http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110215/full/470313a.html
Yesterday the US government announced its budget for the coming financial year, with spending on science education and research up $66.8 billion. Obama's plan is to increase the US economy through innovation in research. Frankly the UK could do with similar increases in science funding (although we can hardly muster such a large injection of cash).
Unfortunately the recent cuts, with knock on increase to student tuition fees do not bode well for the next generation of scientists who frankly run the UK economy (primary industry is almost non-existant, the UK depends on exports of specialist products such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals and transport as well as services such as banking).
Hopefully a rise in the US economy (if it happens) will be attributed to increased science funding and a similar tactic will be implemented in the UK.
Although this will take about a generations so...we are stuffed.
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Friday, 11 February 2011
I am, for your (and my) entertainment, going to shit all over his chips.
I am sorry, but I tried to let this slide. And I cant.
http://www.NaturalNews.com/028012_skeptics_medicine.html
Sweep generalisations much?
So I am, for your (and my) entertainment, going to shit all over his chips. His comments in italics, mine in...well normal.
• Skeptics believe that ALLvaccinesare safe and effective (even if they've never been tested), that ALL people should be vaccinated, even against their will, and that there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given. So injecting all children with, for example, 900 vaccines all at the same time is believed to be perfectly safe and "good for yourhealth."
Bollocks. Pure and simple. If a vaccine has been untested no one is going to say it is 100% safe. For vaccines that are using dead or sterilised versions of the pathogen it is a pretty safe bet.
No. There is no limit as they don't harm you. However I don't think anyone recommends taking 900 vaccinations, let alone all at the same time. There are reasons that vaccines are combined, mostly because it hurts small children less.
• Skeptics believe that fluoridechemicalsderived from the scrubbers of coal-fired power plants are really good for human health. They're so good, in fact, that they should be dumped into thewatersupply so that everyone is forced to drink those chemicals, regardless of their current level of exposure to fluoride from other sources.
Read. You ignorant fool.
Too much fluoride=bad, not enough = bad.
Happy medium.
Stop swallowing your toothpaste!
http://www.bfsweb.org/facts/dental_benefits/facts_.htm
It doesn't matter where chemicals come from, as long as they are pure. An element is an element however it is created.
• Skeptics believe that many six-month-oldinfantsneed antidepressantdrugs. In fact, they believe that people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs all at the same time: Antidepressants, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping drugs and more -- simultaneously!
Well I have never heard or read this, and I certainty don't. I think you need a fucking chill pill though.
Drugs can be given safely as long as they do not interact with each other and have knock on effects to the body. I would say that pretty much cock-punches your unlimited drugs statement.
• Skeptics believe that thehuman bodyhas no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections arevaccines.
....
This is getting difficult, I will try and minimise on the swearing.
No, No FUCKING No.
The human body is...incredible and the immune system is amazing. Vaccinations make use of the immune system BUT some diseases are lethal before your immune system has a chance to combat them. Vaccinations simple pre-prepare the immune system for an infection by one of these diseases. Like having all the answers to the exam you are about to sit.
• Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease andchildbirthis a medical crisis. (They are opponents ofnaturalchildbirth.)
I am not sure I even know what this means. Or what natural child birth is. But people should stop squeezing out sprogs so much to ease pressure on our natural resources.
• Skeptics do not believe in hypnosis. This is especially hilarious since they are all prime examples of people who are easily hypnotized by mainstream influences.
Um....hypnosis is a bit of a weird one. Some people consider it a kind of...agreement between the hypnotiser and the subject, but it does appear to work for some therapies (have a read of the wikipedia page).
• Skeptics believe that there is no such thing as human consciousness. They do not believe in the mind; only in the physicalbrain. In fact, skeptics believe that they themselves aremindless automatonswho have no free will, no soul and no consciousness whatsoever.
There isa human consciousness, thats why I am here, typing away this ridiculous de-bunking. I just don't think there is a human consciousness that is beyond the physical brain. And nor does neuroscience. Have a read of Dr. Novella's blog post on it.
But yes, I am a mindless automate, which is why I have opinions on how stupid you are. (Ha, sarcasm).
• Skeptics believe that DEADfoodshave exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).
Do you chew on lambs live? As a vegetarian I find even the dead lamb chewing pretty distasteful, but YOU SICKEN ME.
Dead food, I assume you mean cooked? Well cooked food doesn't have the same levels of some nutrients in it as raw food (study picked out at random). But not all food is as tasty raw. So have a mixture of fresh and cooked vegetables.
