Water found on extra solar planet?
Comment 0
Cool
vote cool
vote uncool
Terms of Service Violation
strike inappropriate
not inappropriate
Other
sunlight
get permlink
Cool
|
Currently untagged - add relevant short tags using the box to the left What are tags? |
Cart before the horse..
Let's get FTL figured out before we plan beach parties on distant planets.
Let's get FTL figured out before we plan beach parties on distant planets.
I always feel a little suspicious of proclamations like these. How the Hell do they know? Are there no other possible interpretations than the one on offer? It wasn't very long ago when they were insisting there could be no water on the moon period end of conversation.
czarangelus: I always feel a little suspicious of proclamations like these. How the Hell do they know? Are there no other possible interpretations than the one on offer? It wasn't very long ago when they were insisting there could be no water on the moon period end of conversation.
czarangelus: I always feel a little suspicious of proclamations like these. How the Hell do they know? Are there no other possible interpretations than the one on offer? It wasn't very long ago when they were insisting there could be no water on the moon period end of conversation.
I know! It's almost as if they were learning things!!
Or you could read the article and do some research on your own, but that's just me talking crazy.
FTFA
As starlight passes through the planetâs atmosphere, certain colors of it get absorbed, and these are like fingerprints that can be used to figure out the atmospheric composition. Most models predicted a heavy hydrogen content, but the observations indicate none is there! That means either there are thick layers of haze in the upper atmosphere of the planet, obscuring any hydrogen below them â much like Venus or Saturnâs moon Titan, blocking the view lower down â or there is a vast amount of water in the planetâs air. And at a temperature of 200° C, that water would be in the form of vapor. In other words, steam.
I know! It's almost as if they were learning things!!
Or you could read the article and do some research on your own, but that's just me talking crazy.
FTFA
As starlight passes through the planetâs atmosphere, certain colors of it get absorbed, and these are like fingerprints that can be used to figure out the atmospheric composition. Most models predicted a heavy hydrogen content, but the observations indicate none is there! That means either there are thick layers of haze in the upper atmosphere of the planet, obscuring any hydrogen below them â much like Venus or Saturnâs moon Titan, blocking the view lower down â or there is a vast amount of water in the planetâs air. And at a temperature of 200° C, that water would be in the form of vapor. In other words, steam.
lunablue:
Damn dude these people can't predict the path of a hurricane 2 days in the future, how the Hell do they know the composition of the atmosphere of a planet light years away? Every time they think they've got it all sowed up and just a couple equations away from a TOE, some asshole like Einstein comes along and fucks up everything.
Damn dude these people can't predict the path of a hurricane 2 days in the future, how the Hell do they know the composition of the atmosphere of a planet light years away? Every time they think they've got it all sowed up and just a couple equations away from a TOE, some asshole like Einstein comes along and fucks up everything.
czarangelus: Damn dude these people can't predict the path of a hurricane 2 days in the future, how the Hell do they know the composition of the atmosphere of a planet light years away? Every time they think they've got it all sowed up and just a couple equations away from a TOE, some asshole like Einstein comes along and fucks up everything.
Fuckin' mathematics -- how does it work!!?
Fuckin' mathematics -- how does it work!!?
mtbhucker: As starlight passes through the planetâs atmosphere, certain colors of it get absorbed
And we can be certain the wavelengths of the light aren't being interfered with when they pass through the heliopause into our solar system?
And we can be certain the wavelengths of the light aren't being interfered with when they pass through the heliopause into our solar system?
czarangelus: Damn dude these people can't predict the path of a hurricane 2 days in the future, how the Hell do they know the composition of the atmosphere of a planet light years away? Every time they think they've got it all sowed up and just a couple equations away from a TOE, some asshole like Einstein comes along and f**ks up everything.
Sowed?
Sowed?
czarangelus: Damn dude these people can't predict the path of a hurricane 2 days in the future, how the Hell do they know the composition of the atmosphere of a planet light years away? Every time they think they've got it all sowed up and just a couple equations away from a TOE, some asshole like Einstein comes along and fucks up everything.
