted to push back against the hostile attitude against it because it seems like a lot of people are being hostile for the wrong reasons.
Please let me know if there are any factual errors, thank you :)

I…..huh

Oh

HAH

The only real inaccuracy is the suggestion that Pluto’s status as a planet was uncontroversial prior to its reclassification in 2006. That’s not quite the case. While school textbooks and such will cite the date of Pluto’s discovery as a planet as 1930, the truth is rather more complicated than that.
In a nutshell, since the late 19th Century, it had been suspected that there was a ninth planet, based on apparent irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. This as-yet-hypothetical planet, whose gravitational influence would have accounted for those irregularities, was termed “Planet X”. The trouble is, nobody could find the thing, no matter how hard they looked. That seemed to have changed in 1930, when a new moving object was finally detected on the outskirts of the Solar system. When word of this discovery got out, the media declared that Planet X had been found, and the object was subsequently named “Pluto”.
However, there was a problem with the newly dubbed Pluto: its faint albedo and lack of a visible disk suggested that it was much too small to be Planet X. In fact, while school textbooks treated the matter as resolved, the truth of the matter is that we had no idea what Pluto was - we didn’t even know for sure whether it was a planet at all, much less that it was Planet X. Though little reported-on by the mainstream press, the search continued.
It wasn’t until 1992 that data from the Voyager flyby of Neptune revealed that prior estimates of the masses of the outer planets had been slightly out of whack. With the corrections enabled by Voyager, the apparent anomaly in Uranus’ orbit was proven to be a math error: there was no Planet X after all.
So what the hell was Pluto?
Eventually, it was determined that Pluto had less than 0.2% of its initially estimated mass, and that its appearance near the predicted position of Planet X’s orbit was just a bizarre coincidence. In spite of this, it retained its provisional planetary status; the fact that Pluto was the only “planet” to have been discovered by an American created enormous political pressure against classifying it as anything else. This would remain the status quo until the discovery of additional outer-Solar-system objects as large or larger than Pluto in the mid 00s - most notably Eris - forced the classification issue to be resolved.
TL/DR version: Pluto was never uncontroversially classified as a planet in the first place. It just happened to coincidentally be near the orbit of a hypothetical ninth planet that was later proven not to exist, and sort of inherited the planetary status of its phantom sibling on a provisional basis due to a combination of institutional inertia and political pressure.

wow, the more you know!

yes, finally.
lucrezianoin:

scribblingface:

prokopetz:

cause-shes-bittersweet:

neverendingnovels:

tattoosidlike:

rocketssurgery:

Decided to make a handy graphic after seeing a lot of misinformation spread around tumblr. Current science isn’t perfect and definitions are bound to change, but I wanted to push back against the hostile attitude against it because it seems like a lot of people are being hostile for the wrong reasons.
Please let me know if there are any factual errors, thank you :)

I…..huh

Oh

HAH

The only real inaccuracy is the suggestion that Pluto’s status as a planet was uncontroversial prior to its reclassification in 2006. That’s not quite the case. While school textbooks and such will cite the date of Pluto’s discovery as a planet as 1930, the truth is rather more complicated than that.
In a nutshell, since the late 19th Century, it had been suspected that there was a ninth planet, based on apparent irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. This as-yet-hypothetical planet, whose gravitational influence would have accounted for those irregularities, was termed “Planet X”. The trouble is, nobody could find the thing, no matter how hard they looked. That seemed to have changed in 1930, when a new moving object was finally detected on the outskirts of the Solar system. When word of this discovery got out, the media declared that Planet X had been found, and the object was subsequently named “Pluto”.
However, there was a problem with the newly dubbed Pluto: its faint albedo and lack of a visible disk suggested that it was much too small to be Planet X. In fact, while school textbooks treated the matter as resolved, the truth of the matter is that we had no idea what Pluto was - we didn’t even know for sure whether it was a planet at all, much less that it was Planet X. Though little reported-on by the mainstream press, the search continued.
It wasn’t until 1992 that data from the Voyager flyby of Neptune revealed that prior estimates of the masses of the outer planets had been slightly out of whack. With the corrections enabled by Voyager, the apparent anomaly in Uranus’ orbit was proven to be a math error: there was no Planet X after all.
So what the hell was Pluto?
Eventually, it was determined that Pluto had less than 0.2% of its initially estimated mass, and that its appearance near the predicted position of Planet X’s orbit was just a bizarre coincidence. In spite of this, it retained its provisional planetary status; the fact that Pluto was the only “planet” to have been discovered by an American created enormous political pressure against classifying it as anything else. This would remain the status quo until the discovery of additional outer-Solar-system objects as large or larger than Pluto in the mid 00s - most notably Eris - forced the classification issue to be resolved.
TL/DR version: Pluto was never uncontroversially classified as a planet in the first place. It just happened to coincidentally be near the orbit of a hypothetical ninth planet that was later proven not to exist, and sort of inherited the planetary status of its phantom sibling on a provisional basis due to a combination of institutional inertia and political pressure.