• Skeptics believe that pesticides on the crops are safe, genetically modified foods are safe, and that any chemicalfoodadditive approved bythe FDAis also safe. There is no advantage to buying organic food, they claim.
This is a big topic. So briefly:
Organic -
bit kooky, think that homeopathy should be given to cows. Cutting down on pesticides = very good. But evidence suggests that it only increases numbers of common not rare species. Although I now cant find that paper. Bugger. If I do I will edit this.
Here is a paper suggesting organic farming would increase beta diversity. All well and good.
Unfortunately with the current size of the human population there is no way we could feed everyone purely by organic farming.
GM crops -
one of the most promising avenues to cut out pesticides, by producing resistant crops. Not all safe, not all dangerous. It is the most highly regulated area of scientific investigation to date. Mostly because of scaremongers. Genes are usually from other plants, which are closely related. This occurs naturally via hybridisation, but this way we have control over which genes. Stop worrying so much.
FDA approval -
Dont really know anything about the FDA (being English) but yes, I would think if they passed it then it is probably safe. But don't quote me on that, that is your problem america.
• Skeptics believe that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration. Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway).
Yes. That is true. No vibrations, no harmonies, no nothing. Water is tastey good. But still water.
• Skeptics believe that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants areinert, having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health. (The ignorance of this intellectual position is breathtaking...)
This is a stupid statement. Inert? No. I don't think so. Ok so for those of you that don't know what a phytochemical is, it is a compound found naturally in plants. We get vitamin C from fresh fruit, that isn't inert and we need it.
I don't really understand what he is yapping on about.
• Skeptics believe that the moon has no influence over life on Earth. Farming in sync with moon cycles is just superstition, they say. (So why are the cycles of life for insects, animals and humans tied to the moon, then?)
The moon does have influence over life on earth. The tides for instance. And some animals (corals particularly) synchronise their spawning by the moon. Probably because it is present across their range, and thus is a convenient temporal marker.
There is however no evidence that the moon holds sway on humans (see here).
• Skeptics believe that the SUN has no role in human health other than to causeskincancer. They completely deny anyhealingabilities of light.
Well....sunlight does aid the synthesis of vitamin D so...wrong again I guess.
• Skeptics believe that Mother Nature is incapable of synthesizingmedicines. Only drug companies can synthesize medicines, they claim. (So why do they copy molecules fromnature, then?)
Wrong. Do you know where aspirin comes from? Nature is great for creating drugs.
There is a problem though. The often come with a lot of other random chemicals which you probably do not want in your system. That is why these useful drugs are singled out, isolated, then made synthetically. Identical to the natural ones (aspirin from willow bark), but with less side effects. Bonus.
• Skeptics do not believe in intuition. They believe that mothers cannot "feel" the emotions of their infants at a distance. They write off all such "psychic" events as mere coincidence.
True.
• Skeptics believe that all healing happens from the outside, fromdoctorsand technical interventions. They do not believe thatpatientshave any ability to heal themselves. Thus, they do not ascribe any responsibility for health to patients. Rather, they believe that doctors and technicians are responsible for your health. Anyone who dismisses doctors and takes charge of their own health is therefore acting "irresponsibly," they claim.
No, the body heals itself. That is why you stop bleeding. And don't suffer from a perpetual cold.
Sometimes it needs a little help though. And yes, if you throw the opinion of a trained medical practitioner out simple because he is trained then you are a fool.
• Skeptics believe thatcell phoneradiation poses absolutely no danger to human health. A person can be exposed to unlimited cell phoneradiationwithout any damage whatsoever.
Jury is still out on this one. Too much evidence on both sides. More research needed.
• Skeptics believe that aspartame and artificial chemical sweeteners can be consumed in unlimited quantities with no ill effects.
No, nothing can be consumed in unlimited quantities with no ill effects. Even water.
• Skeptics believe that human beings were born deficient in synthetic chemicals and that the role of pharmaceuticalcompaniesis to "restore" those deficiencies in humans by convincing them to swallow patented pills.
Ok, now you are just making shit up (haha, NOW!).
No, you take medicine IF YOU NEED IT. If you don't, then (by definition) you are healthy.
• Skeptics believe that you can take unlimitedpharmaceuticals, be injected with an unlimited number of vaccines, expose yourself to unlimited medical imaging radiation, consume an unlimited quantity of chemicals in processed foods and expose yourself to an unlimited quantity of environmental chemical toxinswith absolutely no health effects whatsoever!
