Author Topic: Episode #688  (Read 1838 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline brilligtove

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2018, 05:35:16 PM »
I would add a fourth rule: a planet cannot be tidally locked. Pluto and Charon are tidally locked, so out they go.
I'm not sure why tidal locking should be a factor as tidal locking is an inevitability of enough time passing.

With enough time (about 50 billion years) the Earth will become tidally locked to the Moon but the Sun may have vapourised the Earth or caused other gravitational interactions before that happens. Depends on how big the Sun gets in its dying stages.

Many exoplanets are tidally locked to their host star.

Mercury is tidally locked in a 3:2 spin orbit resonance.

It seems like this rule is supposed to exclude Charon and include Pluto. As such it seems too specific and nit picky too me. I can see a total of four kinds of planet classes, I think. Dwarf, small rocky, large rocky, and gas giant. In each class the location would be closer than goldilocks, in goldilocks, beyond goldilocks, or beyond heliopause.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline CookieMustard

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2018, 09:12:42 PM »
Greetings all.

Is there a URL to the WTN bird call website mentioned in the episode? I didn't notice one in the show notes.

https://experiments.withgoogle.com/bird-sounds

It won't work on tablets, needs a desktop.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7498
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2018, 10:00:03 PM »
For the record, Bob is a philistine and Australian hamburgers don't have beets on them. They have beetroot which is lightly pickled and canned. It's not like we're pulling up the roots and slicing them to put directly on our burgers. I mean, some people might, but that's neither here nor there. IT'S BEETOOT AND IT'S DELICIOUS ON HAMBURGERS SO THERE.
Self-described nerd

Offline mabell_yah

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2018, 01:10:13 AM »
Quote
I would add a fourth rule: a planet cannot be tidally locked. Pluto and Charon are tidally locked, so out they go.

My intent was do disqualify a body that can't dominate its own moons enough to keep rotating independently. I wasn't aware of tidally-locked exo-planets, but it doesn't matter. I'm sticking to my guns.

JK I learned something. Besides, the rule probably was too fiddly. Scratch rule 4.

Fun fact: The barycenter of the sun Jupiter system is about 30,000 miles outside the sun. Maybe the sun isn't a star :roflolmao:

Offline brilligtove

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2018, 06:21:19 AM »
Quote
I would add a fourth rule: a planet cannot be tidally locked. Pluto and Charon are tidally locked, so out they go.

My intent was do disqualify a body that can't dominate its own moons enough to keep rotating independently. I wasn't aware of tidally-locked exo-planets, but it doesn't matter. I'm sticking to my guns.

JK I learned something. Besides, the rule probably was too fiddly. Scratch rule 4.

Fun fact: The barycenter of the sun Jupiter system is about 30,000 miles outside the sun. Maybe the sun isn't a star :roflolmao:

Oh, I see what you were going for now. If the bodies are both tidally locked. That is less fiddly than I thought - but still too fiddly.

evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline gebobs

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2018, 10:55:19 AM »
Charon is only about 1200 km in diameter. I'll be damned if that's a planet.

Also, I propose that betanin be renamed "beetyl juice".
« Last Edit: September 17, 2018, 10:58:33 AM by gebobs »

Offline gebobs

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2018, 11:00:25 AM »
I'm sorry, but the 100 days ground zero fire bit from Science or Fiction is a bit too press-release-perfect for me. Ground zero had its own local weather for awhile. I was seeing and smelling this on my way to work every day after until some random day in November. Here's where the trouble begins. In my memory, the fire was declared out around THAT time — roughly 60 days later. I remember hearing it on either the radio or TV or both. I also remember the smell stopping around that time. I have no recollection of anyone discussing this in December 2001. More importantly, how does a fire know that a prominent base 10 number of days has passed?

Ground Zero stops burning, after 100 days
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/20/september11.usa

Offline seamas

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2221
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #22 on: September 17, 2018, 01:17:16 PM »
I'm sorry, but the 100 days ground zero fire bit from Science or Fiction is a bit too press-release-perfect for me. Ground zero had its own local weather for awhile. I was seeing and smelling this on my way to work every day after until some random day in November. Here's where the trouble begins. In my memory, the fire was declared out around THAT time — roughly 60 days later. I remember hearing it on either the radio or TV or both. I also remember the smell stopping around that time. I have no recollection of anyone discussing this in December 2001. More importantly, how does a fire know that a prominent base 10 number of days has passed?

