Archive for the ‘Astronomy’ Category

Still need proof that The Star wouldn’t know decent journalism if confronted by it at an intervention? For an article about the vernal equinox, Star reporter Nick Aveling decided to ask to professionals to explain the vernal equinox. The problem? One of the two ‘professional opinions’ was that of Michael Barwick, an astrologer who is a member of such prestigious organizations as ‘Astrology Toronto’, the ‘Canadian Association for Astrological Educators’, and the ‘National Council for Geocosmic Research’. The idea that an astrologer could lend any type of useful professional opinion to a discussion of astronomy is laughable at best.

Whereas Astronomer Randy Attwood served the article well, answering the questions which the article set out to have answered, Mr. Barwick managed to make a surprisingly large ass out of himself for what is (all things considered) a relatively short interview. However, don’t take my word for it, look at the two answers to the relatively simple question: Does the fact that the equinox occurred at 7:44 a.m. have any significance?

Attwood: It’s the exact time when the sun is directly over the equator, but it’s not like you can go outside at that time and notice anything. It’s like one of those really useless sports statistics, like the number of goalies who have red hair.

A simple answer that directly answers the question in a way that even most of The Star’s readers would be able to understand.

Barwick: For sure. People could do an ingress chart, which is basically a horoscope set up for 0 degree Aries. From the basis of that, you can use it to make predictions on a variety of things including elections. But that’s not the kind of work I do.

Ignoring the fact that this answer seems to require in-depth knowledge of astrology to begin to understand (ingress charts? 0 degree Aries?), it also fails to provide anything that could even be accidentally misconstrued as an answer. As for predicting elections, we already have Halloween masks for that.

Just because the words Astronomy and Astrology are spelled similarly, it does not mean that the professions are equally valid.

As much as I respect the media’s distinction to reporting ‘both sides of a story’, reporters need to learn that the other side to science is not pseudo-science. There is plenty of controversy and debate within the scientific community to make going elsewhere for debate a non-issue. Even ignoring that, the different sides of a story are not always necessarily equally valid. Sacrificing accuracy and intellectual honesty for the perception of non-biased reporting isn’t a sacrifice that any self-respecting journalist should be willing to make.

You can read more about it on the Bad Astronomy Blog, here.

—

• The vernal equinox: Science and mysticism

One of the hallmarks of good science is reproducibility. We know that theories are correct in large part because the results they predict are not only observed once, but observed repeatedly under similar circumstances by different people.

This is why this recent article from the BBC is so interesting. It isn’t the first time that we have been able to observe dark matter; rather, the importance lies in that we have found a second example of dark matter that matches the first. This helps to prove that our first observations were not mistaken, or anomalous. This latest observation confirms our current theories and predictions about how dark matter should behave.

This phenomenon has been seen before, in a structure called the Bullet Cluster – which also formed after the collision of two large galaxy clusters. The Bullet Cluster lies closer to Earth, at a distance of 3.4 billion light-years.

“It puts to rest all the worries that the Bullet Cluster was an anomalous case. We have gone out and found another one,” co-author Richard Massey, from the Royal Observatory Edinburgh, told BBC News.

So while it may not be as earth-shattering as our first observation of this type, it is nonetheless an important part of the scientific process. By observing these properties, we are able to proceed with increased confidence in our theories about dark matter.

—

• BBC.co.uk: Cosmic crash unmasks dark matter

Talk about the re-classification of Pluto from a planet to a new type of celestial body (first dwarf planet, then plutoid) has died down of late. But according to this article from the Telegraph, several “leading astronomers”, including Dr. David Morrison from NASA, believe that Pluto deserves to retain its planetary status.

They claim that the revised definitions are confusing and will mean that newly discovered planets in solar systems outside our own can no longer be described as such.

…

Dr David Morrison, director of the NASA Lunar Science Institute in California, said: “It has never before been necessary for any organisation to define a word that has been in common every day use so I see no reason why it was necessary on this occasion.

“Astronomers use adjectives such as giant and dwarf to describe different subclasses of objects like planets, stars and galaxies, so why could Pluto not remain as a dwarf planet just as Jupiter is a giant planet.

“Also, around 90 per cent of the planets we know now are outside our solar system, but under the International Astronomical Union’s definition, they cannot be classed as planets.”

