It would be nice if there was some voting to give it a name. But... original name of Makemake was Easterbunny, so you see how names go for these things.
There's still a relation, since Makemake was a god in Easter Island.
If I didn't know the New Horizons photos of Pluto were real, I would have thought they were just "artists impressions" too, because the real thing was stunning.
Sure, the drawing is probably inaccurate, but the real thing is probably at least as interesting.
I agree. And, sometimes the "artist's impression" is fairly decent when it's done by someone with a technical background drawing (no pun intended) from actual scientific data to make educated guesses. I realize that isn't the norm, but I've seen a case of it.
I dunno - I have a hard time getting mad about that. I mean, the "cost" of those misleading artist's impressions as found in Jurassic Park and others (which were largely in line by the best scientific estimates at the time) is a few largely harmless misconceptions that many adults carry around. Conversely, the benefit is getting millions of children and adults excited about natural history, geology, biology and science in general. Sounds like a pretty good tradeoff to me.
Off the top of my head, brachiosaurs likely couldn't lift themselves onto their rear legs to feed, DNA from mosquitos in resin is probably a pipe dream, raptors had feathers and were probably quite stupid, and the t-rex probably had really good eyesight but wouldn't be fast enough to chase down a jeep - however, those are more recent conclusions.
There was also a lot of creative license taken with the size of a lot of the dinosaurs in the film - generally, they were scaled up to make them more impressive. Dilophosaurus spitting to attack is pure fabrication as well.
Nobody has seen a live dinosaur, and most people haven't met a real 1930s Nazi. So the image of both is pretty much determined by popular culture.
The German Nazi party had 6 million members, most of whom were nothing like the bad guy in Indiana Jones. Similarly Jurassic Park isn't a true-to-life portrayal of actual dinosaurs.
Well, the T-Rex had feathers for one. Actually, most of the dinosaurs in that movie had feathers. And raptors were tiny little creatures. Still, you have bones to try to reconstruct a dinosaur. It's just a painting of what any old moon or planet could look like. It's like trying to draw a police sketch based on the description of "it was a person." It's actually worse than that because we do kind of know generally what people look like having billions of examples of them to draw from.
True but it was a... movie... made for entertainment value --and as a nice side effect captured the imagination of millions of children (as well as adults'). So, yeah ,they got known details wrong and in retrospect, as we currently understand, got further things wrong... But again, it was a "blockbuster" movie, not a high brow film or a scientific study. Thus, I don't have anything against how they portrayed the beasts. I think it's understood they took visual license and incorporated sci-fi.
>We find that the properties of Makemake’s moon suggest
that the majority of the dark material detected in the system by thermal observations may not reside
on the surface of Makemake, but may instead be attributable to S/2015 (136472) 1 having a uniform
dark surface. This “dark moon hypothesis” can be directly tested with future JWST observations.
http://hubblesite.org/pubinfo/pdf/2016/18/pdf.pdf