I view discoveries like this as interesting, nothing more. It's not like we'll be going there in our lifetimes, or possibly ever.
We can only hope that the tech developed to make these discoveries can be used in new and fascinating ways to blow up brown people in distant lands.
I view discoveries like this as interesting, nothing more. It's not like we'll be going there in our lifetimes, or possibly ever.
We can only hope that the tech developed to make these discoveries can be used in new and fascinating ways to blow up brown people in distant lands.
jimmythehutt: I think he meant "sewn". :)
Maybe he's a Mr. Reaper. Come to dinner.
/try the salmon mousse
Maybe he's a Mr. Reaper. Come to dinner.
/try the salmon mousse
czarangelus: Damn dude these people can't predict the path of a hurricane 2 days in the future, how the Hell do they know the composition of the atmosphere of a planet light years away? Every time they think they've got it all sowed up and just a couple equations away from a TOE, some asshole like Einstein comes along and fucks up everything.
Obama was born in Hawaii.
Obama was born in Hawaii.
lunablue: I view discoveries like this as interesting, nothing more. It's not like we'll be going there in our lifetimes, or possibly ever.
I just, I dunno. If we'd gone and probed this atmosphere with a robot I'd be convinced just fine. But when they're bouncing light off light without any clear idea of what's going off in between, I wonder if their methodology is really sound. Newton discovered a ton about optics because he stuck a goddamn stick in his eye, and realized that the shape of the lens of the eye itself distorts what we see.
I just, I dunno. If we'd gone and probed this atmosphere with a robot I'd be convinced just fine. But when they're bouncing light off light without any clear idea of what's going off in between, I wonder if their methodology is really sound. Newton discovered a ton about optics because he stuck a goddamn stick in his eye, and realized that the shape of the lens of the eye itself distorts what we see.
czarangelus: I just, I dunno. If we'd gone and probed this atmosphere with a robot I'd be convinced just fine. But when they're bouncing light off light without any clear idea of what's going off in between, I wonder if their methodology is really sound. Newton discovered a ton about optics because he stuck a goddamn stick in his eye, and realized that the shape of the lens of the eye itself distorts what we see.
Feel free to stick things in your eyes for science.
Feel free to stick things in your eyes for science.
paranoyd: Feel free to stick things in your eyes for science.
I would if I were convinced I'd learn something.
So like, we're just now getting a handle on the heliopause and the Voyager spacecraft is mysteriously accelerating. For all we know, the heliopause is wildly distorting the picture of the universe as it enters the solar system.
I would if I were convinced I'd learn something.
So like, we're just now getting a handle on the heliopause and the Voyager spacecraft is mysteriously accelerating. For all we know, the heliopause is wildly distorting the picture of the universe as it enters the solar system.
czarangelus: And we can be certain the wavelengths of the light aren't being interfered with when they pass through the heliopause into our solar system?
Probably because the heliopause is theoretical right now and nobody knows what it really does. More should be known when voyager 1 and 2 send back their data as well as the ongoing IBEX mission.
Probably because the heliopause is theoretical right now and nobody knows what it really does. More should be known when voyager 1 and 2 send back their data as well as the ongoing IBEX mission.
czarangelus: I would if I were convinced I'd learn something.
So like, we're just now getting a handle on the heliopause and the Voyager spacecraft is mysteriously accelerating. For all we know, the heliopause is wildly distorting the picture of the universe as it enters the solar system.
For all we know, you're a cleverly programmed robot that spews conspiracy theory and eats old people's medicine.
So like, we're just now getting a handle on the heliopause and the Voyager spacecraft is mysteriously accelerating. For all we know, the heliopause is wildly distorting the picture of the universe as it enters the solar system.
For all we know, you're a cleverly programmed robot that spews conspiracy theory and eats old people's medicine.
czarangelus: For all we know, the heliopause is wildly distorting the picture of the universe as it enters the solar system.