No. Just...No. No-one in the world thinks that. Just...just think about what you are saying.
Chris
http://www.NaturalNews.com/028012_skeptics_medicine.html
Sweep generalisations much?
So I am, for your (and my) entertainment, going to shit all over his chips. His comments in italics, mine in...well normal.
• Skeptics believe that ALLvaccinesare safe and effective (even if they've never been tested), that ALL people should be vaccinated, even against their will, and that there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given. So injecting all children with, for example, 900 vaccines all at the same time is believed to be perfectly safe and "good for yourhealth."
Bollocks. Pure and simple. If a vaccine has been untested no one is going to say it is 100% safe. For vaccines that are using dead or sterilised versions of the pathogen it is a pretty safe bet.
No. There is no limit as they don't harm you. However I don't think anyone recommends taking 900 vaccinations, let alone all at the same time. There are reasons that vaccines are combined, mostly because it hurts small children less.
• Skeptics believe that fluoridechemicalsderived from the scrubbers of coal-fired power plants are really good for human health. They're so good, in fact, that they should be dumped into thewatersupply so that everyone is forced to drink those chemicals, regardless of their current level of exposure to fluoride from other sources.
Read. You ignorant fool.
Too much fluoride=bad, not enough = bad.
Happy medium.
Stop swallowing your toothpaste!
http://www.bfsweb.org/facts/dental_benefits/facts_.htm
It doesn't matter where chemicals come from, as long as they are pure. An element is an element however it is created.
• Skeptics believe that many six-month-oldinfantsneed antidepressantdrugs. In fact, they believe that people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs all at the same time: Antidepressants, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping drugs and more -- simultaneously!
Well I have never heard or read this, and I certainty don't. I think you need a fucking chill pill though.
Drugs can be given safely as long as they do not interact with each other and have knock on effects to the body. I would say that pretty much cock-punches your unlimited drugs statement.
• Skeptics believe that thehuman bodyhas no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections arevaccines.
....
This is getting difficult, I will try and minimise on the swearing.
No, No FUCKING No.
The human body is...incredible and the immune system is amazing. Vaccinations make use of the immune system BUT some diseases are lethal before your immune system has a chance to combat them. Vaccinations simple pre-prepare the immune system for an infection by one of these diseases. Like having all the answers to the exam you are about to sit.
• Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease andchildbirthis a medical crisis. (They are opponents ofnaturalchildbirth.)
I am not sure I even know what this means. Or what natural child birth is. But people should stop squeezing out sprogs so much to ease pressure on our natural resources.
• Skeptics do not believe in hypnosis. This is especially hilarious since they are all prime examples of people who are easily hypnotized by mainstream influences.
Um....hypnosis is a bit of a weird one. Some people consider it a kind of...agreement between the hypnotiser and the subject, but it does appear to work for some therapies (have a read of the wikipedia page).
• Skeptics believe that there is no such thing as human consciousness. They do not believe in the mind; only in the physicalbrain. In fact, skeptics believe that they themselves aremindless automatonswho have no free will, no soul and no consciousness whatsoever.
There isa human consciousness, thats why I am here, typing away this ridiculous de-bunking. I just don't think there is a human consciousness that is beyond the physical brain. And nor does neuroscience. Have a read of Dr. Novella's blog post on it.
But yes, I am a mindless automate, which is why I have opinions on how stupid you are. (Ha, sarcasm).
• Skeptics believe that DEADfoodshave exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).
Do you chew on lambs live? As a vegetarian I find even the dead lamb chewing pretty distasteful, but YOU SICKEN ME.
Dead food, I assume you mean cooked? Well cooked food doesn't have the same levels of some nutrients in it as raw food (study picked out at random). But not all food is as tasty raw. So have a mixture of fresh and cooked vegetables.
• Skeptics believe that pesticides on the crops are safe, genetically modified foods are safe, and that any chemicalfoodadditive approved bythe FDAis also safe. There is no advantage to buying organic food, they claim.
This is a big topic. So briefly:
Organic -
bit kooky, think that homeopathy should be given to cows. Cutting down on pesticides = very good. But evidence suggests that it only increases numbers of common not rare species. Although I now cant find that paper. Bugger. If I do I will edit this.
Here is a paper suggesting organic farming would increase beta diversity. All well and good.
Unfortunately with the current size of the human population there is no way we could feed everyone purely by organic farming.