Scientific terminology has to be precisely defined on a regular basis. In fact, without a rigid definition, scientific terminology becomes relatively meaningless. Though it might seem unfair to Pluto’s fans, it is not within the purview of science to make exceptions in classification out of sentimental value. The IAU came up with a more precise definition of “planet”, and Pluto didn’t happen to belong in that group. Case closed. This doesn’t mean that Pluto will vanish from our solar system, or that we can’t still discover “plutoids” in other solar systems. This in no way quantitatively changes the observations being made, or the science being done — it only gives scientists a more precise tool with which they can classify celestial bodies.

Mark Sykes, from the Planetary Science Institute will argue that roundness should be the only category that is applied.

This, he says, will lead to the number of planets in our own solar system increasing to 12.

Why would it be any more desirable for our solar system to have twelve, rather than eight, planets? It will not change the physical characteristics of the objects, the potential for finding life, or increase the chance that we can one day inhabit them. All we are doing is shifting from one arbitrary definition (all definitions are arbitrary, really) to another more useful/precise definition. The idea that planets should be categorized based on their “roundness” just sounds like a vague criterion that will serve little scientific purpose other than to have Pluto remain classified as a planet.

Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, from the American Museum of Natural History, will argue that Pluto does not deserve to be a planet.

There might be a good reason for why Pluto should remain classified as a planet, but this article doesn’t mention any of them. It seems that the opposition to Pluto’s plutoid classification is from a few holdout astronomers who are opposed to change for sentimental reasons. Science is not about maintaining the status quo; it’s about explaining the universe, and sometimes we have to change our criteria for classification in order to better facilitate that purpose. If you’re opposed to change, then science probably isn’t the right field for you.

—

• Telegraph.co.uk: Pluto should get back planet status, say astronomers

I recently read an article on the BBC’s website about “flat-earthers”, i.e. people who believe that the Earth is flat. The article investigates why people with access to so much knowledge to the contrary can actively believe that the Earth is flat. Among other things, they believe that the moon landings were faked, as were any photos of the Earth ever taken from space. They also believe that the governments (yes, all of them) are engaged in a massive cover-up to prevent us from learning the Earth’s true shape. Why would our government (or much less anybody) want to do this? Your guess is as good as mine.

Of course, ‘flat Earth theory’ (and I’m being incredibly generous by calling it a theory) has some rather large theoretical gaps that extend far beyond visual horizon lines and photographic evidence of the Earth’s shape. For example, it cannot account for the concepts of sunrise, sunset and different time zones. Even if we were to assume that the Earth orbited the Sun (or vice versa) in such a way that the Sun wasn’t always positioned directly above the Earth, sunrise would occur everywhere at the same time. Furthermore, every part of the Earth would experience the same amount of daylight, regardless of time of year or geographic location. That means that if you’re living by the equator, you’re going to experience the same amount of daylight as people in the Arctic Circle. However, unless everybody else in the world is also in on the conspiracy, this would appear not to be the case. Sunset also wouldn’t look nearly as pretty without our curved atmosphere absorbing only certain wavelengths of light.

Of course, gravity would also be a huge theoretical hurdle to any flat earth theory. Anybody with a telescope, or even a pair of binoculars, can observe other spherical astronomical bodies in our solar system. We know that gravity would not be conducive to the formation of a planar (or ovoid) bundle of rocks and gasses. How a flat planet would be able to retain an atmosphere is equally mysterious. Gravitational physics also wouldn’t work the same way on a body that isn’t round, as certain parts of the planet would be much further away from the Earth’s center of gravity than others’, and so we would observe a rather large change in Earth’s gravitational field, depending on where on the planet we were. But even with all of these theoretical problems, flat-earthers differ from other conspiracy theorists in one other important way.

Read the rest of this entry »

NASA’s Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD):

Living so close to the city, I rarely have the opportunity to look up and see a night sky as vibrant as the one captured in this photo. The picture reminds me of one time where I spent the night at a friend’s farm. It wasn’t quite in Northern Ontario, but it was at the Northern end of the South Ontario peninsula (i.e. far away from any major cities). The view wasn’t quite as brilliant as this, but it was close. The night sky has to be one of the worst things about living in, or near, a major city.

These are just small reminders of why you should never listen when somebody tells you that science strips the world of magic and wonder.

Now on the BBC

I can’t help but think that whoever wrote this article had their tongue firmly planted in their cheek. It’s the picture captions that really do it for me. “A flying saucer” succinctly describes a very obviously computer-rendered scene (including the obligatory Photoshop lens flare), and “UFO over house” underscores a picture of something that looks impressively similar to the Goodyear blimp.