wow, the more you know!

yes, finally.
lucrezianoin:

scribblingface:

prokopetz:

cause-shes-bittersweet:

neverendingnovels:

tattoosidlike:

rocketssurgery:

Decided to make a handy graphic after seeing a lot of misinformation spread around tumblr. Current science isn’t perfect and definitions are bound to change, but I wanted to push back against the hostile attitude against it because it seems like a lot of people are being hostile for the wrong reasons.
Please let me know if there are any factual errors, thank you :)

I…..huh

Oh

HAH

The only real inaccuracy is the suggestion that Pluto’s status as a planet was uncontroversial prior to its reclassification in 2006. That’s not quite the case. While school textbooks and such will cite the date of Pluto’s discovery as a planet as 1930, the truth is rather more complicated than that.
In a nutshell, since the late 19th Century, it had been suspected that there was a ninth planet, based on apparent irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. This as-yet-hypothetical planet, whose gravitational influence would have accounted for those irregularities, was termed “Planet X”. The trouble is, nobody could find the thing, no matter how hard they looked. That seemed to have changed in 1930, when a new moving object was finally detected on the outskirts of the Solar system. When word of this discovery got out, the media declared that Planet X had been found, and the object was subsequently named “Pluto”.
However, there was a problem with the newly dubbed Pluto: its faint albedo and lack of a visible disk suggested that it was much too small to be Planet X. In fact, while school textbooks treated the matter as resolved, the truth of the matter is that we had no idea what Pluto was - we didn’t even know for sure whether it was a planet at all, much less that it was Planet X. Though little reported-on by the mainstream press, the search continued.
It wasn’t until 1992 that data from the Voyager flyby of Neptune revealed that prior estimates of the masses of the outer planets had been slightly out of whack. With the corrections enabled by Voyager, the apparent anomaly in Uranus’ orbit was proven to be a math error: there was no Planet X after all.
So what the hell was Pluto?
Eventually, it was determined that Pluto had less than 0.2% of its initially estimated mass, and that its appearance near the predicted position of Planet X’s orbit was just a bizarre coincidence. In spite of this, it retained its provisional planetary status; the fact that Pluto was the only “planet” to have been discovered by an American created enormous political pressure against classifying it as anything else. This would remain the status quo until the discovery of additional outer-Solar-system objects as large or larger than Pluto in the mid 00s - most notably Eris - forced the classification issue to be resolved.
TL/DR version: Pluto was never uncontroversially classified as a planet in the first place. It just happened to coincidentally be near the orbit of a hypothetical ninth planet that was later proven not to exist, and sort of inherited the planetary status of its phantom sibling on a provisional basis due to a combination of institutional inertia and political pressure.

wow, the more you know!

yes, finally.

lucrezianoin:

scribblingface:

prokopetz:

cause-shes-bittersweet:

neverendingnovels:

tattoosidlike:

rocketssurgery:

Decided to make a handy graphic after seeing a lot of misinformation spread around tumblr. Current science isn’t perfect and definitions are bound to change, but I wanted to push back against the hostile attitude against it because it seems like a lot of people are being hostile for the wrong reasons.

Please let me know if there are any factual errors, thank you :)

I…..huh

Oh

HAH

The only real inaccuracy is the suggestion that Pluto’s status as a planet was uncontroversial prior to its reclassification in 2006. That’s not quite the case. While school textbooks and such will cite the date of Pluto’s discovery as a planet as 1930, the truth is rather more complicated than that.

In a nutshell, since the late 19th Century, it had been suspected that there was a ninth planet, based on apparent irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. This as-yet-hypothetical planet, whose gravitational influence would have accounted for those irregularities, was termed “Planet X”. The trouble is, nobody could find the thing, no matter how hard they looked. That seemed to have changed in 1930, when a new moving object was finally detected on the outskirts of the Solar system. When word of this discovery got out, the media declared that Planet X had been found, and the object was subsequently named “Pluto”.