GM crops -
one of the most promising avenues to cut out pesticides, by producing resistant crops. Not all safe, not all dangerous. It is the most highly regulated area of scientific investigation to date. Mostly because of scaremongers. Genes are usually from other plants, which are closely related. This occurs naturally via hybridisation, but this way we have control over which genes. Stop worrying so much.
FDA approval -
Dont really know anything about the FDA (being English) but yes, I would think if they passed it then it is probably safe. But don't quote me on that, that is your problem america.
• Skeptics believe that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration. Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway).
Yes. That is true. No vibrations, no harmonies, no nothing. Water is tastey good. But still water.
• Skeptics believe that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants areinert, having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health. (The ignorance of this intellectual position is breathtaking...)
This is a stupid statement. Inert? No. I don't think so. Ok so for those of you that don't know what a phytochemical is, it is a compound found naturally in plants. We get vitamin C from fresh fruit, that isn't inert and we need it.
I don't really understand what he is yapping on about.
• Skeptics believe that the moon has no influence over life on Earth. Farming in sync with moon cycles is just superstition, they say. (So why are the cycles of life for insects, animals and humans tied to the moon, then?)
The moon does have influence over life on earth. The tides for instance. And some animals (corals particularly) synchronise their spawning by the moon. Probably because it is present across their range, and thus is a convenient temporal marker.
There is however no evidence that the moon holds sway on humans (see here).
• Skeptics believe that the SUN has no role in human health other than to causeskincancer. They completely deny anyhealingabilities of light.
Well....sunlight does aid the synthesis of vitamin D so...wrong again I guess.
• Skeptics believe that Mother Nature is incapable of synthesizingmedicines. Only drug companies can synthesize medicines, they claim. (So why do they copy molecules fromnature, then?)
Wrong. Do you know where aspirin comes from? Nature is great for creating drugs.
There is a problem though. The often come with a lot of other random chemicals which you probably do not want in your system. That is why these useful drugs are singled out, isolated, then made synthetically. Identical to the natural ones (aspirin from willow bark), but with less side effects. Bonus.
• Skeptics do not believe in intuition. They believe that mothers cannot "feel" the emotions of their infants at a distance. They write off all such "psychic" events as mere coincidence.
True.
• Skeptics believe that all healing happens from the outside, fromdoctorsand technical interventions. They do not believe thatpatientshave any ability to heal themselves. Thus, they do not ascribe any responsibility for health to patients. Rather, they believe that doctors and technicians are responsible for your health. Anyone who dismisses doctors and takes charge of their own health is therefore acting "irresponsibly," they claim.
No, the body heals itself. That is why you stop bleeding. And don't suffer from a perpetual cold.
Sometimes it needs a little help though. And yes, if you throw the opinion of a trained medical practitioner out simple because he is trained then you are a fool.
• Skeptics believe thatcell phoneradiation poses absolutely no danger to human health. A person can be exposed to unlimited cell phoneradiationwithout any damage whatsoever.
Jury is still out on this one. Too much evidence on both sides. More research needed.
• Skeptics believe that aspartame and artificial chemical sweeteners can be consumed in unlimited quantities with no ill effects.
No, nothing can be consumed in unlimited quantities with no ill effects. Even water.
• Skeptics believe that human beings were born deficient in synthetic chemicals and that the role of pharmaceuticalcompaniesis to "restore" those deficiencies in humans by convincing them to swallow patented pills.
Ok, now you are just making shit up (haha, NOW!).
No, you take medicine IF YOU NEED IT. If you don't, then (by definition) you are healthy.
• Skeptics believe that you can take unlimitedpharmaceuticals, be injected with an unlimited number of vaccines, expose yourself to unlimited medical imaging radiation, consume an unlimited quantity of chemicals in processed foods and expose yourself to an unlimited quantity of environmental chemical toxinswith absolutely no health effects whatsoever!
No. Just...No. No-one in the world thinks that. Just...just think about what you are saying.
Chris
And on a slightly happier note
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12412662
Turns out there is a little bit more evidence for evolution, not that that will make a difference.
I am currently sculpting a presentation of Sheffield Skeptics in the Pub on 10 misconceptions of evolution (20th of June if anyone is interested), so this is a fairly timely piece.
Turns out there is a little bit more evidence for evolution, not that that will make a difference.
I am currently sculpting a presentation of Sheffield Skeptics in the Pub on 10 misconceptions of evolution (20th of June if anyone is interested), so this is a fairly timely piece.