You have a remarkable combination of extreme skepticism about certain topics and an ability to wholly embrace others with unusual ease.
You have a remarkable combination of extreme skepticism about certain topics and an ability to wholly embrace others with unusual ease.
sabine: You have a remarkable combination of extreme skepticism about certain topics and an ability to wholly embrace others with unusual ease.
I'm just trying to point out that before we become wild with certainty and self-congratulations that we don't have all the possible variables under control.
I'm just trying to point out that before we become wild with certainty and self-congratulations that we don't have all the possible variables under control.
sabine: You have a remarkable combination of extreme skepticism about certain topics and an ability to wholly embrace others with unusual ease.
Like faethe, who doesn't believe in the thousands of film clips and specs on man-portable nukes (see Davy Crockett) but believes every conspiracy theory in the world.
The difference, of course, is that faethe is likable.
Like faethe, who doesn't believe in the thousands of film clips and specs on man-portable nukes (see Davy Crockett) but believes every conspiracy theory in the world.
The difference, of course, is that faethe is likable.
intentionally left blank: The difference, of course, is that faethe is likable.
Even though I haven't yet discovered a whole lot of things I agree with czarangelus about, I also haven't noticed him being particularly rude or insulting. He is a rather colorful character, and I'll take that over yet another playground insult tosser any day of the week.
Even though I haven't yet discovered a whole lot of things I agree with czarangelus about, I also haven't noticed him being particularly rude or insulting. He is a rather colorful character, and I'll take that over yet another playground insult tosser any day of the week.
sabine: Even though I haven't yet discovered a whole lot of things I agree with czarangelus about, I also haven't noticed him being particularly rude or insulting. He is a rather colorful character, and I'll take that over yet another playground insult tosser any day of the week.
Fair enough, asshole. :-)
Fair enough, asshole. :-)
sabine: Even though I haven't yet discovered a whole lot of things I agree with czarangelus about, I also haven't noticed him being particularly rude or insulting. He is a rather colorful character, and I'll take that over yet another playground insult tosser any day of the week.
The other part I should have mentioned is that czar is several more orders of magnitude batshit than faethe. That makes a difference to me as well.
The other part I should have mentioned is that czar is several more orders of magnitude batshit than faethe. That makes a difference to me as well.
sabine: Even though I haven't yet discovered a whole lot of things I agree with czarangelus about, I also haven't noticed him being particularly rude or insulting.
And he's rather good-natured about being called crazy, as long as you're light-hearted about it.
And he's rather good-natured about being called crazy, as long as you're light-hearted about it.
sloth: And he's rather good-natured about being called crazy, as long as you're light-hearted about it.
Well, you can't spell "crazy" without "czar", after all.
Well, you can't spell "crazy" without "czar", after all.
sloth: And he's rather good-natured about being called crazy, as long as you're light-hearted about it.
everybody's crazy. the ones wearing suits or lab coats or uniforms and pretending to be sane are the deeply dangerous ones.
everybody's crazy. the ones wearing suits or lab coats or uniforms and pretending to be sane are the deeply dangerous ones.
czarangelus: everybody's crazy. the ones wearing suits or lab coats or uniforms and pretending to be sane are the deeply dangerous ones.
I find it hard to disagree with this sentiment.
I find it hard to disagree with this sentiment.
jimmythehutt: I find it hard to disagree with this sentiment.
Which proves your sanity, disproving his statement.
Which proves your sanity, disproving his statement.
intentionally left blank: Like faethe, who doesn't believe in the thousands of film clips and specs on man-portable nukes (see Davy Crockett) but believes every conspiracy theory in the world.
The difference, of course, is that faethe is likable.
