African or European?
The good thing about science
- Thread starter captp
- Start date
African or European?
If you brought that question to the Mess Hall, there would be a more definitive answer.
And a recipe!
I think the problem we see here is that when you're presenting a history of the universe you really only have a couple of sentences worth to describe the origins of the moon.
It's like an art program stating that Michaelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, lying on his back with paint and brushes. It gives you a small picture, but it's not exactly in depth.
What these programs are intended to do is not just entertain the viewer in a mildly educational way, but also to encourage the viewer to ask why, to seek out new knowledge and further background information.
To say NDT pulled it out of a hat is lazy and dismissive, for the sake of being dismissive. Certainly question the hypothesis, but look at how the hypothesis was formed and how it has progressed over the years. Note that I said it was first hypothesized in 1975. I did not state that it was a 40 year old theory that everyone took for granted over the last 40 years. Science don't work like that.
Whomever came up with that concept, most certainly pulled a "Mars sized object" out of a hat, smashed it against the earth, and it was never seen again. And part of my issue with stuff like this is often the scientists seem to quite blatantly massage the data to support their concept, instead of allowing the data to speak for itself. As an example in that article you cited: Dr Canup original simulation seemingly showed that a collision such as that would result in, at best, a bunch of smaller moonlets, not a nice big one, like I see up in the sky right now. Yet, later she had better "success" in getting the simulation to work out how SHE wanted it to.
At least that's how I read this:
So, I say "back to the drawing board", because I'm not buying that one whatsoever.
But, I suppose I should accept that it IS true, because NdGT says "Science is true whether or not you believe in it".
At least that's how I read this:
So, I say "back to the drawing board", because I'm not buying that one whatsoever.
But, I suppose I should accept that it IS true, because NdGT says "Science is true whether or not you believe in it".
Last edited:
Ok, here's another beef with NdGT, aside from what I stated earlier.
His famous quote:
Comes across as either: "Don't bother arguing with science because it is The Truth, and this is unassailable by mere mortal's inquiries (without PhDs in astrophysics at least...)"
Or it is a barb putting down religious beliefs, and that the pursuit of scientific answers are the only answers that matter. And that science is above belief and thus somehow better.
Yet the very fact that NdGT is himself apparently mixing ideology and science in this misguided quote he is showing his hand that he is more of an ideologue with an agenda than a pure scientist.
Im all for science, myself. I'm an engineer, I work in R&D building picosecond pulse lasers for a living.
His famous quote:
Comes across as either: "Don't bother arguing with science because it is The Truth, and this is unassailable by mere mortal's inquiries (without PhDs in astrophysics at least...)"
Or it is a barb putting down religious beliefs, and that the pursuit of scientific answers are the only answers that matter. And that science is above belief and thus somehow better.
Yet the very fact that NdGT is himself apparently mixing ideology and science in this misguided quote he is showing his hand that he is more of an ideologue with an agenda than a pure scientist.
Im all for science, myself. I'm an engineer, I work in R&D building picosecond pulse lasers for a living.
You don't think she went back to the drawing board because her theory did not match current observations? I.e. There's a big moon in the Sky and not little moonlets?
I await your reasoned theory on the moon origin. Make sure you take into account the differences in chemical make up and a good explanation as to why this planet has the largest moon in relation to it's size by a large margin. Accretion? Capture? Fission? Or are you going with It Just Is?
Alternatively, as previously discussed, pick up an astronomy book and learn something instead of saying to the learned astronomers "well that's just like your opinion man"
I await your reasoned theory on the moon origin. Make sure you take into account the differences in chemical make up and a good explanation as to why this planet has the largest moon in relation to it's size by a large margin. Accretion? Capture? Fission? Or are you going with It Just Is?
Alternatively, as previously discussed, pick up an astronomy book and learn something instead of saying to the learned astronomers "well that's just like your opinion man"
I'm going with:
Last edited:
There's a big moon in the sky and not little moonlets. Right. Nor is there a rouge Mars sized planet that at one point theoretically was within the solar system yet has now vanished.
And were Jupiters moons formed by that gaseous giant being smashed? And yet, many moons it does have. Saturn has rings and moons.
So yes, the earth and its moon is a unique pairing. But it seems that there are other unique circumstances as well.
No, I don't have the answer as of yet myself. But neither do they. So I'm simply calling them out on it on the hopes of being invited to the next conference they have to discuss it in Hawaii.
And were Jupiters moons formed by that gaseous giant being smashed? And yet, many moons it does have. Saturn has rings and moons.
So yes, the earth and its moon is a unique pairing. But it seems that there are other unique circumstances as well.
No, I don't have the answer as of yet myself. But neither do they. So I'm simply calling them out on it on the hopes of being invited to the next conference they have to discuss it in Hawaii.
Picosecond pulse lasers shouldn't exist. I don't know the slightest thing about them but it shouldn't be possible to excite atoms, electrons even, and be able to get frickin' lasers just by jumps in quantum state. I don't believe that is possible, there must be another explanation.
NgDT gave a blanket statement. It doesn't mean that science is unassailable. If you do wish to assail it however, you better be coming to it with a background in knowledge, else you might as well be part of that other famous science saying by Arthur C Clarke - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Is the NgDT quote a barb against religion? Probably at least in part, but also politics. Evolution exists and has happened whether or not you believe it did or if you believe everything was placed on it in an instant. The earth is 4 and a half billion years old. If you believe it is only 6000 years old, good for you. Doesn't stop it being 4.5 billion. Global warming exists whether or not you believe the explanations from climate change scientists or the refutations by a big fat guy on the radio.
Nobody, including Tyson, is telling you not to think. Quite the contrary in fact.
On a scientific assailment of the "impact moon theory".If the "Mars sized" impactor had enough velocity to deal the earth a glancing blow, blasting off hundreds of thousands of tons of material, and then still have enough momentum to carry it off into deep space, or wherever it somehow disappeared to. Wouldn't that momentum have been also transferred in a large part to the debris itself and also blasting it off out of orbit as well.As much as the idea of "well, that's just your opinion, man" isn't a justifiable line of questioning. Neither is "well, unless you can come up with a better idea, we're just going with this...." Isn't a very solid defense of an implausible concept that takes a bunch of monkeying around with to even get to work.Lasers work.Science works Cinceptual science should be presented with a large asterisk beside it, yet NdGT chooses to forgive that part of the presentation.
I'm out. Pick up an astronomy book, it will likely answer your questions.
Your dislike of NgDT is just too deflating.
Your dislike of NgDT is just too deflating.
This has been an episode of "When good threads go bad." 
At least there are people in here that understand Astronomy and Astrology are two different things! 
I'm out in the first 10 seconds of too many conversations that way!
I'm out in the first 10 seconds of too many conversations that way!
At least there are people in here that understand Astronomy and Astrology are two different things!
I'm out in the first 10 seconds of too many conversations that way!
Depending on the nightclub, it is either "What's your sign?", or "What is your preferred aperture?".
Last edited:
^ It's a telescope icebreaker, Gents.
I hate going to those hip bars that cater to the telescope crowd, because you just know by the end of the night there'll be a couple of bozos fighting over who's got the bigger telescope.
Chicks dig big telescopes.