I recall the fires burning at least that long. I recall going downtown lose to the holidays, not far from the WTC and the area was still a wreck and you still saw smoke/steam  coming from the direction of the pile. My sister's husband was in the FDNY and had done a couple recovery visits to the pile over the months after the attack. Putting out flare-ups and whatnot and still dealing with smoldering fires below the surface of the pile was a very real problem that they had to have top-of mind at all times.


I thought this weeks SoF was the easiest. I mean the seeing eye dog was pure glurge, and the Nostradamus thing was believable because a lot of people were fact-checking crap their drunk uncles were forwarding..
I was surprised that the Rogues all thought America was unaware of Osama Bin Ladin and Al Queda at the time of the attacks. I mean before Noon on 9/11 there was no doubt it was a terrorist attack. Once the second plane hit, it was a forgone conclusion. Plus the WTC was attacked just years earlier.
Plus Al Queda and Bin Ladin were already well known for their Embassy bombings in the late '90s, plus other actions. iirc Bin Ladin was the subject of a 60 Minutes report in the late '90s.

Offline PIgankle

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 1
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2018, 01:55:57 PM »
FWIW - there wasn't even a dog named Daisy.  There were two seeing eye dogs who rescued their respective owners: Salty (partnered with Omar Rivera) and  Roselle (whose human, Michael Hingson, wrote a book currently on my bedside table.)

Offline CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8675
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2018, 02:28:05 PM »
Below are links (crossposted) to Metzger's blog post and paper.

I think Steve is mischaracterizing Metzger's position. Metzger excludes satellites.

Plus, Metzger is not recommending that the IAU change its definition of planet. He's arguing that the IAU drop its definition of planet (which he argues is not scientific and is influenced by culture) and allow the scientific consensus on taxonomy develop following the scientific process as it does everywhere else in science, rather than top-down authority.


Below are links to Metzger's  blog post (where he provides the link to the paper) where he describes the issues pretty clearly.

Correction I stated a few times that only Pluto would be redefined as a planet by Metzger's definition, but Ceres, would be as well and few Kupier belt objects. But satellites (which orbit planets) would be excluded. I'm not sure if he considers Charon a satellite or not.



Debunking an Urban Legend of Asteroidal Proportions - Philip Metzger


Quote
It gives a false view of how science operates and why taxonomy even exists in science. It was part of the rationale that was used to justify the IAU voting to redefine the term, planet, which made Pluto and Ceres into non-planets (that is, if we were submitting to the unscientific vote, which many of us are not).  This is all very harmful to science, not just because it propagates an urban legend in place of the truth, but because it gives the impression we make taxonomical decisions through authoritative bodies voting and imposing decisions on individual scientists. It gives the impression that science is supposed to be an authority-driven activity. It suggests that taxonomical categories are fairly arbitrary so voting is a decent way to decide them, or that we can shape them to fit  cultural expectations. “Culture wants a small number of big planets, and picking planet definitions is fairly arbitrary, so let’s just give culture what it wants!” Right? Wrong. That’s not science.




Preprint Asteroids-reclassified as non planets Metzger-et-al

Quote

We recommend that, regarding planetary taxonomy, central bodies such as the IAU do not resort to voting to create the illusion of scientific consensus. The IAU has done damage to the public perception of science as a process that is not dictated by a central authority, in its imposition of a definition of planet and the number of planets fitting that definition, which has been instilled in educational textbooks around the world on the basis of their authority. Rather than voting on any other taxonomical issues, the IAU should simply rescind its planetary (and dwarf planetary) definitions and not replace them with any new definitions. In short, the IAU should simply allow the scientific communities to reach consensus on taxonomies through precedent set in literature and conference proceedings. We further recommend that educational organizations teach students that taxonomy is a vital part of science, along with observing nature, forming hypotheses, and testing predictions. Scientists utilize taxonomy to organize their observations of nature, to enable clearer thinking, and to communicate concepts that they piece together into hypotheses. Therefore, definitions such as for planet are not determined arbitrarily nor to serve cultural purposes nor to fit culture’s preconceptions. The evolution of asteroid and planet taxonomy can be a pedagogical example of these concepts. We live in a time when the discovery of planetary bodies within our own solar system and around other stars is greatly expanding and revealing properties and solar system architectures not previously known or predicted. This will necessarily continue to drive the evolution of how we group objects into categories of planets and other taxons, motivated by scientific utility.

