Tags for this video have been changed from 'space, air, movies, temperature' to 'space, air, movies, temperature, bad astronomer' - edited by xxovercastxx

Junk.

The Earth is only 6'000 years old. I know, I heard it from a US Senator.
What does this "Bad Astronomer" know? Apparently, nothing but bad astronomy.

>> ^my15minutes:
>> ^kulpims:
i don't agree. i believe there are aliens out there, observing us from a far orbit. it's like their version of a drive-in movie theatre.
wouldn't even have to be in orbit.
could be standing right next to you, just in another dimension.
munching on extra-buttery popcorn, watching you, right now...


Wasn't there a Star Trek Voyager Episode like that?

>> ^kulpims:
i don't agree. i believe there are aliens out there, observing us from a far orbit. it's like their version of a drive-in movie theatre.

wouldn't even have to be in orbit.
could be standing right next to you, just in another dimension.
munching on extra-buttery popcorn, watching you, right now...

>> ^omnistegan:
Then what is the reference point for speed in space? For speed on Earth we can use the surface of the Earth as a reference point for speed, and in our own solar system we can use the Sun, but at what speed is the Sun moving? And in reference to what? And what does that make of the speed and direction of motion of the Earth? And us? So are we really moving? or is everything moving around us in reference to our own perception?



That has 2 answers really, a metaphysical one and a physical one.

First, let us use the physical reality in which we experience. The most modern explanation of motion is the law of relativity. The law of relativity states that each observer has a valid claim in saying the they are moving and the object in reference is staying still. So in other words. The person on the train has just a valid assertion that the train is moving and the man is staying still, as the man on the ground saying he is moving and the train is standing still. In other words, it is your observation that is true for you, and it is their observation that is true to them. Both are valid claims. One is not righter than the other.

This realization was huge for science. To quote wikipidia on the matter:

“Special relativity overthrows Newtonian notions of absolute space and time by stating that time and space are perceived differently by observers in different states of motion. “

So, in essence, there is no such idea in relativity as what is “really” moving or not moving. Everything is happening as you experience it in your own frame of reference! Mind blowing I know. This is what is known as special relativity however, general relativity has to deal with gravity and acceleration which complicate matters greatly because of time dilation and space time curvature.

Now, metaphysically speaking space and time might not be real things in and of themselves. They might be complete fabrications of the mind. There is no necessity for time to exist, the universe could exist very much like a formula which is timeless and without space. In other words, the idea of time, space, motion, and all these fundamental things could really just be a subject of the mind and not of the universe itself. I personally believe that there is not objective time, space, or motion. These are all subjects of the mind and not of the universe itself. I think of the universe as a formula and those ideas of time and space and motion only occur inside the formula; that huge equation of everything we know.

So in essence, my metaphysical understanding of the universe actually gives way to special relativity. I would say the truth of what you observe is an unshakable experience. In other words, no one can say that you didn't experience something the way that you experience it. But that experiences in and of itself doesn't point to any underlying truth of how the universe actually works. In other words, your experience with the stuff of the universe is filtered through your mind and changed from the stuff it actually is to the stuff your brain understands; it is no longer the actual but the interpreted. We have no subjective way to show any of the stuff we experience actually maps onto the actual, it just isn't possible.

>> ^Trancecoach:
So, there are many many people who believe that this collider will result in generating black holes that may destroy the earth.


I think the point of the worry is we are dealing the with same kinda forces that were around with the big bang...who knows what will happen, really. It is both exciting and scary, even more so when you think about the scale of this thing...that was only one small piece of the entire unit! That thing is huge! Like huge beyond the scale of any experiment mankind has ever attempted before.

I remember watching old footage of nuclear bomb tests out in the desert. They had troops all over the place right near ground zero. Nowadays, that would be unheard of because we know more about radioactive fall out and all the destruction they are capable of. But back then, it was an unknown factor. Same goes for this thing. They are taking all the precautions they can, but we are still dealing with something that mankind has never ever attempted on such a scale. I am actually glad its not next door to me

On the black hole note though, I think it has been shown that a black hole that would be generated by that thing would be so small that it would be of no consequence. That isn't know for sure obviously, and we all know the reputation that black holes have so I think peoples fears are semi justified.

According to the Bad Astronomer, maybe someone is afraid to become known as being dinky...

>> ^budzos:
Not a great explanation.

I concur. It's not just that you're getting 'closer to the object', he should specify that it's because every particle in that object, each containing its own gravity, is now closer to you. Saying that you just have to be closer makes it sound like if you were touching or at the center of the Sun, you'd get as much gravity as being right outside of a black hole of the same mass, which isn't the case. Someone of a technical mind may understand this without explanation, but unfortunately the average Joe/Jane probably wouldn't. To them, closer generally ends at touching, but sometimes include being inside the object. Either way it isn't good enough to just use the words 'closer to the object'.

>> ^deathcow:
Gravity is such a weak force that the electromagnetic force in a tiny magnet can lift up a paperclip, far overwhelming the gravity from the Earths entire 6,600 _billion_ _billion_ _tons_ of mass.


Actually... the magnet can do that only because its dinky.

>> ^budzos:
Not a great explanation.


It's a perfect explanation, gravity is a function of distance, object is smaller, therefore you can get closer, therefore gravity increases (exponentially).

>> ^budzos:
Not a great explanation.


He would lose his target audience if he were to get technical. Someone has to explain this stuff at this level for most people to have any grasp of it at all. In a country (United States) where a majority believes we lived alongside dinosaurs, this guy is the first line of defense.

The Bad Astronomer is really a great blog. I'm looking forward to seeing Phil Plait in the new show The Skeptologists. Does anyone know if this show is really coming to tv?

Damnit, beat me by one hour, you bad, bad astronomer.