However, there was a problem with the newly dubbed Pluto: its faint albedo and lack of a visible disk suggested that it was much too small to be Planet X. In fact, while school textbooks treated the matter as resolved, the truth of the matter is that we had no idea what Pluto was - we didn’t even know for sure whether it was a planet at all, much less that it was Planet X. Though little reported-on by the mainstream press, the search continued.

It wasn’t until 1992 that data from the Voyager flyby of Neptune revealed that prior estimates of the masses of the outer planets had been slightly out of whack. With the corrections enabled by Voyager, the apparent anomaly in Uranus’ orbit was proven to be a math error: there was no Planet X after all.

So what the hell was Pluto?

Eventually, it was determined that Pluto had less than 0.2% of its initially estimated mass, and that its appearance near the predicted position of Planet X’s orbit was just a bizarre coincidence. In spite of this, it retained its provisional planetary status; the fact that Pluto was the only “planet” to have been discovered by an American created enormous political pressure against classifying it as anything else. This would remain the status quo until the discovery of additional outer-Solar-system objects as large or larger than Pluto in the mid 00s - most notably Eris - forced the classification issue to be resolved.

TL/DR version: Pluto was never uncontroversially classified as a planet in the first place. It just happened to coincidentally be near the orbit of a hypothetical ninth planet that was later proven not to exist, and sort of inherited the planetary status of its phantom sibling on a provisional basis due to a combination of institutional inertia and political pressure.

wow, the more you know!

yes, finally.


These people entrust you with their fortune and you cannot entrust them with a simple inkwell? 

These people entrust you with their fortune and you cannot entrust them with a simple inkwell? 

These people entrust you with their fortune and you cannot entrust them with a simple inkwell? 

These people entrust you with their fortune and you cannot entrust them with a simple inkwell?
These people entrust you with their fortune and you cannot entrust them with a simple inkwell?

(via my-ear-trumpet)


THE GREAT HOUSES OF WESTEROS

"You Westerosi are all the same. You sew some beast upon a scrap of silk, and suddenly you are all lions or dragons or eagles."


THE GREAT HOUSES OF WESTEROS

"You Westerosi are all the same. You sew some beast upon a scrap of silk, and suddenly you are all lions or dragons or eagles."


THE GREAT HOUSES OF WESTEROS

"You Westerosi are all the same. You sew some beast upon a scrap of silk, and suddenly you are all lions or dragons or eagles."


THE GREAT HOUSES OF WESTEROS

"You Westerosi are all the same. You sew some beast upon a scrap of silk, and suddenly you are all lions or dragons or eagles."


THE GREAT HOUSES OF WESTEROS

"You Westerosi are all the same. You sew some beast upon a scrap of silk, and suddenly you are all lions or dragons or eagles."


THE GREAT HOUSES OF WESTEROS

"You Westerosi are all the same. You sew some beast upon a scrap of silk, and suddenly you are all lions or dragons or eagles."


THE GREAT HOUSES OF WESTEROS

"You Westerosi are all the same. You sew some beast upon a scrap of silk, and suddenly you are all lions or dragons or eagles."


THE GREAT HOUSES OF WESTEROS

"You Westerosi are all the same. You sew some beast upon a scrap of silk, and suddenly you are all lions or dragons or eagles."


THE GREAT HOUSES OF WESTEROS

"You Westerosi are all the same. You sew some beast upon a scrap of silk, and suddenly you are all lions or dragons or eagles."


THE GREAT HOUSES OF WESTEROS

"You Westerosi are all the same. You sew some beast upon a scrap of silk, and suddenly you are all lions or dragons or eagles."

THE GREAT HOUSES OF WESTEROS

"You Westerosi are all the same. You sew some beast upon a scrap of silk, and suddenly you are all lions or dragons or eagles."

(via slayerofastolat)

gtasoldier:

theorthodoxbritreturns:

According to a report by BBC Arabic, Islamists in Tikrit have destroyed The Assyrian Green Church, built in 700 A.D., and Forty Shrine, the oldest Islamic religious shrine in Iraq.

Islamists, most likely ISIS, planted explosives around the Assyrian Green Church, which is located inside the presidential palaces compound in the center of the city, and detonated them, completely destroying the ancient church, which belonged to the Assyrian Church of the East.

Similarly, Islamists planted explosives around the Forty Shrine mosque and surrounding tombs, located in the center of the city in Salahuddin Province, and detonated them, completely destroying the mosque. It is believed the Forty Shrine housed the remains of 40 of Muhammad’s comrades, who took part in the Islamic conquest of the region during the reign of the second Caliph Omar ibn al-Khattab in 638 A.D.

