Author Topic: Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast 162: Geocentrism, Take 2  (Read 52046 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline seaotter

  • Drunkenly yelling LITTLE WING!
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 27022
  • My homunculus is a grammar troll!
Who have good sounding podcasts? You might ask them their set up.
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." Lewis Carroll

Offline astrostu

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
w00t! I figured out how to add a comments feature to the individual pages of the podcast website. :)  Not the most picturesque, but it's functional. :)  Also, I talked with Pamela Gay and she recommended the Blue-brand microphones.  I'm looking into their Yeti model.

Offline astrostu

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
I have a new microphone and have posted a test file here.  The second one is the new one ... hopefully the more gooder.

Offline Chew

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8935
  • Juror #8
I prefer the Logitech one. Much crisper sounding.
"3 out of 2 Americans do not understand statistics." -Mark Crislip

Offline astrostu

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
Hi guys, gals, and residents of neutopia.  Episode 2 is now up, "You Can’t Know the Distance, Size, and Speed of UFOs."  Shownotes here.  And a new puzzler!  And the solution to the first one. At least one person DID get it right ;).

Offline Caffiene

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4793
Re: Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast Episode 2: UFO Sightings Analyzed
« Reply #35 on: August 15, 2011, 11:00:39 PM »
Cool! Sounds interesting.

Btw, you might want to put the podcast site in your sig.
[Lurk Mode Disengage]

Offline astrostu

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
Re: Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast Episode 2: UFO Sightings Analyzed
« Reply #36 on: August 15, 2011, 11:40:36 PM »
Btw, you might want to put the podcast site in your sig.
Kept meaning to do it, kept forgetting. :(

Offline astrostu

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
Re: Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast Episode 2: UFO Sightings Analyzed
« Reply #37 on: August 16, 2011, 02:39:32 PM »
w00t!  It's now in iTunes.

Offline Parrot

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1276
    • The Dumbasses Guide To Knowledge
Re: Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast Episode 2: UFO Sightings Analyzed
« Reply #38 on: August 16, 2011, 09:20:06 PM »
Great stuff!  I hadn't really thought about why it's more difficult to gauge distances and speeds for objects in the air before.  The explanation is really interesting.

The puzzler is much harder this time, it doesn't lend itself well to home experimentation.  Are all the clues needed to figure it out in the podcast or is this just something we have to think over on our own?

Offline astrostu

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
Re: Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast Episode 2: UFO Sightings Analyzed
« Reply #39 on: August 16, 2011, 11:23:13 PM »
Great stuff!  I hadn't really thought about why it's more difficult to gauge distances and speeds for objects in the air before.  The explanation is really interesting.
Thanks.  I hope it was clear.  Could you tell that these guys irk me sometimes? ;)

How were the interspersed clips?  Too much?  Too little?  Need bigger pause or setup?  I ask because I plan on using a lot of clips in the future, especially as I get into creationism, 2012, and the moon hoax, but I don't want to go over- nor under-board.

The puzzler is much harder this time, it doesn't lend itself well to home experimentation.  Are all the clues needed to figure it out in the podcast or is this just something we have to think over on our own?
Just something you'll have to think about on your own.  You could actually experiment with this if you wanted by getting a bright bulb and taking, say, a pea and a grape, putting them various distances away, and standing REALLY far away, but it may be difficult to judge sizes.  I think that could help you with the first part, not the second, though.  I got the idea for this one from an intro astro lab I taught 6 years ago that I had BIG issues with because it didn't actually treat [the answer] correctly. ;)

I'm not really sure where I'm going with the puzzler.  The real reason this week's 'cast was about UFOs and not creationism and comets is that I couldn't think of a good puzzler based on that topic.  I don't want something that's just "look it up," I want something that requires thinking and is somewhat based on where the [villain of the week] went wrong with their thinking.  I don't think that's going to be possible every time, though ... as my issue with the comets is showing.

I'm also workin' on a logo.  It's a bit cartoony, but the concept is an opening door (square door since the "album art" for the podcast is square) with a guy peeking out representing the "exposing" part.  I don't dislike what I came up with in 20 minutes this afternoon, but feedback would be 'preciated!


If you like the concept, tweaks I'm thinking of are to "open" the door more to allow for bigger text.  I want to use the handwriting font, but I realize it doesn't show up too well on an iPod nano.  :-\  I was also thinking maybe a flashlight effect coming through the door that encompasses the text?

Offline Parrot

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1276
    • The Dumbasses Guide To Knowledge
Re: Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast Episode 2: UFO Sightings Analyzed
« Reply #40 on: August 17, 2011, 01:18:41 AM »
Thanks.  I hope it was clear.  Could you tell that these guys irk me sometimes? ;)

I thought you were very clear.  And yeah, people like this can be a little troublesome to deal with, because they are just unwilling to accept that their perceptions may be leading them astray.