 
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 538
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2018, 08:17:33 PM »
Below are links (crossposted) to Metzger's blog post and paper.

I think Steve is mischaracterizing Metzger's position. Metzger excludes satellites.

Plus, Metzger is not recommending that the IAU change its definition of planet. He's arguing that the IAU drop its definition of planet (which he argues is not scientific and is influenced by culture) and allow the scientific consensus on taxonomy develop following the scientific process as it does everywhere else in science, rather than top-down authority.


Below are links to Metzger's  blog post (where he provides the link to the paper) where he describes the issues pretty clearly.

Correction I stated a few times that only Pluto would be redefined as a planet by Metzger's definition, but Ceres, would be as well and few Kupier belt objects. But satellites (which orbit planets) would be excluded. I'm not sure if he considers Charon a satellite or not.



Debunking an Urban Legend of Asteroidal Proportions - Philip Metzger


Quote
It gives a false view of how science operates and why taxonomy even exists in science. It was part of the rationale that was used to justify the IAU voting to redefine the term, planet, which made Pluto and Ceres into non-planets (that is, if we were submitting to the unscientific vote, which many of us are not).  This is all very harmful to science, not just because it propagates an urban legend in place of the truth, but because it gives the impression we make taxonomical decisions through authoritative bodies voting and imposing decisions on individual scientists. It gives the impression that science is supposed to be an authority-driven activity. It suggests that taxonomical categories are fairly arbitrary so voting is a decent way to decide them, or that we can shape them to fit  cultural expectations. “Culture wants a small number of big planets, and picking planet definitions is fairly arbitrary, so let’s just give culture what it wants!” Right? Wrong. That’s not science.




Preprint Asteroids-reclassified as non planets Metzger-et-al

Quote

We recommend that, regarding planetary taxonomy, central bodies such as the IAU do not resort to voting to create the illusion of scientific consensus. The IAU has done damage to the public perception of science as a process that is not dictated by a central authority, in its imposition of a definition of planet and the number of planets fitting that definition, which has been instilled in educational textbooks around the world on the basis of their authority. Rather than voting on any other taxonomical issues, the IAU should simply rescind its planetary (and dwarf planetary) definitions and not replace them with any new definitions. In short, the IAU should simply allow the scientific communities to reach consensus on taxonomies through precedent set in literature and conference proceedings. We further recommend that educational organizations teach students that taxonomy is a vital part of science, along with observing nature, forming hypotheses, and testing predictions. Scientists utilize taxonomy to organize their observations of nature, to enable clearer thinking, and to communicate concepts that they piece together into hypotheses. Therefore, definitions such as for planet are not determined arbitrarily nor to serve cultural purposes nor to fit culture’s preconceptions. The evolution of asteroid and planet taxonomy can be a pedagogical example of these concepts. We live in a time when the discovery of planetary bodies within our own solar system and around other stars is greatly expanding and revealing properties and solar system architectures not previously known or predicted. This will necessarily continue to drive the evolution of how we group objects into categories of planets and other taxons, motivated by scientific utility.

Steve Novella’s suggestion that the third criterion for defining a planet, that it’s cleared its orbit of other objects, is a sensible one, since it’s difficult to define what exactly ‘cleared’ means.  A planet being spherical and orbiting its star is pretty clear and easily applied.  Any body that’s orbiting its star and isn’t spherical isn’t a planet - it could be an asteroid or a comet.

It’s hardly likely to expand the category of solar planets to unmanageable proportions.

I think there’s still a problem with the definition of moons, as being anything that orbits a planet.  Perhaps moons should also be defined as bodies orbiting planets which are also large enough to be spherical too?    This would eliminate many of Jupiter’s 79 named moons as ‘moons.’  As well as Phobos and Deimos.  If humans manage to move an asteroid into Earth orbit, would that make it a ‘moon?’  I think not.