He's open to new ideas, and he's only trying to point out whats the difference between you and him.. he wants to believe we know everything, but there's always something missing from the big picture.
czarangelus: I just, I dunno. If we'd gone and probed this atmosphere with a robot I'd be convinced just fine. But when they're bouncing light off light without any clear idea of what's going off in between, I wonder if their methodology is really sound. Newton discovered a ton about optics because he stuck a goddamn stick in his eye, and realized that the shape of the lens of the eye itself distorts what we see.
czarangelus: I always feel a little suspicious of proclamations like these. How the Hell do they know? Are there no other possible interpretations than the one on offer? It wasn't very long ago when they were insisting there could be no water on the moon period end of conversation.
The difference here is that they've honed spectral analysis with and without distortions, so they can average out possible corruption.. they measured the moon water spectrum with space probes(I would guess, doing so through earths atmosphere would probably involve too much mutation/corruption of the original signal)
The thing is, you're right about the fact that they should'nt be so sure that they've found water, for all we know it could have a upper atmosphere that supports the water vapor in its state that allows us to pick up the fact that it is there... it could be a huge planet of pure arsenic and we wouldn't know until we land there and have our ships dissolved by the conditions that would present themselves on such a harsh environment.
It could even be a huge donut ring of vapor that is expelled via massive volcanism shrouding the planet in a bubble, which is constantly replaced and constantly stirred into a full sphere surrounding the planet through the planets own version of van allen belts..
The difference, of course, is that faethe is likable.
He's open to new ideas, and he's only trying to point out whats the difference between you and him.. he wants to believe we know everything, but there's always something missing from the big picture.
czarangelus: I just, I dunno. If we'd gone and probed this atmosphere with a robot I'd be convinced just fine. But when they're bouncing light off light without any clear idea of what's going off in between, I wonder if their methodology is really sound. Newton discovered a ton about optics because he stuck a goddamn stick in his eye, and realized that the shape of the lens of the eye itself distorts what we see.
czarangelus: I always feel a little suspicious of proclamations like these. How the Hell do they know? Are there no other possible interpretations than the one on offer? It wasn't very long ago when they were insisting there could be no water on the moon period end of conversation.
The difference here is that they've honed spectral analysis with and without distortions, so they can average out possible corruption.. they measured the moon water spectrum with space probes(I would guess, doing so through earths atmosphere would probably involve too much mutation/corruption of the original signal)
The thing is, you're right about the fact that they should'nt be so sure that they've found water, for all we know it could have a upper atmosphere that supports the water vapor in its state that allows us to pick up the fact that it is there... it could be a huge planet of pure arsenic and we wouldn't know until we land there and have our ships dissolved by the conditions that would present themselves on such a harsh environment.
It could even be a huge donut ring of vapor that is expelled via massive volcanism shrouding the planet in a bubble, which is constantly replaced and constantly stirred into a full sphere surrounding the planet through the planets own version of van allen belts..
czarangelus: the ones wearing suits or lab coats or uniforms and pretending to be sane are the deeply dangerous ones.
Dr. Hoenikker used to say that any scientist who couldn't explain to an eight-year-old what he was doing was a charlatan.
I really love that sentiment, and find it a strikingly powerful tool for unmasking people that are trying to hide behind a mantle of authority.
Dr. Hoenikker used to say that any scientist who couldn't explain to an eight-year-old what he was doing was a charlatan.
I really love that sentiment, and find it a strikingly powerful tool for unmasking people that are trying to hide behind a mantle of authority.
sabine: Dr. Hoenikker used to say that any scientist who couldn't explain to an eight-year-old what he was doing was a charlatan.
I think the universe will turn out to be remarkably intuitive. After doing the double-slit experiment with buckyballs, we've found that even conventional matter appears to follow quantum rules. I think that ultimately the universe is a kind of evolving wave that only becomes a place full of things when there's consciousness applied.
I think the universe will turn out to be remarkably intuitive. After doing the double-slit experiment with buckyballs, we've found that even conventional matter appears to follow quantum rules. I think that ultimately the universe is a kind of evolving wave that only becomes a place full of things when there's consciousness applied.
xxplosiv: He's open to new ideas, and he's only trying to point out whats the difference between you and him.. he wants to believe we know everything, but there's always something missing from the big picture.