Regardless, it is clear that interviewee Mr. Timothy Good believes in aliens visiting Earth, and even claims that they have their own terrestrial bases and are in contact with governments around the world. Also, western militaries have classified “advanced technology” to deal with some unspecified alien “threat”. I’m not so naive to think that the military doesn’t conduct top secret research into futuristic weapons systems, but it seems a bit far-fetched to imagine that the enemy is not of this world (cynical note: we seem to have plenty of use for weapons right here against other members of our own species; why drag aliens into it too). I must also say that if there are aliens who for some reason are hostile towards humans, there is nothing we could do that would prevent a civilization with technology for interstellar travel from destroying us completely. It would be like cavemen with sticks and rocks trying to fend off a modern army.

My response is still the same to all believers: where is the proof? Extraordinary claims and all that.

SETI@Home status: still running…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1037471/Apollo-14-astronaut-claims-aliens-HAVE-contact–covered-60-years.html

And not only have they made contact, this has been going on for at least the past 60 years! They have been consorting with various governments who have conspired to keep it a secret for this long. But now, the word is out. Unbelievable, you say? Well, I have proof. Hard evidence. I have… wait, no, I just heard this third-hand from some old guy. But hey, it must be true, because he was an astronaut on Apollo 14! He walked on the Moon! Which of course automatically makes him a reliable source; after all, there has never been any cases of astronauts being at least slightly crazy. Okay, so maybe that’s a low blow. But is there any evidence anywhere to suggest that aliens have been here?

No. Besides some blurry faked photos and CGI videos, there is not a scrap of proof of alien visitation. Crop circles are hoaxes. Abductions are psychological tricks. Supposed “wreckage” from crashed UFOs has remarkably similar properties to man-made amorphous metal. Not to mention that to cover up something as monumental as contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence for 6 decades would require a degree of competence in “the government” that frankly strains credulity. Although on the flip side, they don’t seem to have done that great a job, since a frighteningly large number of people believe aliens have visited Earth, and apparently our artistic depictions of aliens as small humanoids with big heads is completely accurate. I won’t even get in to the discussion of how incredibly unlikely it is for a species to evolve on a different planet and end up looking pretty much the same as us.

But, of course, I can’t prove a negative. So I can’t state with certainty that we are not being visited by beings from another world. But I *can* say that for me to believe in something as extraordinary as this, it is going to take more than some grainy photos of flying hubcaps and the word of a former NASA astronaut to convince me. In honesty, I would love to see evidence of the existence of alien life. It would be just about the most exciting scientific discovery of all time. But for now, I’m just not seeing the proof.

Side note: I still run SETI@Home on my computer though…

You might have noticed that the names of two new authors have recently appeared on our side bar; this is because we have (surprise) two new authors!  I’d like to welcome Dulcinea and Bryan to the Lintbox community.

Also, and so this post isn’t completely devoid of science, here’s NASA’s APOD:

Take a very good look at this picture…

What you’re looking at is the Phoenix Lander, parachute deployed, descending to the surface of Mars as observed by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. I ask that you take a good look because, in case it weren’t already obvious, this is without a doubt the most breathtaking and awe-inspiring picture of the year.

On February 14, 1990, at the insistence of the late Carl Sagan, NASA had Voyager I turn around from its trek to Saturn to take a final picture of the Earth from its far-away perspective. The result was a faint, bluish speck obscured by beams of scattered sunlight. The picture, which Sagan dubbed The Pale Blue Dot, was a shattering portrait of our place in the greater universe. No longer could we think of the Earth as a greater kingdom or a significant center of the universe, but as a small dot dwarfed by the sheer size of space.

This picture, too, has a significant implication, though far different from that of the Pale Blue Dot. While we are indeed tiny beings on a tiny planet when presented on the grand stage of the cosmos, this picture represents our future and our advancement as a technologically-adept species. This photograph wasn’t taken by a human being, but by a man-made object circling another world… and the subject of that photograph is yet another man-made object falling gently to the surface of that other world. We may still have a lot to accomplish on this planet, but no longer do our goals seem limited by the thin shroud of our atmosphere. We’re now engaging our curiosity on the surface and skies of other worlds.

You can find more pictures at the Phoenix Mission gallery here.