Slashdot Mirror

About half an hour ago, actually.

Well, I racked up 11,972,000,000 miles last year, so I don't know what planet you've been living on, but it's clearly an awful long way from here by now.

1. How does science explain where the material for the big bang came from and why it was there? Where's the scientific explanation of the material's origin, I would love to hear it... science only goes so far no matter HOW MUCH of it you accept

As far as I know, science does not yet have a solid theory for how this came about. There are some interesting hypothesises, for example one is that that the universe actually has a net zero energy state. The energy in the matter is balanced by negative gravitational energy - see this article. Of course this is just one hypothesis, there are others. However, just because we don't yet have a complete answer for the origin of the universe doesn't mean that it's acceptable to say "god did it".

Also the origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution as taught in school and college. The origin of the universe is more properly part of cosmology and physics. Evolution is biology and ONLY deals with how organisms change over time, it doesn't even address how life might have come about in the first place. So if the argument is that we shouldn't teach evolution because science does not yet have a theory about the origin of the universe, you might as well say that we shouldn't teach ANY science at all. Should we not teach chemistry because we don't know where the matter came from, should we ignore physics as well?

So while it's true that science only goes so far as you say that is still not an excuse for not teaching it. Science it can only address topics where, by definition, the scientific method can be applied. Religions' claims are, again by definition, not scientific. One cannot apply the scientific method to supernatural claims - since no hypothesis can be tested; a god could always use its supernatural power to ensure any result it wanted.

2. How did the reproductive system evolve? If the theory of evolution is that mutations that help an organism survive are what get selected, none of the system in either gender existed at the outset, most if not all of it needs to be present in order for it to work, and without it working there is no survival advantage, how did it evolve? Was it just 1,000 random mutations all happening at exactly the same time?

Your first misunderstanding is that the reproductive system needs all of it's current complexity to give an advantage. Being able to combine DNA without having different sexes gives a huge advantage in terms of natural selection, and then once you have that then selection pressure will evolve fitter and fitter mechanism until one has the full complexity that we see today. The system evolved in very very gradual steps. If you are thinking that sexual reproduction is an example of irreducible complexity, then I suggest that you do a little bit of research into it. For example, a quick look at Wikipedia provides a useful starting point for the layman.

I am not really religious. But I will discount all theories of some other being having a hand in creating us when science has a full and fully defensible explanation

So if you discount all theories until there is full and fully defensible explanation, then I guess you discount gravity. That can't be useful at all since we don't yet have a full explanation. Oh wait, yes it's still useful to use Newton's equations even though they've been superseded by Einstein's, and it's useful to use Einstein's even though they don't work so well at the quantum level.

The proof of this is that you can't do anything with nothing.

Lousy proof, You will have Schrodinger's cat rolling over in his box. You can create a universe out of nothing.

because right now, at this moment, we are plowing through space we haven't plowed through in 237 million years.

More accurately, we're plowing through space we've never plowed through before, in the context of the universe. The Milky Way is *also* moving through space at about 2.1 million km/hr or 600 km/s. I suppose it all depends on your reference frame.

Do NOT look directly at the sun through the telescope, of course. Instead, you use the telescope as a projector.

It takes a minute or two to aim: the trick is to use the shadow from the telescope to aim. When the shadow is smallest, you're pointing the right way.)

There are lots of web sites describing how to do it, such as this one. (I've never used the extra collar like they describe, but it probably wouldn't hurt.)

It also has the advantage that it's something a small group of people can enjoy at once.

At night, if it's reasonably dark at all, I'd recommend the moon (always easy to see. Use a moon filter, which probably came with your telescope).

Also, you should be able to see the Orion Nebula as a wide fuzzy patch. I've seen the banding of Jupiter, as well as its moons, in my 3.5" telescope, though I wasn't able to find the Red Spot, and the rings of Saturn.

Definitely get a software star chart (there are free ones available online) and a red filter for your flashlight so you don't lose night vision. It makes a surprisingly large difference.

Or a projector setup for the telescope. You project the image from the eyepiece on a small screen.
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/05/stars2.html
for more info http://solar-center.stanford.edu/observe/
Actually Solar observing looks like a good class activity.

AstronomyCast doesnt quite hit it with me. Its hosted by two people who do the question and answer routine on a topic each week and I'd rather just hear one of them talk about the subject instead of one of them pretending to know nothing about the subject and asking questions. Its all a matter of taste but I find it a bit too packaged and distracting. Like it was trying to be a conversation but came out awkwardly like a script. The information is always top notch and interesting stuff but the style of the show is not my cup of tea. The Jodcast recently asked its listeners whether they wanted the "objects in the sky for the upcoming month" to be read as a question and answer thing and they voted for one person to talk about it. As I say its a matter of taste so I pointed out a couple of other shows, in case the one I wasn't so keen on, put people off podcasts - theres a big sky out there and there's lots of different podcasts too.