Not clicking on YouTube at work.
No, of course we don't know everything. But science is ultimately testable. And much of what we know as "fact" are theories (in the scientific sense, not in the layman's sense) with overwhelming evidence. The interesting stuff is at the speculative edge.
And nothing in this thread is remotely at that speculative edge.
What is, is contantly tested, refined, tested again, and so on.
Not clicking on YouTube at work.
No, of course we don't know everything. But science is ultimately testable. And much of what we know as "fact" are theories (in the scientific sense, not in the layman's sense) with overwhelming evidence. The interesting stuff is at the speculative edge.
And nothing in this thread is remotely at that speculative edge.
What is, is contantly tested, refined, tested again, and so on.
czarangelus: I think the universe will turn out to be remarkably intuitive. After doing the double-slit experiment with buckyballs, we've found that even conventional matter appears to follow quantum rules. I think that ultimately the universe is a kind of evolving wave that only becomes a place full of things when there's consciousness applied.
Ironic?
Ironic?
czarangelus: Newton discovered a ton about optics because he stuck a goddamn stick in his eye, and realized that the shape of the lens of the eye itself distorts what we see.
In the late 1600's. There have been some developments since then.
In the late 1600's. There have been some developments since then.
sabine: Even though I haven't yet discovered a whole lot of things I agree with czarangelus about, I also haven't noticed him being particularly rude or insulting. He is a rather colorful character, and I'll take that over yet another playground insult tosser any day of the week.
Or tea/beer garden insult tosser.
Or tea/beer garden insult tosser.
intentionally left blank: Not clicking on YouTube at work.
No, of course we don't know everything. But science is ultimately testable. And much of what we know as "fact" are theories (in the scientific sense, not in the layman's sense) with overwhelming evidence. The interesting stuff is at the speculative edge.
And nothing in this thread is remotely at that speculative edge.
What is, is contantly tested, refined, tested again, and so on.
sorry bout the link, it wasnuthin but music(an so was that).. although it is a big pot leaf an all, but that's the up in smoke tour dre did way back when....
I think my beef(and from association, Czars) with the analysis is that we cannot test their claim with anything else, not yet anyway. and there's STILL possible variables with our methods of information collection. While its cool to imagine that there's other worlds out there that could've possibly had some kind of life and possibly another conscious species that possibly has sapience, We really can't know for sure for thousands of years at best..
No, of course we don't know everything. But science is ultimately testable. And much of what we know as "fact" are theories (in the scientific sense, not in the layman's sense) with overwhelming evidence. The interesting stuff is at the speculative edge.
And nothing in this thread is remotely at that speculative edge.
What is, is contantly tested, refined, tested again, and so on.
sorry bout the link, it wasnuthin but music(an so was that).. although it is a big pot leaf an all, but that's the up in smoke tour dre did way back when....
I think my beef(and from association, Czars) with the analysis is that we cannot test their claim with anything else, not yet anyway. and there's STILL possible variables with our methods of information collection. While its cool to imagine that there's other worlds out there that could've possibly had some kind of life and possibly another conscious species that possibly has sapience, We really can't know for sure for thousands of years at best..
xxplosiv:
It could even be a huge donut ring of vapor that is expelled via massive volcanism shrouding the planet in a bubble, which is constantly replaced and constantly stirred into a full sphere surrounding the planet through the planets own version of van allen belts..
I mean, really, it doesn't even have to be supported physical vapor, the fact that it's a large planet and we've never actually studied a rocky planet bigger than earth means it could be completely awash in oxygen, and random meteors plunging through the atmosphere could be kicking up some of those oxygen atoms, which get impacted with the solar wind and form vapor on contact with the magnetic van allen belt surrounding it.. maybe it's atmosphere is solidly methane or some other hydrocarbon(hell, alien planet, for all we know its purely hydrogen, and our first probe to land for exploring it creates a fireball that fries our only chance of studying it) leading us to only see the few outliers in the spectrum coming off of it....
