[-]

This table shows my stats for BOINC. SO far I have donated CPU time to the following projects: SETI@Home, Rosetta@Home, Einstein@Home, Simap, MalariaControl.net and Proteins@Home.

My BOINC Stats - http://starcrosser.blogspot.com/2009/01/my-boinc-stats.html

[-]

This table shows my stats for BOINC. SO far I have donated CPU time to the following projects: SETI@Home, Rosetta@Home, Einstein@Home, Simap, MalariaControl.net and Proteins@Home.

My BOINC Stats - http://starcrosser.blogspot.com/feeds/3297045009693281539/comments/default

[-] New Scientist has an article up describing an attempt to meld science and Hollywood. Initially I liked the idea. How could I really be against getting better science into mainstream media?!

And then I remembered: The majority of science is mundane, boring, tedious number crunching. It's not exciting. It doesn't fit in Hollywood. It's like putting a round peg in a square hole. So what can be done to try to make the science exciting enough for Hollywood?

As I see it, there's two options:

1) Skip all the boring bits and get straight to the "Whiz Bang" bits and "Eureka" moments.

OR

2) Find things that aren't really tested anyway and are crazy fringe science.

My problem with this is that either way, it's still misportraying science. The article gives a perfect example:

[MacFarlane] just finished making a Family Guy episode based on the possibility that there are multiple universes, prompted by a documentary he saw on the subject.

"I didn't really know that that was a real thing, that it was possible [and] being theorised about," he said. "So we did a story about it."

What's wrong with this? Where's the good science in multiple universe hypotheses? Where's the testing? Sure multiple universes sound good and sciencey, but when you get right down to it, it's not. It's a possible branch of science that's still in its infancy. It is a nice construct to start working from, and then develop ways to test it as we go, but chances are, like so many other things, it's quite likely that if/when we ever do test it, it will turn out to be bogus. And do we really want to be showing the public more bits of tenuous science that in all honesty, are pretty hollow?

While I see Hollywood's reasoning for doing it (it draws in the geeks), I also see the problem: It continues to confuse the picture of what science really is. We already have folks like the Discovery Institute hard at work doing that.

So while I appreciate the attempt from MacFarlane and Hollywood to put a bit more scientific rigor into their work, I just don't think it will work out too well for the simple reason that the two have very different intentions: One seeks to entertain, the other seeks to discover.

Meanwhile, I do like what the Zuckers said in the article about how science saved their daughter's life:

"They gave here a shot of insulin and this was like a miracle, because she was laying there on the examining table, and within a few hours she came alive again, her lustre came back," Janet Zucker said.

That's right. Science.Saves.Lives.

I'm not sure I like this idea - http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/feeds/6307442319297921996/comments/default

[-] I have great admiration and respect for every one of the astronauts that have ventured into space and we have every right to be proud of them. But just to show their vulnerability to their many tasks that all require extreme caution and attention to detail, a $100,000 tool bag floated off into non recoverable space yesterday. Under normal circumstances the tool kit would have been tethered so that it couldn't get away from the astronaut who was going to use it but somehow a small detail like tying the tether string went by un-noticed. I don't know about those folks but I only have one set of tools and if the one I need gets lost I am in deep trouble. I just trust that they have some spare wrenches laying around the ISS that they can use to get the job done. I can't help but wonder what a $100,000 set of tools look like. 

MISPLACED YOUR TOOL BAG? - http://bigadd.blogspot.com/feeds/4489287190785923629/comments/default

[-] Be sure to mark your calendar for Dec 1st and go outside right at dusk and feast your eyes on a beautiful grouping of the Moon, Venus, and Jupiter.  There isn't a wide time frame to observe this event and if you wait very long after sunset you will miss the entire show. Venus and Jupiter will be about 2 degrees apart and slightly below the moon.  Venus will get higher and higher in the southwestern sky throughout the month of December until it reaches a maximum of 30 degrees above the horizon towards the end of the month.

A SHOW FOR DEC 1st - http://bigadd.blogspot.com/feeds/3441461716946356684/comments/default

[-] It's taking too long, but there where too many references in this cluster and I want to refer to literature previous works. Found some redshifts to be rechecked also.

Still cataloguing - http://astroandcoffee.blogspot.com/feeds/8492276404188423237/comments/default

[-] Vast glaciers of water ice have been discovered buried on Mars, NASA revealed today. The find could provide vital supplies for manned missions.

Scientists were surprised to find the ice buried under rocky debris much closer to the martian equator than they expected.

Previous underground ice was found in the polar regions of the red planet. Now an orbiting spaceprobe called Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has found buried glaciers extending for many miles from the edges of mountains and cliffs in middle latitudes.

They are being compared to massive ice glaciers that have been detected under rocky coverings in Antarctica.

The discovery is revealed in the journal Science. Lead author John Holt, of Texas University, said: "Altogether, these glaciers almost certainly represent the largest reservoir of water ice on Mars that is not in the polar caps.

"Just one of the features we examined is three times larger than the city of Los Angeles and up to half a mile thick. And there are many more.

"In addition to their scientific value, they could be a source of water to support future exploration of Mars."

NASA used a radar instrument built in Italy on the probe to find the buried ice. The rocky covering stopped the water from evaporating into space.

Holt and 11 colleagues report the buried glaciers lie in the Hellas Basin region of Mars' southern hemisphere. The radar also has detected similar-appearing aprons extending from cliffs in the northern hemisphere.

Earlier evidence suggests that oceans covered Mars billions of years ago but the water was lost undergound or vaporised.

Picture: The Hellas Basin is the light oval region at the bottom of the image above. (Photo: NASA, ESA, the Hubble Heritage Team).

• What do you think? Skymania welcomes your comments and views. You can support this site by visiting Skymania's stores in the USA, the UK, Canada and France. They are powered by Amazon so you can buy with confidence.