I could mention a few more in addition to
AstronomyCast http://www.astronomycast.com/ top quality show with different subjects explored in depth with a teaching mission that will leave you much better informed than anything on tv ever will. The pedogogic style doesnt suit me but thats just my taste.

"Slacker Astronomy" http://www.slackerastronomy.org/wordpress/ Practising astronomers interviewed and in-depth subjects discussed by enthusiastic experts, they crack abysmal jokes about technical things which might seem a little silly (or incomprehensible) but the unscripted enthusiasm appeals to me.

The "Jodcast" http://www.jodcast.net/ Science staff from Manchester Universities Joderal Bank radio telescope bring us astronomy news, a themed mini drama, the night sky this month, topical discussion and an oft repeated desire for their theme tune to be redone in a heavy metal version. Well connected on Facebook et al, join in the fun.

there are

NASA Blueshift http://astrophysics.gsfc.nasa.gov/outreach/podcast/wordpress/ A bit slick the last time I listened, with soundbite interviews instead of a bit more detail from a single person. Most NASA stuff is a bit "wow look at that" without too much depth so I only come back to it infrequently. However it is probably perfect for the younger listener and they will probably be hooked by its friendliness.

"Astronomy a Go Go" http://astronomy.libsyn.com/ is the best observing podcast on the net bar none with Alice Few. It may prove a little intimidating to newcomers but the website is also the best general resource for amateur astronomers who want to do observing IMHO. Alice is so thorough and easy on the ear that you could easily play this one three or four times to get yourself fully up to speed on what might be worth doing in the coming month with your observing time. Solid gold this one.

Planetary Radio http://www.planetary.org/radio/ from the Planetary Society is great if you are into rockets and the exploration of the solar system as opposed to deep space. Always an interesting listen with news features, an opinion spot from the self styled "Bill Nye the planetary guy" and loads of enthusiasm for exploring.

365 days of astronomy http://365daysofastronomy.org/ has a few days left to run with a choice of 365 short programs from this The year of Astronomy - The ones from this year best heard now by browsing through the programs to find ones on subjects you are interested in, but the good news is that they are set to carry on with their volunteer generated 5 to 10 minute programs in 2010. Head on over and make a program for them yourself!

The Silicon Valley Astronomy Lectures http://www.astroso

Unnatural radio transmissions would stand out against the background radiation and give us a sense that another civilization is there.

The background radiation, really? You mean that? Oh yeah do you see that little spot, right next the big blue blob? Might just be them..

Seriously, you seem to think that all our telescopes put together form some sort of super fish-eye that monitors the entirety of the sky permanently. If it was the case, then we would know a lot more than the small fraction of asteroids we estimate we know (about a tenth of how much we estimate there are in total, depends on which figures you look at). Telescopes have an extremely narrow field of view, so narrow you could try every night for a year to catch a commercial airplane with one of these with no success.

Actually I think it's a good analogy. You couldn't find find an airplane in the nightly sky with a 10-meter telescope if you tried hard. They are there tho! Just not too often, and in a small part of the sky you're not looking at.

"That's the Sagan argument."

Hmmm. Only partially. You don't go far enough. In Sagan's Dragons Of Eden, he shows that the extreme amount of time between now and the big bang is more than enough for entire civilizations to have flourished and died out. Hell, it's happened on this planet. Both of our civilizations would have to exist at the same point in time, and be close enough to each other in order for the popular concept of "aliens" to occur.

http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act2/c osmic.html

Sorry...I don't buy the self-replicating probes bit. Reminds me too much of Star Trek's "V-ger."

Rho Casspioiae is supposedly near the brink of explosion, too, and aside from that, I remember hearing about some luminous supergiant or hypergiant expected to explode in the same constellation, Casspioia.

Coincidentally, two other supernovas have ocurred in that area, one of which was the one Tycho Brahe saw. Keep an eye on the hypergiants (see: Wikipedia's explanation of how stars are classified)

In 1988, the Public Opinion Laboratory at Northern Illinois University, conducted a survey of a representative sample of 2,041 American adults to get a sense of their scientific literacy. Among the 75 basic science questions was one about the Earth:

        1. Does the Earth go around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth? 21% got it wrong and 7% said they did not know
        2. The 72% who got it right were then asked what period of time the trip took. 45% got it right, 17% said 1 day, 2% said one month, 8% said they did not know.

http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications /tnl/22/22.html

Scroll down about half way to the "Does Mercury have an atmosphere?" question. Seems it does, sort of, kind, in a way :)

You raise an interesting point though, and illustrate just how hard defining a planet actually is... we'd have to define what exactly an "atmosphere" is first :)