I bet with the extra pressure, if it were capable of supporting life that it would have enough oil to support our lifestyle for billions of years... unless massive volcanism constantly burns any hydrocarbons or coal completely..
xxplosiv: sorry bout the link, it wasnuthin but music(an so was that).. although it is a big pot leaf an all, but that's the up in smoke tour dre did way back when....
I think my beef(and from association, Czars) with the analysis is that we cannot test their claim with anything else, not yet anyway. and there's STILL possible variables with our methods of information collection. While its cool to imagine that there's other worlds out there that could've possibly had some kind of life and possibly another conscious species that possibly has sapience, We really can't know for sure for thousands of years at best..
Can't do video at work, full stop.
The thing is, we have. For example, we've reproduced parts of the spectra of heated gases in a lab (it was a high school physics experiment when I was a kid 30 years ago), we've collected solar wind to test those same gases. We've looked at other planets and probed them with physical instruments. Gravitational lenses predicted a specific behavior about stars that was verified just after WW II.
Michaelson-Morley was a famous failed experiment that told scientists at the time that they didn't understand light. We test, we fail, we hypothesize and try again. It's not like we rely on a single test and declare the solution complete.
I think my beef(and from association, Czars) with the analysis is that we cannot test their claim with anything else, not yet anyway. and there's STILL possible variables with our methods of information collection. While its cool to imagine that there's other worlds out there that could've possibly had some kind of life and possibly another conscious species that possibly has sapience, We really can't know for sure for thousands of years at best..
Can't do video at work, full stop.
The thing is, we have. For example, we've reproduced parts of the spectra of heated gases in a lab (it was a high school physics experiment when I was a kid 30 years ago), we've collected solar wind to test those same gases. We've looked at other planets and probed them with physical instruments. Gravitational lenses predicted a specific behavior about stars that was verified just after WW II.
Michaelson-Morley was a famous failed experiment that told scientists at the time that they didn't understand light. We test, we fail, we hypothesize and try again. It's not like we rely on a single test and declare the solution complete.
quinblake: Or tea/beer garden insult tosser.
You better watch it, missy! We don't like those kinds of comments around here.
You better watch it, missy! We don't like those kinds of comments around here.
intentionally left blank: Can't do video at work, full stop.
The thing is, we have. For example, we've reproduced parts of the spectra of heated gases in a lab (it was a high school physics experiment when I was a kid 30 years ago), we've collected solar wind to test those same gases. We've looked at other planets and probed them with physical instruments. Gravitational lenses predicted a specific behavior about stars that was verified just after WW II.
Michaelson-Morley was a famous failed experiment that told scientists at the time that they didn't understand light. We test, we fail, we hypothesize and try again. It's not like we rely on a single test and declare the solution complete.
While that's true that we don't rely on a single test for any problem, we've skipped the fail safe of skepticism completely and assume a certain spectrum guarantees water. and that solution does not mix well with the polarized skepticism that me and czar seem to possess.
The thing is, we have. For example, we've reproduced parts of the spectra of heated gases in a lab (it was a high school physics experiment when I was a kid 30 years ago), we've collected solar wind to test those same gases. We've looked at other planets and probed them with physical instruments. Gravitational lenses predicted a specific behavior about stars that was verified just after WW II.
Michaelson-Morley was a famous failed experiment that told scientists at the time that they didn't understand light. We test, we fail, we hypothesize and try again. It's not like we rely on a single test and declare the solution complete.
While that's true that we don't rely on a single test for any problem, we've skipped the fail safe of skepticism completely and assume a certain spectrum guarantees water. and that solution does not mix well with the polarized skepticism that me and czar seem to possess.
xxplosiv: While that's true that we don't rely on a single test for any problem, we've skipped the fail safe of skepticism completely and assume a certain spectrum guarantees water. and that solution does not mix well with the polarized skepticism that me and czar seem to possess.