Steve’s definition of a moon as orbiting a planet with the centre of gravity of the combined system being within the planet (otherwise it’s a planetary pair) could break down occasionally.  What happens if the smaller body is orbiting in a very eccentric orbit?  When the  smaller body is at its apoapsis, the centre of gravity could well be outside the the larger body, in which case it’s a planetary pair.  But when the smaller body is at periapsis, the centre of gravity is within the larger body, so it’s now a planet and its moon.  So a body could swap from being a planet to being a moon in a single orbit.

And what is going to happen with the Earth-Moon system in the far distant future?  Could the Moon recede far enough that the centre of gravity is now outside the Earth - would that make the Moon into a planet then?

Offline Alex Simmons

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 799
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #26 on: September 18, 2018, 02:22:12 AM »
Currently the Earth and Moon are receding from each other. If the current rate is maintained then the Earth-Moon barycenter will begin to be outside the surface of the Earth after a few billion years. However the rate the pair recedes from each other is not a constant and there are many, many variables in play.

Offline Tassie Dave

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1820
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #27 on: September 18, 2018, 04:26:29 AM »
For the record, Bob is a philistine and Australian hamburgers don't have beets on them. They have beetroot which is lightly pickled and canned. It's not like we're pulling up the roots and slicing them to put directly on our burgers. I mean, some people might, but that's neither here nor there. IT'S BEETOOT AND IT'S DELICIOUS ON HAMBURGERS SO THERE.

I'm with Bob. Beetroot on a hamburger is horrible. Also I hate buying salad roles that have a slice of beetroot in it. It taints the whole roll  ???  >:(

Offline CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8675
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #28 on: September 18, 2018, 10:42:00 AM »
Steve Novella’s suggestion that the third criterion for defining a planet, that it’s cleared its orbit of other objects, is a sensible one, since it’s difficult to define what exactly ‘cleared’ means. 

That’s not Steve suggestion, that’s the criteria that the IAU uses.

Are you agreeing that should be dropped?


Quote

A planet being spherical and orbiting its star is pretty clear and easily applied.  Any body that’s orbiting its star and isn’t spherical isn’t a planet - it could be an asteroid or a comet.

It’s hardly likely to expand the category of solar planets to unmanageable proportions.

There is no scientific reason to settle on a definition that keeps the number of planets small.

Quote
I think there’s still a problem with the definition of moons, as being anything that orbits a planet. 

A satellite is anything that orbits a planet.


Quote
Perhaps moons should also be defined as bodies orbiting planets which are also large enough to be spherical too?   

This would eliminate many of Jupiter’s 79 named moons as ‘moons.’  As well as Phobos and Deimos. 


What would be the scientific purpose of that?
Quote
If humans manage to move an asteroid into Earth orbit, would that make it a ‘moon?’  I think not.
Why not?


Quote
And what is going to happen with the Earth-Moon system in the far distant future?  Could the Moon recede far enough that the centre of gravity is now outside the Earth - would that make the Moon into a planet then?

As long as it’s still orbiting earth it’s a moon. If it recedes far enough that it no longer does then yes it becomes a planet.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 538
Re: Episode #688
« Reply #29 on: September 18, 2018, 03:36:43 PM »
CarbShark,

Ceres was originally called a planet when it was discovered.  One of the reasons why it was downgraded was when other bodies were discovered at similar distances from the Sun, and if they were were called planets too, then the numbers of planets would soon assume very large numbers - so defining planets in such a way as to avoid unmanageable numbers made sense.

The same happened with Pluto.

Having a clear definition of a planet is important - it’s necessary for it to be large enough to be spherical. 

There should be a definition of planetary moons that excludes every tiny chunk of ice or rock, regardless of whether it’s metres or kilometres in maximum size, otherwise the number of moons will expand enormously.  Is there any point in listing (and naming) 79 moons of Jupiter, most of which are tiny?

You don’t seem to appreciate the situation with the Moon.  Currently the Moon is a moon.  But in a few billion years, it will become a planet.  If we every discover an almost identical twin of the Earth-Moon system orbiting another star, it doesn’t make much sense to call the Moon-twin a moon if it’s orbiting close to its planet and a planet if it’s orbiting a little further out.

And what would you call the moons if they were kicked out of their planetary orbits to orbit the Sun independently?  The Moon would be called a planet.  Many of the current Jovian moons, if it happened to them, would be called comets or asteroids.  The same with Phobos or Deimos.