Keith Smith
@drkeithsmith.bsky.social
PhD, occasional astronomer, talking head, science geek, cynic. Senior Editor at @Science.org, responsible for research papers in astronomy and planetary science. Views own, duh. Bio: https://www.science.org/content/author/keith-t-smith
Settings -> accessibility -> display -> reduce transparency
Doesn’t fix things entirely, but it’s better
Doesn’t fix things entirely, but it’s better
January 18, 2026 at 3:13 PM
Settings -> accessibility -> display -> reduce transparency
Doesn’t fix things entirely, but it’s better
Doesn’t fix things entirely, but it’s better
Out of curiosity, do cosmologists generally follow the distinction between:
- ‘the Universe’ the specific case, the one we live in and observe
vs
- ‘a universe’ as a wider class, being an examples that is hypothetical, simulated or has different properties from the real one
?
- ‘the Universe’ the specific case, the one we live in and observe
vs
- ‘a universe’ as a wider class, being an examples that is hypothetical, simulated or has different properties from the real one
?
January 11, 2026 at 6:50 PM
Out of curiosity, do cosmologists generally follow the distinction between:
- ‘the Universe’ the specific case, the one we live in and observe
vs
- ‘a universe’ as a wider class, being an examples that is hypothetical, simulated or has different properties from the real one
?
- ‘the Universe’ the specific case, the one we live in and observe
vs
- ‘a universe’ as a wider class, being an examples that is hypothetical, simulated or has different properties from the real one
?
I’m sceptical, and don’t see why that would affect a standard rule of English grammar: proper nouns are capitalised, common nouns are not.
Consider some examples from outside astronomy:
‘the Hoover machine’ became ‘a hoover’
‘Wellington’s boots’ vs ‘wellingtons’
‘Stliton’ gave us ‘stilton cheese’
Consider some examples from outside astronomy:
‘the Hoover machine’ became ‘a hoover’
‘Wellington’s boots’ vs ‘wellingtons’
‘Stliton’ gave us ‘stilton cheese’
January 11, 2026 at 6:36 PM
I’m sceptical, and don’t see why that would affect a standard rule of English grammar: proper nouns are capitalised, common nouns are not.
Consider some examples from outside astronomy:
‘the Hoover machine’ became ‘a hoover’
‘Wellington’s boots’ vs ‘wellingtons’
‘Stliton’ gave us ‘stilton cheese’
Consider some examples from outside astronomy:
‘the Hoover machine’ became ‘a hoover’
‘Wellington’s boots’ vs ‘wellingtons’
‘Stliton’ gave us ‘stilton cheese’
This is the very short version 😜
January 11, 2026 at 6:28 PM
This is the very short version 😜
Yeah, Cepheids is the best counter-example I can think of. But that’s an abbreviation of ‘Delta Cepheid-type variable star’. Same with TTSs = ‘T Tauri-type variable star’.
Better analogies are the Moon vs a moon, the Galaxy vs a galaxy, the Solar System vs other planetary systems etc.
Better analogies are the Moon vs a moon, the Galaxy vs a galaxy, the Solar System vs other planetary systems etc.
January 11, 2026 at 4:30 PM
Yeah, Cepheids is the best counter-example I can think of. But that’s an abbreviation of ‘Delta Cepheid-type variable star’. Same with TTSs = ‘T Tauri-type variable star’.
Better analogies are the Moon vs a moon, the Galaxy vs a galaxy, the Solar System vs other planetary systems etc.
Better analogies are the Moon vs a moon, the Galaxy vs a galaxy, the Solar System vs other planetary systems etc.
In principle it *should* be lowercase, as a common noun. But in practice it’s usually capitalised, like a proper noun.
I would prefer the field to switch to the grammatically correct ‘hot jupiter’, ‘mini neptune’ etc. Capitals should indicate the specific prototype, not a general class.
#exoplanets
I would prefer the field to switch to the grammatically correct ‘hot jupiter’, ‘mini neptune’ etc. Capitals should indicate the specific prototype, not a general class.
#exoplanets
January 11, 2026 at 3:42 PM
In principle it *should* be lowercase, as a common noun. But in practice it’s usually capitalised, like a proper noun.
I would prefer the field to switch to the grammatically correct ‘hot jupiter’, ‘mini neptune’ etc. Capitals should indicate the specific prototype, not a general class.
#exoplanets
I would prefer the field to switch to the grammatically correct ‘hot jupiter’, ‘mini neptune’ etc. Capitals should indicate the specific prototype, not a general class.
#exoplanets
The rest of Congress' budget is good news for NASA: Trump had requested halving NASA's science spending, which would have killed dozens of existing missions (see this story from last May). Congress disagreed, maintaining NASA science at 99% of last year. #planetsci 🔭🧪
www.science.org/content/arti...
www.science.org/content/arti...
Dozens of active and planned NASA spacecraft killed in Trump budget request
Proposal would end nearly all new major science missions
www.science.org
January 7, 2026 at 3:58 PM
The rest of Congress' budget is good news for NASA: Trump had requested halving NASA's science spending, which would have killed dozens of existing missions (see this story from last May). Congress disagreed, maintaining NASA science at 99% of last year. #planetsci 🔭🧪
www.science.org/content/arti...
www.science.org/content/arti...
In an accompanying Perspective, Gavin Coleman explains how the method works and discusses how this object might have formed. The most likely origin is a gas giant #exoplanet in a binary star system, which was ejected by gravitational interactions. ☄️
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
Two views of a rogue planet
A collaboration between ground and space observations unveils a rogue planet
www.science.org
January 2, 2026 at 12:56 PM
In an accompanying Perspective, Gavin Coleman explains how the method works and discusses how this object might have formed. The most likely origin is a gas giant #exoplanet in a binary star system, which was ejected by gravitational interactions. ☄️
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
Interesting. I was not aware of those publications, and apparently nor were Freeman or the referees.
The Observatory article is a reprint of the Pop Ast piece, and says it is an 'abstract' of the AAS talk - but is paper length. Was Pop Ast peer reviewed in those days?
The Observatory article is a reprint of the Pop Ast piece, and says it is an 'abstract' of the AAS talk - but is paper length. Was Pop Ast peer reviewed in those days?
December 21, 2025 at 6:11 PM
Interesting. I was not aware of those publications, and apparently nor were Freeman or the referees.
The Observatory article is a reprint of the Pop Ast piece, and says it is an 'abstract' of the AAS talk - but is paper length. Was Pop Ast peer reviewed in those days?
The Observatory article is a reprint of the Pop Ast piece, and says it is an 'abstract' of the AAS talk - but is paper length. Was Pop Ast peer reviewed in those days?