Not at all. We know scads about spectra now, and have for decades. Peer review is what weeds out poor conclusions. Remember cold fusion?
Not at all. We know scads about spectra now, and have for decades. Peer review is what weeds out poor conclusions. Remember cold fusion?
xxplosiv: While that's true that we don't rely on a single test for any problem, we've skipped the fail safe of skepticism completely and assume a certain spectrum guarantees water. and that solution does not mix well with the polarized skepticism that me and czar seem to possess.
my question was basically;
could this spectrum be anything other than water?
and
could how we are seeing this spectrum be distorted in any way?
my question was basically;
could this spectrum be anything other than water?
and
could how we are seeing this spectrum be distorted in any way?
intentionally left blank: Not at all. We know scads about spectra now, and have for decades. Peer review is what weeds out poor conclusions. Remember cold fusion?
yeah, I just don't remember a single bit of what was involved in that attempt, and my drunken background memory wants to say it was a fancy attempt at atomic chemistry, without the compound molecules but even that sounds like a dumbed down version(I haven't looked it up/read anything about it since i was about 16, which just so happens to be my first experience with fluids of high vapor pressure/alcohol content)
yeah, I just don't remember a single bit of what was involved in that attempt, and my drunken background memory wants to say it was a fancy attempt at atomic chemistry, without the compound molecules but even that sounds like a dumbed down version(I haven't looked it up/read anything about it since i was about 16, which just so happens to be my first experience with fluids of high vapor pressure/alcohol content)
xxplosiv: yeah, I just don't remember a single bit of what was involved in that attempt, and my drunken background memory wants to say it was a fancy attempt at atomic chemistry, without the compound molecules but even that sounds like a dumbed down version(I haven't looked it up/read anything about it since i was about 16, which just so happens to be my first experience with fluids of high vapor pressure/alcohol content)
But:
1) the procedure was poorly documented
2) what was documented could not be reproduced
3) the conclusion they drew was a leap of faith, not a conclusion
4) rather than peer review, they held a news conference.
All those are contrary to the Scientific Method (which has a very specific technical meaning).
But:
1) the procedure was poorly documented
2) what was documented could not be reproduced
3) the conclusion they drew was a leap of faith, not a conclusion
4) rather than peer review, they held a news conference.
All those are contrary to the Scientific Method (which has a very specific technical meaning).
czarangelus: I would if I were convinced I'd learn something.
So like, we're just now getting a handle on the heliopause and the Voyager spacecraft is mysteriously accelerating. For all we know, the heliopause is wildly distorting the picture of the universe as it enters the solar system.
The heliopause is just the edge of the simulation. You guys weren't expected to actually get any hardware out that far before 2012, and you're just seeing some rounding error.
We explained all this to the Mayans - didn't anyone take any notes?
So like, we're just now getting a handle on the heliopause and the Voyager spacecraft is mysteriously accelerating. For all we know, the heliopause is wildly distorting the picture of the universe as it enters the solar system.
The heliopause is just the edge of the simulation. You guys weren't expected to actually get any hardware out that far before 2012, and you're just seeing some rounding error.
We explained all this to the Mayans - didn't anyone take any notes?
cranky bastard: The heliopause is just the edge of the simulation. You guys weren't expected to actually get any hardware out that far before 2012, and you're just seeing some rounding error.
We explained all this to the Mayans - didn't anyone take any notes?
Don't do that to him. He'll believe it.
We explained all this to the Mayans - didn't anyone take any notes?