I've actually experienced a UFO sighting, and not too long ago either.  I may mention it sometime in my podcast.  It was in the afternoon/evening, still light out.  I was looking out my window and saw a light in the sky that seemed to be moving much faster than would be warranted by something far enough away for me to see only as a point of light.

I saw it for a good 10 or 20 seconds before it disappeared.  If I was of a mind to jump to these kind of conclusions, I would adamantly proclaim that I saw something moving in ways that are impossible for any known earthly craft.  But since I understand what the U in UFO stands for, I just thought "Wow, that's really interesting.  I wonder what that was?"

My best guess is a helicopter, since I live nearby a hospital and they fly in emergency patients every so often.  It still seemed to be moving faster than I would have expected of a helicopter, but I knew that these kinds of things can be much more difficult to judge than you would expect.

So I knew that it was deceptively easy to fool yourself when judging the speed and size of objects in the sky, but you've made it much clearer to me exactly how that works.

Quote
How were the interspersed clips?  Too much?  Too little?  Need bigger pause or setup?  I ask because I plan on using a lot of clips in the future, especially as I get into creationism, 2012, and the moon hoax, but I don't want to go over- nor under-board.

Well, keep in mind that I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing myself, but I usually try to at least work in enough of a quote to accurately illustrate the position of the people I'm arguing against.  Cutting it down too much would risk quoting somebody out of context, and I think that's the biggest problem that you want to look out for.

I didn't think your clips were too long, and they accurately illustrated the kinds of arguments that were being made.  I say it's good to be fairly liberal in interspersing clips.  That way you can make sure to yourself, and demonstrate to your audience, that you're not attacking a straw man.

That said, of course it's true that you don't want the clips to dominate the show.  Hopefully people are listening because they're interested in what *you* have to say.  But I think you'd have to go pretty far in order to make a serious mistake in that direction.

Quote
I'm also workin' on a logo.  It's a bit cartoony, but the concept is an opening door (square door since the "album art" for the podcast is square) with a guy peeking out representing the "exposing" part.  I don't dislike what I came up with in 20 minutes this afternoon, but feedback would be 'preciated!


If you like the concept, tweaks I'm thinking of are to "open" the door more to allow for bigger text.  I want to use the handwriting font, but I realize it doesn't show up too well on an iPod nano.  :-\  I was also thinking maybe a flashlight effect coming through the door that encompasses the text?

I think it looks good, but I'm wondering if it would lend itself to too many "coming out of the closet" jokes.  And while those would be really cool jokes, I would think that for a logo the joke should be more clearly demonstrated.

Have you considered a cartoon telescope with arms and legs wearing a trench coat?  He could have his back turned with the trench coat flung open, and he's looking back over his shoulder at the audience with a mischievous grin on his face.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 01:20:52 AM by Parrot »

Offline Chew

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8935
  • Juror #8
Re: Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast Episode 2: UFO Sightings Analyzed
« Reply #41 on: August 17, 2011, 01:36:05 AM »
Arrrgh! Damned professional astronomers! Every amateur astronomer knows your index finger held at arms length subtends 2 degrees!

Good episode. Excellent audio quality.

Congrats, Dumbass!

The "trained observer" argument from authority drives me up the wall. I served 20 years in the Navy and can confidently say there is no "Identifying Things in the Sky You've Never Seen Before, Hell, I Can't Even Find the North Star" school in the military.
"3 out of 2 Americans do not understand statistics." -Mark Crislip

Offline Chew

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8935
  • Juror #8
Re: Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast Episode 2: UFO Sightings Analyzed
« Reply #42 on: August 17, 2011, 01:43:49 AM »
Puzzler: No and No.
"3 out of 2 Americans do not understand statistics." -Mark Crislip

Offline astrostu

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
Re: Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast Episode 2: UFO Sightings Analyzed
« Reply #43 on: August 17, 2011, 02:37:15 AM »
I thought you were very clear.  And yeah, people like this can be a little troublesome to deal with, because they are just unwilling to accept that their perceptions may be leading them astray.
Me? Wrong? That's unpossible.

I've actually experienced a UFO sighting, and not too long ago either.  I may mention it sometime in my podcast.  It was in the afternoon/evening, still light out.  I was looking out my window and saw a light in the sky that seemed to be moving much faster than would be warranted by something far enough away for me to see only as a point of light.

I saw it for a good 10 or 20 seconds before it disappeared.  If I was of a mind to jump to these kind of conclusions, I would adamantly proclaim that I saw something moving in ways that are impossible for any known earthly craft.  But since I understand what the U in UFO stands for, I just thought "Wow, that's really interesting.  I wonder what that was?"