Vast glaciers hide water on Mars - http://news.skymania.com/feeds/239979824639540051/comments/default

[-] Religulous has been out for a good while now, but I finally got around to seeing it last night. My overall impression of the movie wasn't overly impressed.

That being said, I think a good subtitle for this movie would be "Bill Maher preaches to the choir."

The large majority of this movie is going around to various religious people and showing that they (a) believe in things that are completely nuts like the virgin birth, or (b) are stunningly ignorant about their own religious history.

The reason that I say Billy is preaching to the choir is that it isn't likely that anyone that is religious sees anything wrong with this. They either see bogus miracles as truly miraculous, or are equally ignorant. As such, anyone that doesn't already agree with what Bill is saying probably won't get it.

And Maher doesn't even seem to care. Instead of trying to explain just why these people are ignorant, and trying to actually teach the audience something about what he's talking about, he just tosses things out there with no explanation. A perfect example is when Bill is talking to a Muslim about the view of many Muslims that anyone who challenges their religion should be killed. The Muslim says this isn't true and that it allows for discussion. Maher brings up the case of Salman Rushdie, and asks whether or not he deserves to be killed. The Muslim tries to waffle his way out and gives a non-answer worthy of the Discovery Institute.

I know who Salman Rushdie is. Maher knows who Salman Rushdie is. The Muslim Bill is talking to knows who Salman Rushdie is. But does the audience? Not exactly likely. I only know because SOMA brought him to KU a few years back. But Maher doesn't even try to take a bit of time to explain the situation. If you already know, then it makes sense. If you're not part of the choir, well, that part's probably lost on you.

Maher also seemed to use quite a few silly tricks when interviewing people. He'd ask a serious question and inevitably, the religious person would have to stop because they couldn't answer it. Of course, the way the editing was done, it makes me genuinely curious as to how many of the dazed pauses were legitimate and how many were edited in. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt here, but some just looked staged.

Another trick Maher used to force people to slip up was to ask a legitimate question and then, when they tried to answer it, make a joke out of it. The natural response to this is to stop and wonder, "How do I respond to this? As a serious question, or to the joke?" Those forced pauses I'm sure were abused as well.

Maher also tended to go after some people with pathetically weak education and theology. Showing up to a trucker's church? Yeah. Insightful theology there Billy.

There were some highlights of Bill meeting with some better religious authorities. As usual, former head of the Vatican Observatory, Geroge Coyne impressed me with his honest and informed answers. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, was better than most but still made himself look like a twit without Maher even having to try. But perhaps my favorite person Maher talked to was a Catholic priest just after Maher got kicked out of the Vatican. This guy admitted that most of the religion was full of hot air and was extremely laid back about the whole deal. Why can't we get priests like him in the US?!

So overall, the show had its high points and low points. It was 90% Bill showing that religious people are, by and large, at least compartmentally stupid. But as I said before, to those that would see this as such are people that would already agree. Those that can't see this are the ones being made fun of.

But what about that other 10%?

This last little bit was what I think the real highlight of the movie was. It was mentioned right at the beginning, and then was the main point at the end. One quote summed it up pretty well. I know this isn't quite right, but the notion is, "It's a shame that humanity developed the ability to destroy the world before it developed the ability to be rational."

This is the point that I agree with wholeheartedly. For the first time in human history, we have the ability to destroy our entire species. With this horrible threat, we can no longer practice the naive rituals of non-thought, however comforting they may be.

I really wish this theme would have been worked far more throughout the film, and stronger connections drawn with the lack of critical thinking and the consequences its already wrought. Instead, Maher left the cause and the effect only connected with a tenuous slippery slope. I think the message is solid, but this movie did not do a good job of showing it. The only thing it did do, was provide a bit of schadenfreude for those of us that already get it.

Religulous Review - http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/feeds/9029846797918882608/comments/default

[-] CONTACT:
Donna Weaver/Ray Villard
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md.
410-338-4493 / 410-338-4514
dweaver@stsci.edu / villard@stsci.edu

Alessandra Aloisi
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md./European Space Agency
410-338-4519
aloisi@stsci.edu

Hubble Resolves Puzzle about Loner Starburst Galaxy - http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/38

[-]

This is post 2 of 4 is from a Mac user in Sweden that joined The Imaging Source community this past summer. He originally purchased the DMK 41AU02.AS specifically for planetary imaging but was quite surprised when the 1/2 chip based CCD camera surpassed all of his expectation. This will be the first of four blogs highlighting Mr Rosen’s fine work. He writes:

Hello Profjohn,

I recently bought a DMK 41AF02.AS to use mainly on planets and the moon.  I use a Mac so I also bought AstroIIDC for the capture. As I live in central Stockholm, Sweden there are obvious limitations for DSO-photography due to light pollution, and I had reached the
limit with my Canon Eos SLR.

[...]This is my latest shot at the Trapezium region in M42. It started out as a project to photograph just the trapezium stars and separate the elusive e and f-components (upper right).

Base exposures 0.5 - 1 sec at prime focus of my Intes M703. At the same time I exposed the nebulosities at up to 40 sec with the L filter, then composited the result  in Photoshop with the color information from a picture taken 1,5 years ago with my Canon EOS. I first removed the overexposed stars of the core then added the 6 trapezium stars from my separate shot (the inserted color image to the left).

The bakground is a wider field photographed at prime focus of a William Optics FLT 110 (TEC optics) apochromatic reflector. The picture on the lower right is just a blown upp part of the core with the naming of the 6 trapezium stars.

Best regards
Peter Rosén

Stunning Shots from Sweden II! - http://www.astronomycamerasblog.com/2008/11/20/stunning-shots-from-sweden-2/