You are quite literally...
retarded. In the nicest possible way.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031297_homeopathy_overdose.html
I know it is childish, but I had to leave a comment on the story. It will probably have gone by the time you read this.
For those of you who haven't seen this incredible article, it is totally worth reading. Well, the first few lines anyway.
The basic gist of it a mockery of the 1023 campaign by saying it is ridiculous that these skeptics are overdosing on homeopathy to prove it has not effect...
and then the coup de grâce:
Notice that they never consume their own medicines in large doses? Chemotherapy? Statin drugs? Blood thinners? They wouldn't dare drink those. In fact, today I'm challenging thehomeopathicskeptics and othermedical fundamentaliststo a "drink-a-thon" test to see whichmedicineswill kill you faster. But we'll get to that in a minute.
No
Shit
Sherlock
I seriously find it difficult to comprehend how he thinks this is a good point in favour of homeopathy! You're damn right I would drink conventional medicine, it would fuck you up royally. Because it works. Homeopathy wouldn't because it doesn't, it is very simple.
Clearly this guy isn't just a nut, he is a reality denying nut. And he doesn't understand electrons. Or physics. I know, shocked you didn't I?
Tell you what would be a story:
http://www.naturalnews.com/031297_homeopathy_overdose.html
I know it is childish, but I had to leave a comment on the story. It will probably have gone by the time you read this.
For those of you who haven't seen this incredible article, it is totally worth reading. Well, the first few lines anyway.
The basic gist of it a mockery of the 1023 campaign by saying it is ridiculous that these skeptics are overdosing on homeopathy to prove it has not effect...
and then the coup de grâce:
Notice that they never consume their own medicines in large doses? Chemotherapy? Statin drugs? Blood thinners? They wouldn't dare drink those. In fact, today I'm challenging thehomeopathicskeptics and othermedical fundamentaliststo a "drink-a-thon" test to see whichmedicineswill kill you faster. But we'll get to that in a minute.
No
Shit
Sherlock
I seriously find it difficult to comprehend how he thinks this is a good point in favour of homeopathy! You're damn right I would drink conventional medicine, it would fuck you up royally. Because it works. Homeopathy wouldn't because it doesn't, it is very simple.
Homeopathy, you see, isn't a drug. It's not a chemical. So you can drink all you want and you won't overdose on it. That's not a defect in homeopathy.
If homeopathy worked, and had no side effects then it would be....amazing, perfect, in use every day. It would be a miracle cure!
Unfortunately like many miracle cures it doesn't work, so the fact it has no side effects (not actually true, it does, amazingly! see here) isn't really a bonus.
For now, they've all convinced themselves that electrons are -- get this -- tiny "particles" flying around atomic nuclei and tremendous speeds which just happen to stay in their little orbits like little perpetual motion machines (which they say are impossible), until all of a sudden, these electron "particles" inexplicably leap to a higher or lower orbitwithout occupying the space in-between those orbits at any moment. Yep, magic teleporting particles! That's the "scientific" explanation of these folks. No wonder so many of them are magicians: Believing their explanations requires that you believe inparticle magic!
Clearly this guy isn't just a nut, he is a reality denying nut. And he doesn't understand electrons. Or physics. I know, shocked you didn't I?
But getting back to water and vibrations, which isn't magic but rathervibrational physics,you can't overdose on a harmony.
Nut.
"Skeptic dies after drinking his own medicine. Story at eleven..."
Tell you what would be a story:
" Homeopath changes mind, turns out he was bullshitting all along!"
Yeah, pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
Chris
Friday, 4 February 2011
whoa! whoa! back up there NHS website, homeopathy can do what!?
For reasons I wont go into here...i've just been on the NHS website for the contraceptive implant, and reading the section on "What else do I need to know?" came across this startling statement:
Some medicines, such as medication for HIV or epilepsy, or homeopathic remedies, such as St John's Wort, may reduce the implant's effectiveness. Ask your doctor for more details, or contact the FPA.
Homeopathic remedies can affect the contraceptive implant? Fuck, I would be warning them more about eating chocolate or sweets, or having sugar in their tea if it is actually homeopathic remedies that are having an affect!
Of course they don't actually MEAN what they say (silly me for assuming they do! tsk tsk). They were trying to say that St. John's Wort can affect the contraceptive implant...which is NOT THE SAME THING AS HOMEOPATHY.