ISIS has destroyed churches, religious shrines and mosques in the provinces of Kirkuk and Nineveh, including the tombs of the prophets Jonah, George, Daniel as well as a number of ancient churches in the provinces of Salahuddin and Nineveh. In Mosul ISIS has destroyed or occupied all 45 Christian religious institutions.

The Green Church was considered the most famous church of Tikrit and the most beautiful. It was built by the Metropolitan of Tikrit, His Holinesss Dinkha II, and was called the church of Saint Ahoadamah in remembrance of the Patriarch who was killed by the Persian King Khosrow I.

Buried in the Church were the founder Mar Dinkha II, and his successors Daniel, Thomas, Basilious III, and John II.

In 1089 the church was ordered destroyed by the Muslim governor and it was looted and damaged, but was later restored and returned to Assyrians.

In 1258 Assyrians took refuge in the church during the Mongol invasion of Tikrit. They were killed in the Church and only a few escaped to tell their story, that Timurlane built two minarets and three domes from the heads of the dead Christians.

The Church was restored on the orders of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the nineties and during the restoration several coffins were found of Christian clerics. One of these coffins contained rusty ferrous material, a silver scepter and seals decorated in the shape of a cross, with Assyrian inscriptions saying “I am Anaseous, Bishop of Tikrit.”

Tikrit is an ancient Assyrian city, dating back to the Assyrian Empire (1000 B.C.). It remained predominantly Assyrian and Christian in the early centuries of Islamic rule. But restrictions by Muslims forced some Assyrians to migrate northward. The city remained predominantly Assyrian until it was sacked and nearly destroyed by Timurlane. The last of the Assyrians left by 1700 A.D.

Christ have mercy

(via dick-of-saint-vick)

slimegalaxy:

I just discovered the term “spectrumslide” as an alternative to the term “genderbend” and I REALLY think people should start using it and loving it as much as I do. It takes into account both the gender and sex spectrums, so not only is it not transphobic, it also is a lot more interesting and fun to experiment with.

(via cloudnoodle)

greek mythology + personality types

basically the figure from greek mythology that i think fits in best with each personality type! (find out yours here)

infp (healer) - cassandra

enfp (champion) - achilles

enfj (teacher) - chiron

infj (counselor) - patroclus

estj (supervisor) - hephastaeus 

istj (inspector) - atalanta

esfj (providor) - zeus

isfj (protector) - hestia

estp (promoter) - atë

istp (crafter) - artemis

esfp (performer) - apollo

isfp (composer) - dionysus

entj (field marshal) - odysseus

intj (mastermind) - athena

entp (inventor) - hermes

intp (architect) - muses

thank god for ONCE the entj is actually an entj and also not a villain

even if odysseus is still kind of a dick… but hey greek myths

(via reynaarellapple)

jenniferrpovey:

alexofeddis:

thescienceoffandom:

Here are some basics on herd immunity, and here is some more technical research if you’re interested in the details! 

If you’ve ever heard my rants about vaccination, you know it’s a major topic with me. Because hey, I’m one of these immunosuppressed people this comic talks about, so it’s a bit of a sensitive subject. (“Oh, I’m sorry, you don’t like getting vaccinated? I don’t like having three month long respiratory infections because you gave me the freaking flu, but I guess you don’t care about that”)
Essentially, Ellen and her wonderful character Katherine have just said it better than I ever could—and using Shaun of the Dead references, too!!! It’s all about herd immunity—getting vaccinated isn’t just about your own health, it’s about the health—and non-zombification—of the entire human race.

Awesome explanation.
jenniferrpovey:

alexofeddis:

thescienceoffandom:

Here are some basics on herd immunity, and here is some more technical research if you’re interested in the details! 

If you’ve ever heard my rants about vaccination, you know it’s a major topic with me. Because hey, I’m one of these immunosuppressed people this comic talks about, so it’s a bit of a sensitive subject. (“Oh, I’m sorry, you don’t like getting vaccinated? I don’t like having three month long respiratory infections because you gave me the freaking flu, but I guess you don’t care about that”)
Essentially, Ellen and her wonderful character Katherine have just said it better than I ever could—and using Shaun of the Dead references, too!!! It’s all about herd immunity—getting vaccinated isn’t just about your own health, it’s about the health—and non-zombification—of the entire human race.

Awesome explanation.
jenniferrpovey:

alexofeddis:

thescienceoffandom:

Here are some basics on herd immunity, and here is some more technical research if you’re interested in the details! 