My best guess is a helicopter, since I live nearby a hospital and they fly in emergency patients every so often.  It still seemed to be moving faster than I would have expected of a helicopter, but I knew that these kinds of things can be much more difficult to judge than you would expect.
I've seen two UFOs, or two groups.  One at night while observing on the 'scopes, one during the day.  The first one at night, it was a group of white objects that rose up and was constantly changing formation and just rose up into the sky.  I actually know they were rising because I saw them come up from below the building I was in.  I figured they were white birds.  Same with the second formation I saw during the day while driving to Yellowstone last year.  Couldn't figure out what they were, kept driving, eventually was under them and it was a group of metallic ultra-light aircraft.

I think it looks good, but I'm wondering if it would lend itself to too many "coming out of the closet" jokes.  And while those would be really cool jokes, I would think that for a logo the joke should be more clearly demonstrated.

Have you considered a cartoon telescope with arms and legs wearing a trench coat?  He could have his back turned with the trench coat flung open, and he's looking back over his shoulder at the audience with a mischievous grin on his face.

Hmm.  Your suggestion would require significantly more than my skillz in vector graphics would allow.  You wanna design it? :D  Though it does sound a bit creepy ... I'd rather be coming out of the closet - or just out and proud - than be a pedophile. ;)

Arrrgh! Damned professional astronomers! Every amateur astronomer knows your index finger held at arms length subtends 2 degrees!

Yeah, I considered putting in the "rule of thumb" for figuring out angles.  But it can get complicated.  Maybe I'll do it in the next one -- add a segment for feedback and include that in there?

Good episode. Excellent audio quality.

Thanks!  I was a bit worried since you said that the old microphone sounded better in the test, but I tried to fiddle with some of the settings a bit more this time to make it sound less compressed.

The "trained observer" argument from authority drives me up the wall. I served 20 years in the Navy and can confidently say there is no "Identifying Things in the Sky You've Never Seen Before, Hell, I Can't Even Find the North Star" school in the military.

Good to know as a Navy guy you're willing to admit you have no authority in figuring out unknown objects in the sky ;).  And yeah, finding the north star can be ... a pain.  I can't wait for 13,000 years to pass and it'll be Vega again, then it'll be super-easy.

Oh, and care to elaborate on your solution to the puzzler (either here or by e-mail so that you don't reveal to other people how to answer it correctly or incorrectly, as the case may be)?  It kinda reminds me of judging a Science Olympiad back in undergrad.  I wrote a question giving the students all the information they needed to just use E=m*c^2 to figure out the lifetime of the sun, but all I asked them was, "How long will the sun fuse hydrogen?"  I forgot to put in there, "Show your work," or "Using the information above ..."  One guy just wrote down the correct answer and I had to give him full credit -- pissed me off!  So, not saying you're right or wrong yet, but you should explain your work ;).

Offline Chew

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8935
  • Juror #8
Re: Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast Episode 2: UFO Sightings Analyzed
« Reply #44 on: August 17, 2011, 03:11:26 AM »
Arrrgh! Damned professional astronomers! Every amateur astronomer knows your index finger held at arms length subtends 2 degrees!

Yeah, I considered putting in the "rule of thumb" for figuring out angles.  But it can get complicated.  Maybe I'll do it in the next one -- add a segment for feedback and include that in there?

Nah. Just sumthin to remember next time.


Quote
Good episode. Excellent audio quality.

Thanks!  I was a bit worried since you said that the old microphone sounded better in the test, but I tried to fiddle with some of the settings a bit more this time to make it sound less compressed.

Yeah, I was surprised at the quality. It sounded much better than the test file you posted.

Quote
The "trained observer" argument from authority drives me up the wall. I served 20 years in the Navy and can confidently say there is no "Identifying Things in the Sky You've Never Seen Before, Hell, I Can't Even Find the North Star" school in the military.

Good to know as a Navy guy you're willing to admit you have no authority in figuring out unknown objects in the sky ;).

Not as a Navy guy, just as an amateur astronomer and a Class C Skeptic. They called me "Eagle Eye" in the Navy. I could see ships and stuff in fog before anybody else and see masts poking above the horizon before they were detected on radar. I assume all my star-gazing helped with that.

Quote
And yeah, finding the north star can be ... a pain.  I can't wait for 13,000 years to pass and it'll be Vega again, then it'll be super-easy.

Oh, and care to elaborate on your solution to the puzzler (either here or by e-mail so that you don't reveal to other people how to answer it correctly or incorrectly, as the case may be)?  It kinda reminds me of judging a Science Olympiad back in undergrad.  I wrote a question giving the students all the information they needed to just use E=m*c^2 to figure out the lifetime of the sun, but all I asked them was, "How long will the sun fuse hydrogen?"  I forgot to put in there, "Show your work," or "Using the information above ..."  One guy just wrote down the correct answer and I had to give him full credit -- pissed me off!  So, not saying you're right or wrong yet, but you should explain your work ;).

You didn't say anything about having to show our work in the podcast!

Short answer: insignificant size differences at such great distances.

Also, it looks like you have a stalker in the comments section.
"3 out of 2 Americans do not understand statistics." -Mark Crislip

 

personate-rain
personate-rain