astronomy ≠ astrology

>> ^jan:

I feel like in watching a Disney version of astrology 101.
I find him entertaining enough, but humans are ingenious in all forms not just the formerly educated state.
There are engineers that can not fix there own house plumbing.
Survival within the technological boom means we may have to resort to a more practical understanding of our needs.
I'm only one hour into it, it may win me over yet.

Na, Pluto had it coming.

I've seen him do it before. In this particular video, he turns that woman's question about the BP oil spill into a case for studying the stars. That's not at all what she asked. In fact, she was agreeing with him that the study of astronomy has real practical world applications. She wanted to know how this applied to cleaning up the oil spill.. and instead of addressing her earnestness, he used it to make a point I've heard him make several times before.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Trancecoach:
as good as this is, he's got a bad habit of bending what other people are saying in order to speak to the talking points he already has in mind.

Don't see where that happened...you're probably just mad about Pluto

I feel like in watching a Disney version of astronomy 101.
I find him entertaining enough, but humans are ingenious in all forms not just the formerly educated state.

There are engineers that can not fix there own house plumbing.
Survival within the technological boom means we may have to resort to a more practical understanding of our needs.

I'm only one hour into it, it may win me over yet.

Fucking genius.

We've got a fascinating lecturer for astronomy. You're completely drawn in, i feel pretty lucky he's at our uni.

*spacy <-- There's your astronomy channel.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dawkins, degrasse, tyson, poetry, science, biology, astronomy' to 'dawkins, degrasse, tyson, poetry, science, biology, astronomy, physics envy' - edited by MrFisk

>> ^Mcboinkens:

Not exactly, but I have taken two years of physics and am in an Astronomy class here at a university, so you could say I might know something about it.
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Boise_Lib said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/b/Boise_Lib-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">Do you?
</div></div></div>
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: right; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Mcboinkens said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: right; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/m/Mcboinkens-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-top: 1px; right: 52px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">►</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-right: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">He has no clue what magnetic fields are...
</div></div></div>

Good answer.

Yes, I was laying a trap for you. I expected an answer wherein you pontificate on magnetic fields by parroting what you have been told to believe. In truth no human "knows" what a magnetic field is--we can only describe the effects on our reality of the things we call magnetic fields. Even many scientists don't remember that all of science is building models to explain effects we observe--then we change models when needed. The most needed--but seldom used phrase in science is, "as far as we now know."

[redacted]

[redacted]

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Both #1 and #4.


At least a little bit of #4 will indeed occur.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I knew it was #1! Woop. Straight A's for me!


NERRRRRDS!

Your video, Conan answers Questions from fans: Astronomy homework, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Massive spread of light pollution does affect animals, migration patterns, etc. But I won't go into the details here. But.. I am familiar with such issues being involved in Astronomy, optics, etc. A friend is also a president, and physician in a major medical society within the US. They have solid science backing such things and how light pollution can affect people and animals in negative ways.

Sure light pollution can't be rid off 100%. The 9/11 memorial isn't on 24/7 every day, so that isn't a major problem either. We're talking in a practical sense, not in an absolute sense. Most cases of light pollution is quite simple to solve. Use a full cut-off fixture. You can cut down the lumens of the bulb. Saving yourself a great deal in cost for both electricity and the fixture. Rather than blasting wasted watts into the sky, focus it where you need it, Right down the the ground. A rather simple concept really.

If only every state would take it into consideration, it would save taxpayers huge sums of money in public electricity bills. Some states in the US, and some other nations, have adopted such policies/laws and it has shown it's effectiveness. There is often resistance to such change. We always see it from one sector. The lighting industry. They throw a lot of money to prevent states from making sensible decisions to save taxpayers cash. Often presenting bogus science, or no-name experts. Unfortunately for them in our area, we have an army of professors from big name local educational institutions to call upon. Not everyone is so lucky however. Still, it is sometimes hard to bear fruit as politicians tend to be more likely to listen to money before science.

So my point is about light pollution awareness in general. Most people aren't even aware of it, so I took the opportunity to mention it in this context as you can actually see the affect it can happen on wildlife. In the case for the 9/11 monument, I'm not concerned about it. It is a memorial that is not on 24/7. If the lights were, then it certainly could become an issue.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^honkeytonk73:
.... and light pollution supposedly causes no harm ....

A) Who says that?
B) Where is the harm in this instance? The lights were switched off for 20 minutes 5x to allow the birds to reorient. So, what, we wasted maybe 45 minutes of their time?

>> ^hueco_tanks:

Rogan was phenomenal in the moon hoax debate. I believe his actual position was something along the lines of "I know I sound crazy for saying it, but ... it might not have happened." If anyone can find the debate, post a link ... it was thoroughly entertaining.



It was entertaining, I'll give him that, and I can relate for the most part with Rogan's general point in this video. I just wish he hadn't overbearingly dominated that debate, barely giving Phil a chance to respond in kind. Phil let him walk all over him; the guy is too nice for his own good sometimes and Rogan definitely sensed that and took advantage of it. You'll probably be able to find the debate by searching Bad Astronomy's archives, there was a lengthy post by Phil (with a link to the "debate") expressing his frustrations trying to get a word in edgewise over Joe..

>> ^swedishfriend:

joe rogan is watched by over a billion people every ufc event (yes over a billion people watch each UFC event). He still does stand up and he is a black belt in Jiu-Jitsu, had a great part on one of the best sitcoms of all time, News Radio. He is an open cannabis user (brave for media personality). He is teh roxxors.


He's also a moon hoaxer, i.e. he thinks the Moon landings were faked. Unless he's retracted those statements and admitted he was very wrong(some time later) after being completely dismantled and destroyed by Phil Plait, of Bad Astronomy fame, on I think it was Penn & Teller's radio show. He made a huge fool of himself; I can only hope he's learned something from that experience.