Science isn't Clue®

Mystery Behind Galaxy Shapes Solved

Short version: new model does a much better job of predicting the distribution of galaxy types. Score! Nothing bad there.

But the title of the article bugs me just a tiny bit. It gives the impression that we’ve utterly nailed it: Game over; bye, bye, see you later. But that’s not science, or at least “nailed it” means something different to a scientist, and from field to field. (In some fields, a factor of two improvement might qualify; in others it might mean more than an order of magnitude improvement in precision) I’m not intending to hold this up as an example of bad science journalism, per se. If it is, I don’t know how to fix it — editors need to exercise brevity in titles. But I fear that the un(der)initiated get a cumulative wrong picture of science, if they’re reading these headlines.

We usually don’t just pack our bags and move on to the next problem. Often the current problem still has issues to be resolved; I imagine in this case, the group will continue to improve it, or someone else working on one will do so, and work with better data that come along. This result, while having passed through peer-review, has to await an onslaught of feedback that might await. And it involves a model, like virtually all of science — these days, there are Global Warming discussions that imply that if it isn’t perfect, then we know nothing. The fear of uncertainty spreads, because impossible promises are implied by the absolute certainty of “the puzzle is solved.” Such arguments are crap, of course, but how do you recognize that if you aren’t aware of the subtleties of the situation?

Conn, Sonar. Contact off the Port Bow!

Sonar, aye.

I’ve been wretchedly sick the past week or so, with absolutely no desire to blog, but appear now to be on the mend. My appetite is returning (the loss of which is a sign that I am really ill) and I can actually concentrate on concepts again. And type (semi) coherently, which was an intermittent skill, at best. So I’ll be easing back into things.

I notice that Chad is upset about a bad Pew poll quiz question about GPS, and boy did it look familiar. It was — I grumbled abut it months ago

It's Why God Invented Grad Students

Uncertain Principles: A Stainless Steel Baby Bottle

Assembling UHV systems.

If this sounds like kind of a pain in the ass, you’re right. If you look at the picture of the flange above, you can see that there are 20 bolt holes on the flange, each of which must be cranked down hard enough to cut into the copper. Better yet, you need to make sure that the compression is uniform, which means tightening the bolts in a star pattern– tighten one bolt, then the bolt on the opposite side, then a bolt 90 degrees from the initial bolt, then the bolt opposite that one, and so one. It’s tons of fun. Better still, each bolt (on this particular flange, anyway) is coated with a grey anti-seize grease that is next to impossible to get off your hands.

In Space, No One Can Hear You Scream an Expletive

Quantum Rocketry: thoughts on space battles

A kinetic impactor is basically just a slug that goes really fast and hits the enemy fighter, tearing through the hull, damaging delicate systems with vibrations, throwing gyroscopes out of alignment so that they spin into their enclosures and explode into shards, puncturing tanks of fuel and other consumables, or directly killing the pilot and crew. You know…bullets. But it sounds much more technical and science-fictiony to say “mass driver” or “kinetic lance” or something of the sort.

A definite downside to kinetic weapons on a starfighter is that they would impart momentum to the fighter or change its mass properties. Very large cannons or missiles might therefore be impractical, unless the fighter can quickly compensate for what is essentially a large rocket firing. Even that compensation might give the enemy just the window he needs…

That’s pretty good. But there’s a nit:

But while we’re talking about focused energy weapons, lets just go with a tool that we already use to cut sheet metal on Earth: lasers. In space, laser light will travel almost forever without dissipating from diffraction.

It’s a common misconception that lasers give off perfectly collimated light, but it just ain’t so. Lasers typically have a Gaussian profile, so the beam will diverge, though pretty slowly if you start with a large beam. Small beams diverge faster, and one of the things that can give you fits when playing around with laser diodes and their incredibly tiny beams. (The divergence and the asymmetric profile and the astigmatism of the beam. Oy!)

But I don’t think this is a problem. In fact, for a space weapon, you might want to focus it down to a small spot (the corollary to not being collimated is that you can’t focus down to a point in Gaussian-Optics land, but bigger beams can have smaller spots) in order to do damage, while the beam generation power density is small. If you know the range, you can adjust the focus of the beam.

I like the idea of maneuvering and firing other weapons while you wait for the main capacitor to recharge. I also think maybe your kinetic weapon would be moveable, and you would need to account for the momentum kick in your attack plan — in fact, timing the firing of the weapon to give you desired maneuvering could be an important tactic. Such as firing to change your direction, or firing aft to hasten your departure.

Great Turtle Farts!

Aquarium lowers water levels after feeding turtles brussel sprouts

[T]he turtles, like humans, are prone to heavy bouts of flatulence after eating the vegetables.

Last year a turtle at a Sealife Centre triggered overflow alarms in the middle of the night after the splashes from gassy bubbles hit overflow sensors.

Now the Yarmouth turtle tank -12 feet in depth and width holding 250,000 litres of water along with George the 3ft long green turtle – has been partially emptied for the festive season.

I wonder how this affects their buoyancy and swimming speed.

Soon to be a Blockbuster Movie

Skulls in the Stars: Lord Kelvin vs. the Aether! (1901)

[T]hese speculations resulted in a number of interesting results. For instance, we have noted previously that Earnshaw’s theorem (1839), an important result in electromagnetic theory, arose from an attempt to determine the forces that hold the aether together. In 1902, Lord Rayleigh attempted to detect the aether-induced “length contraction” by measuring the birefringence of moving objects, an ingenious attempt that gave a negative result.

In the broadest sense, a “good” theory is one which raises interesting questions that may inevitably be tested by experiment. Even if it proves to be fundamentally incorrect in the end, it has spurred numerous theoretical and experimental results.

Cthulhu Calling

The Bloop, which has its own Wikipedia page (OK, what interesting subject doesn’t, the Wikipedia Paradox notwithstanding?)

Aaaaanyway …

[T]he sound is believed to be coming roughly from 50oS; 100oW. After reading that, I wondered how close that was to the coordinates given in “The Call of Cthulhu”. Allow me to quote: “Then, driven ahead by curiosity in their captured yacht under Johansen’s command, the men sight a great stone pillar sticking out of the sea, and in S. Latitude 47°9′, W. Longitude l23°43′, come upon a coastline of mingled mud, ooze, and weedy Cyclopean masonry which can be nothing less than the tangible substance of earth’s supreme terror – the nightmare corpse-city of R’lyeh, that was built in measureless aeons behind history by the vast, loathsome shapes that seeped down from the dark stars.”

Also: NOAA: A Collection of Sounds from the Sea

Spectrographs of underwater sounds, including The Bloop

This Just In

OK, not really.

Dec. 30, 1924: Hubble Reveals We Are Not Alone

Hubble used Leavitt’s formula to calculate that Andromeda was approximately 860,000 light years away. That’s more than eight times the distance to the farthest stars in the Milky Way. This conclusively proved that the nebulae are separate star systems and that our galaxy is not the universe.

Cosmic though it was, the news did not make the front page of The New York Times. The paper did notice the following Feb. 25 that Hubble and a public health researcher split a $1,000 prize ($12,000 in today’s money) from the American Academy for the Advancement of Science.