Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
davieG

Technology, Science and the Environment.

By davieG, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Not sure this is the right thread. But what the hell! 
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFk9442L/

...an unsubstantiated allegation from a well-read maverick familiar with the topic that has seemingly been through no peer review process or other kind of due process being treated as substantive fact?

 

What the hell indeed.

 

If this guy and those who think like him really think this conspiracy has legs (and I'm not going to discount the possibility utterly out of hand), let him and them prove it, and let his peers believe him and them and accept it as fact.

Fazzer 7

Fazzer 7

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...an unsubstantiated allegation from a well-read maverick familiar with the topic that has seemingly been through no peer review process or other kind of due process being treated as substantive fact?

 

What the hell indeed.

 

If this guy and those who think like him really think this conspiracy has legs (and I'm not going to discount the possibility utterly out of hand), let him and them prove it, and let his peers believe him and them and accept it as fact.

Ah ok.  But how would anyone not involved prove or substantiate it. 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Ah ok.  But how would anyone not involved prove or substantiate it. 

With difficulty, and with the peer review process involving those participating in the project and those they have communicated with.

 

Perhaps, with that in mind, these people would do better to qualify their remarks until such peer review process backs them up, unless the idea of spreading misinformation for their own purposes appeals to them.

  • Like 1
Soup

Soup

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

With difficulty, and with the peer review process involving those participating in the project and those they have communicated with.

 

Perhaps, with that in mind, these people would do better to qualify their remarks until such peer review process backs them up, unless the idea of spreading misinformation for their own purposes appeals to them.

I've heard more than once that sometimes peer reviewed papers only have access to the analysis of the data and not the raw data itself. Can this happen and if it does is it a sneaky way, for let's say big pharma to say ' you ain't getting your hands on this ' 

 

Not that these companies would do such a thing, impeccable track record the lot of them :D

 

 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Soup said:

I've heard more than once that sometimes peer reviewed papers only have access to the analysis of the data and not the raw data itself. Can this happen and if it does is it a sneaky way, for let's say big pharma to say ' you ain't getting your hands on this ' 

 

Not that these companies would do such a thing, impeccable track record the lot of them :D

 

 

You make an interesting point about the classification of information causing issues for the peer review process, both by corporations and governments.

 

However, there are mechanics within the scientific community that still allow for such information to be peer-reviewed and declared bona fide. Here's an example from cyber-security, which shows there is enough people with access to such information and not with a vested interest in the source that it can be reviewed fairly:

 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.342.6154.71

 

In any case, while big corpos will of course take the chance to act unethically when it suits their bottom line, but they know that often such things end up coming out in the wash anyway and then they ending up paying far more.

 

And that's my point all along - if these folks really think that there's a conspiracy going on here, they need to spend less time spouting hot air about it and more time convincing those trusted people around them that it is true so that it does come out in the wash to the public and becomes accepted knowledge faster, rather than looking to short-circuit the peer review process, it just makes them look like cranks.

Edited by leicsmac
  • Like 1
Soup

Soup

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

You make an interesting point about the classification of information causing issues for the peer review process, both by corporations and governments.

 

However, there are mechanics within the scientific community that still allow for such information to be peer-reviewed and declared bona fide. Here's an example from cyber-security, which shows there is enough people with access to such information and not with a vested interest in the source that it can be reviewed fairly:

 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.342.6154.71

 

In any case, while big corpos will of course take the chance to act unethically when it suits their bottom line, but they know that often such things end up coming out in the wash anyway and then they ending up paying far more.

 

And that's my point all along - if these folks really think that there's a conspiracy going on here, they need to spend less time spouting hot air about it and more time convincing those trusted people around them that it is true so that it does come out in the wash to the public and becomes accepted knowledge faster, rather than looking to short-circuit the peer review process, it just makes them look like cranks.

That's an interesting piece. Although when I hear the term going dark I instantly think of Jack Bauer

  • Haha 1
grobyfox1990

grobyfox1990

Posted
Posted

There is "no credible pathway" to keep the rise in global temperatures below the key threshold of 1.5C, according to a bleak new UN assessment.