Don't do that to him. He'll believe it.
czarangelus: my question was basically;
could this spectrum be anything other than water?
and
could how we are seeing this spectrum be distorted in any way?
mass distorts light but I propose that it corrects itself in certain situations that do not involve singularities(light through a prism corrects its direction although it will break down into its component parts,meaning we probably did detect something with the same reactive nature of water, but how close are we to being right is my unfathomable thought with this), I've stated up-thread that the spectrum could have something to do with it's larger size and possible larger magnetic dynamo action leading to a shadow of the planets true composition..
for all we know it could be a super small gas giant that was stripped of gasses and left with its rocky inner core and high radiation belt action, leading us to not know unless we physically get closer and study it better. or it could just be a very young earth sized planet with a stronger than what we would call normal dynamo which is stripping ozone from its south pole, carrying it along a supped up radiation belt reacting it into water with the solar wind, then depositing it back at the planets north pole..
could this spectrum be anything other than water?
and
could how we are seeing this spectrum be distorted in any way?
mass distorts light but I propose that it corrects itself in certain situations that do not involve singularities(light through a prism corrects its direction although it will break down into its component parts,meaning we probably did detect something with the same reactive nature of water, but how close are we to being right is my unfathomable thought with this), I've stated up-thread that the spectrum could have something to do with it's larger size and possible larger magnetic dynamo action leading to a shadow of the planets true composition..
for all we know it could be a super small gas giant that was stripped of gasses and left with its rocky inner core and high radiation belt action, leading us to not know unless we physically get closer and study it better. or it could just be a very young earth sized planet with a stronger than what we would call normal dynamo which is stripping ozone from its south pole, carrying it along a supped up radiation belt reacting it into water with the solar wind, then depositing it back at the planets north pole..
czarangelus: my question was basically;
could this spectrum be anything other than water?
and
could how we are seeing this spectrum be distorted in any way?
Since spectrums are tied to individual molecules of certain compositions, probably not. And since Spectral theory and the tools to do it have been prevalent in space since the Mariner program (and probably earlier) - also probably not.
The use of statistics to look for variations in decomposing the readings of your spectrometers, and the improvement of photometers and filtering methods that can measure minute variations of light make readings more and more precise daily. (Hell, Kepler only clocks in at 95 Megapixels to do that; you could buy a larger one last year. )
In fact, if you want to account for the spectral variation and noise from our own Sun (probably the largest producer of noise for our solar system), hey you can even do that too.
Science has gotten harder as more and more people stand on the shoulders of more and more giants. But the ground rules are still there for those still interested.
\Or, as a famous man once said: "It's easy to lie with facts. But it's much easier to lie without them."
could this spectrum be anything other than water?
and
could how we are seeing this spectrum be distorted in any way?
Since spectrums are tied to individual molecules of certain compositions, probably not. And since Spectral theory and the tools to do it have been prevalent in space since the Mariner program (and probably earlier) - also probably not.
The use of statistics to look for variations in decomposing the readings of your spectrometers, and the improvement of photometers and filtering methods that can measure minute variations of light make readings more and more precise daily. (Hell, Kepler only clocks in at 95 Megapixels to do that; you could buy a larger one last year. )
In fact, if you want to account for the spectral variation and noise from our own Sun (probably the largest producer of noise for our solar system), hey you can even do that too.
Science has gotten harder as more and more people stand on the shoulders of more and more giants. But the ground rules are still there for those still interested.
\Or, as a famous man once said: "It's easy to lie with facts. But it's much easier to lie without them."
injuryproneerik: Since spectrums are tied to individual molecules of certain compositions, probably not.
Not to quibble, but shouldn't that be "spectra?"
Not to quibble, but shouldn't that be "spectra?"
sloth: Not to quibble, but shouldn't that be "spectra?"
Probably - I'm better on the science than I am on the grammar with this one.
Probably - I'm better on the science than I am on the grammar with this one.
sloth: shouldn't that be "spectra?"
Latin plurals in English can get really weird. I can deal with people mixing Latin and English plurals more easily than when Latin plurals like data and agenda get treated as singular in English.
Latin plurals in English can get really weird. I can deal with people mixing Latin and English plurals more easily than when Latin plurals like data and agenda get treated as singular in English.
If you logged in, you could post here.