Homeopathy by definition has to have nothing in it, that is kind of what you get with the territory. Herbal remedies on the other hand DO have something in it, that could affect hormone based contraceptives. Here are a couple of papers to that effect:
I know I shouldn't, but I kind of expected better from the NHS (although this place still exists which does rankle me somewhat). Homeopathy and herbal remedies are two very different things, many herbal remedies provide future avenues for drug research, and many have produced drugs in the past (most famously asprin from willow bark). Drug companies can then PURIFY this, so you don't get all the other toxic shit in with it when you try and get rid of a headache. Give me an asprin over willow bark any day!
Of course most herbal remedies are just a steaming pile of ..... and only there to make money. You win some, you loose some.
New solar system
This is the big news of the week, possibly of the decade for astronomy, the Kepler spacecraft has located 6 planets orbiting a star (Kepler-11) very similar in size to ours.
The really special bit of this story is the number of exoplanets discovered. Exoplanets are not a new find, but for many years the technology available was simply not accurate enough to locate small, earth sized planets.
It has always been know that many planets can orbit a single star (do I need to give an example?!), and we would have to be seriously ego centrical to assume we are the only solar system with multiple planets across the entire universe. But the fact that we have now been able to see these multiple planets, and more importantly seem them with light behind the (which allows spectroscopic analysis of the light passing through their atmospheres (if they have any), i.e. you can tell what is present within an atmosphere).
AND on top of all this the distance of the planets from their star is...well "normal", normal for us. About the orbits of Mercury and Venus.
The combination of 6 planets within such a small orbital distance of each other means, I would think, that the tidal forces across the planets when a few line up must be pretty...astronomical (see what I did there?). I wish, and I think this will be one of the great regrets of my life, that I am around to see the first exploration of distant worlds. Even putting a man on mars, which is entirely possible within my life-time (assuming we improve on the current shielding techniques to stop intense bursts of solar rays from frying anyone traveling across inter-planetary space), would blow my mind. The pinnacle of what is achievable with current technology?
Anyway at some point all this is going to make someone somewhere mention the Drake Equation.
And yes, it does impact the "chances" of alien life being around on other planets, simply by raising the number of plants we have seen orbiting suns. From the previous sample size of 1 (our solar system), and the few exoplanets (525 so far) that had been found, the number of stars you could say that (on average) circled the average star was low. But with the increased accuracy of these techniques I'm sure more and more will be found (pretty safe bet really!).
The really special bit of this story is the number of exoplanets discovered. Exoplanets are not a new find, but for many years the technology available was simply not accurate enough to locate small, earth sized planets.
It has always been know that many planets can orbit a single star (do I need to give an example?!), and we would have to be seriously ego centrical to assume we are the only solar system with multiple planets across the entire universe. But the fact that we have now been able to see these multiple planets, and more importantly seem them with light behind the (which allows spectroscopic analysis of the light passing through their atmospheres (if they have any), i.e. you can tell what is present within an atmosphere).
AND on top of all this the distance of the planets from their star is...well "normal", normal for us. About the orbits of Mercury and Venus.
The combination of 6 planets within such a small orbital distance of each other means, I would think, that the tidal forces across the planets when a few line up must be pretty...astronomical (see what I did there?). I wish, and I think this will be one of the great regrets of my life, that I am around to see the first exploration of distant worlds. Even putting a man on mars, which is entirely possible within my life-time (assuming we improve on the current shielding techniques to stop intense bursts of solar rays from frying anyone traveling across inter-planetary space), would blow my mind. The pinnacle of what is achievable with current technology?
Anyway at some point all this is going to make someone somewhere mention the Drake Equation.
And yes, it does impact the "chances" of alien life being around on other planets, simply by raising the number of plants we have seen orbiting suns. From the previous sample size of 1 (our solar system), and the few exoplanets (525 so far) that had been found, the number of stars you could say that (on average) circled the average star was low. But with the increased accuracy of these techniques I'm sure more and more will be found (pretty safe bet really!).
Thursday, 3 February 2011
Carl Sagan's Cosmos
For those of you old enough to remember the classic cosmos, have a look at this and enjoy:
http://ninjerktsu.blogspot.com/2011/01/carl-sagan-and-his-fully-armed.html
For the rest, go and buy cosmos (out on dvd), watch it, and THEN enjoy the link above.
Thanks to alex for sending this to me
Chris
http://ninjerktsu.blogspot.com/2011/01/carl-sagan-and-his-fully-armed.html
For the rest, go and buy cosmos (out on dvd), watch it, and THEN enjoy the link above.
Thanks to alex for sending this to me
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)