I doubt seriously anybody would call a spherical galaxy "football shaped."
What confuses me is why anyone would want to call soccer football.
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
Oh well, to finally resolve the earlier shape discussion revived by Bill, "football" is a vague and unsophisticated name for a shape, but fine for the name of a galaxy or nebula (which is only a nickname anyway).geckzilla wrote:I was actually annoyed by BillBixby's post. This happened multiple times before at Asterisk prior to your arrival, Nit. I will be sure to reference Ctenophora next time it happens.
You are right that "football shaped" is not confusing. And a very good point that something spherical would never be described as "football shaped". But "football shaped" is contentious, as it does appear to upset those emotionally charged people who argue that greater worldwide popularity is a virtue, and therefore Soccer/Association Football is the real "football". So, if for no other reason than to avoid a tiresome argument, the term "football shaped" should perhaps be avoided.bystander wrote:I still think there is very little confusion over what is meant by "football shaped."
I doubt seriously anybody would call a spherical galaxy "football shaped."
What confuses me is why anyone would want to call soccer football.![]()
![]()
Because you use your feet to transport the ball.bystander wrote: What confuses me is why anyone would want to call soccer football.![]()
![]()
All the different kinds of football are football. The modern codes all have a common origin. You use your feet in all of them. Yet the ball is not conveyed with the just the foot in any of them. The only real problem that arises is when someone tries to say that one code is football and another isn't.Ann wrote:Because you you use your feet to transport the ball.bystander wrote: What confuses me is why anyone would want to call soccer football.![]()
![]()
What confuses me is why anyone would call a game "football" when you spend most of the time carrying the ball around in your hands.
Ann
Since "football shaped" is not confusing and very well describes the shape of various objects, why should it be avoided? I believe to the depths of my hard little stone heart that the vast majority of APOD's audience can figure out "football shaped"; those who don't will have learned something new when they ask about or research the term. APOD increases my vocabulary; that it does so is part of its value. Why would you want to take that away from someone else?Nitpicker wrote:You are right that "football shaped" is not confusing. ...bystander wrote:I still think there is very little confusion over what is meant by "football shaped."
if for no other reason than to avoid a tiresome argument, the term "football shaped" should perhaps be avoided.
Well, you kinda sorta clipped out the answer to your question when you quoted me. Whilst the term "football shaped" is not confusing, it can be contentious, and hence distracting. As ridiculous as it sounds, this is simply because some people have perhaps too much emotion wrapped up into what the word "football" means to them. Yes, everybody knows what "football shaped" means, but some just don't like the use of the term. My comment was a general one, not specific to APOD, and not particularly critical or important.owlice wrote:Since "football shaped" is not confusing and very well describes the shape of various objects, why should it be avoided? I believe to the depths of my hard little stone heart that the vast majority of APOD's audience can figure out "football shaped"; those who don't will have learned something new when they ask about or research the term. APOD increases my vocabulary; that it does so is part of its value. Why would you want to take that away from someone else?Nitpicker wrote:You are right that "football shaped" is not confusing. ...bystander wrote:I still think there is very little confusion over what is meant by "football shaped."
if for no other reason than to avoid a tiresome argument, the term "football shaped" should perhaps be avoided.
Footballs are not so precise. All non-spherical footballs have rounded ends to some degree. The ends of an American football are less rounded and more pointy than the others, but still not sharp to a point. They are all oval.geckzilla wrote:Well, the sides of an oval are squished so they don't fit very well. The side of a football (viewed lengthwise) is an arc of a circle.
If you need to be as precise as that, then you have vesica piscis lens:geckzilla wrote:when referring to the shape itself we are talking about two intersecting circles
You appear to have assigned the definition of an ellipse (with a continually varying radius) to the oval you have drawn. But an oval is more generic than that.geckzilla wrote:A football is more closely represented by two intersecting circles than it is an oval. The oval only matches the shape of a football at four points while the shape of two intersecting circles only fail to outline it at the very ends where the pieces must be bound together in a way which will not gouge eyeballs from players' sockets.
That is still a reason, and it is not the only reason. Another was my point 1) above. But by all means, it you have no particular wish to discourage people going off on stupid tangents, then "football shaped" will do.owlice wrote:The only reason using the term "football shaped" leads to discussions that "go off on stupid tangents" is because some just will not reconcile themselves to the use of this perfectly understandable term in the text of a US site written by US astronomers!