If you’ve ever heard my rants about vaccination, you know it’s a major topic with me. Because hey, I’m one of these immunosuppressed people this comic talks about, so it’s a bit of a sensitive subject. (“Oh, I’m sorry, you don’t like getting vaccinated? I don’t like having three month long respiratory infections because you gave me the freaking flu, but I guess you don’t care about that”)
Essentially, Ellen and her wonderful character Katherine have just said it better than I ever could—and using Shaun of the Dead references, too!!! It’s all about herd immunity—getting vaccinated isn’t just about your own health, it’s about the health—and non-zombification—of the entire human race.

Awesome explanation.
jenniferrpovey:

alexofeddis:

thescienceoffandom:

Here are some basics on herd immunity, and here is some more technical research if you’re interested in the details! 

If you’ve ever heard my rants about vaccination, you know it’s a major topic with me. Because hey, I’m one of these immunosuppressed people this comic talks about, so it’s a bit of a sensitive subject. (“Oh, I’m sorry, you don’t like getting vaccinated? I don’t like having three month long respiratory infections because you gave me the freaking flu, but I guess you don’t care about that”)
Essentially, Ellen and her wonderful character Katherine have just said it better than I ever could—and using Shaun of the Dead references, too!!! It’s all about herd immunity—getting vaccinated isn’t just about your own health, it’s about the health—and non-zombification—of the entire human race.

Awesome explanation.
jenniferrpovey:

alexofeddis:

thescienceoffandom:

Here are some basics on herd immunity, and here is some more technical research if you’re interested in the details! 

If you’ve ever heard my rants about vaccination, you know it’s a major topic with me. Because hey, I’m one of these immunosuppressed people this comic talks about, so it’s a bit of a sensitive subject. (“Oh, I’m sorry, you don’t like getting vaccinated? I don’t like having three month long respiratory infections because you gave me the freaking flu, but I guess you don’t care about that”)
Essentially, Ellen and her wonderful character Katherine have just said it better than I ever could—and using Shaun of the Dead references, too!!! It’s all about herd immunity—getting vaccinated isn’t just about your own health, it’s about the health—and non-zombification—of the entire human race.

Awesome explanation.
jenniferrpovey:

alexofeddis:

thescienceoffandom:

Here are some basics on herd immunity, and here is some more technical research if you’re interested in the details! 

If you’ve ever heard my rants about vaccination, you know it’s a major topic with me. Because hey, I’m one of these immunosuppressed people this comic talks about, so it’s a bit of a sensitive subject. (“Oh, I’m sorry, you don’t like getting vaccinated? I don’t like having three month long respiratory infections because you gave me the freaking flu, but I guess you don’t care about that”)
Essentially, Ellen and her wonderful character Katherine have just said it better than I ever could—and using Shaun of the Dead references, too!!! It’s all about herd immunity—getting vaccinated isn’t just about your own health, it’s about the health—and non-zombification—of the entire human race.

Awesome explanation.
jenniferrpovey:

alexofeddis:

thescienceoffandom:

Here are some basics on herd immunity, and here is some more technical research if you’re interested in the details! 

If you’ve ever heard my rants about vaccination, you know it’s a major topic with me. Because hey, I’m one of these immunosuppressed people this comic talks about, so it’s a bit of a sensitive subject. (“Oh, I’m sorry, you don’t like getting vaccinated? I don’t like having three month long respiratory infections because you gave me the freaking flu, but I guess you don’t care about that”)
Essentially, Ellen and her wonderful character Katherine have just said it better than I ever could—and using Shaun of the Dead references, too!!! It’s all about herd immunity—getting vaccinated isn’t just about your own health, it’s about the health—and non-zombification—of the entire human race.

Awesome explanation.

jenniferrpovey:

alexofeddis:

thescienceoffandom:

Here are some basics on herd immunity, and here is some more technical research if you’re interested in the details! 

If you’ve ever heard my rants about vaccination, you know it’s a major topic with me. Because hey, I’m one of these immunosuppressed people this comic talks about, so it’s a bit of a sensitive subject. (“Oh, I’m sorry, you don’t like getting vaccinated? I don’t like having three month long respiratory infections because you gave me the freaking flu, but I guess you don’t care about that”)

Essentially, Ellen and her wonderful character Katherine have just said it better than I ever could—and using Shaun of the Dead references, too!!! It’s all about herd immunity—getting vaccinated isn’t just about your own health, it’s about the health—and non-zombification—of the entire human race.

Awesome explanation.

(via morgauseoforkney)