 

Finally some honesty...1.5 is long gone. Aim to keep it below 3/3.5 and start building and investing in resilient infrastructure to deal with the catastrophic consequences of this temp rise. Thankfully we have Chris Skidmore in Govt who is a net zero realist, if our Govt put in place serious incentives to invest, there is so much money to be made.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

There is "no credible pathway" to keep the rise in global temperatures below the key threshold of 1.5C, according to a bleak new UN assessment.

 

Finally some honesty...1.5 is long gone. Aim to keep it below 3/3.5 and start building and investing in resilient infrastructure to deal with the catastrophic consequences of this temp rise. Thankfully we have Chris Skidmore in Govt who is a net zero realist, if our Govt put in place serious incentives to invest, there is so much money to be made.

I would hope that we can still manage 2-2.5 to be honest...there is a marked difference in consequence between that and a degree higher.

 

Goodness only knows what future generations are going to think of us when they look back at all this. Probably with a mixture of pity and anger, with emphasis on the second, and I wouldn't blame them.

SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted

There are only 25 asteroids with orbits completely within Earth's orbit that have been discovered to date because of the difficulty of observing near the glare of the sun. Those that orbit in the region between Earth and Venus are notoriously difficult to identify due to the sun's luminosity. Flagship telescopes such as the James Webb and the Hubble are not trained on the sun, because the star's brightness would fry their sensitive optics. Astronomers have announced the existence of a newly discovered planet killer 'hiding' in this region thanks to the supersensitive Dark Energy Camera in Chile. The asteroid, named 2022 AP7 is the largest discovered in the last 8 years and at just under a mile wide, has been dubbed a 'planet killer'. There are likely only a few more asteroids of this kind that are interior to the orbit of earth and Venus - most of the time. It does intercept the orbit of the Earth but would potentially not be a problem for centuries, by which time - buoyed by the success of the recent DART experiment - the global space community anticipates that there will be the necessary tools at their disposal to protect the planet.

 

It's the ones that we don't yet know about in that region that are a concern. The asteroid that exploded above the city of Chelyabinsk that morning in 2013 arrived from the direction of the sun completely without warning. Quite literally out of the blue.  

  • Thanks 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Line-X said:

There are only 25 asteroids with orbits completely within Earth's orbit that have been discovered to date because of the difficulty of observing near the glare of the sun. Those that orbit in the region between Earth and Venus are notoriously difficult to identify due to the sun's luminosity. Flagship telescopes such as the James Webb and the Hubble are not trained on the sun, because the star's brightness would fry their sensitive optics. Astronomers have announced the existence of a newly discovered planet killer 'hiding' in this region thanks to the supersensitive Dark Energy Camera in Chile. The asteroid, named 2022 AP7 is the largest discovered in the last 8 years and at just under a mile wide, has been dubbed a 'planet killer'. There are likely only a few more asteroids of this kind that are interior to the orbit of earth and Venus - most of the time. It does intercept the orbit of the Earth but would potentially not be a problem for centuries, by which time - buoyed by the success of the recent DART experiment - the global space community anticipates that there will be the necessary tools at their disposal to protect the planet.

 

It's the ones that we don't yet know about in that region that are a concern. The asteroid that exploded above the city of Chelyabinsk that morning in 2013 arrived from the direction of the sun completely without warning. Quite literally out of the blue.  

Everyone - including myself - often considers asteroids orbiting out beyond our orbit and not the ones that might be closer to Sol. We definitely need to put better efforts in to find them and catalogue their trajectories.

 

I'm not entirely sure that under a mile wide is a "planet killer", though - the one that took down the remaining dinosaurs was around six times that size. It certainly would be bad news for human civilisation in general wherever it came down, though.

SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm not entirely sure that under a mile wide is a "planet killer", though - the one that took down the remaining dinosaurs was around six times that size. It certainly would be bad news for human civilisation in general wherever it came down, though.

My thoughts too - but they have labelled it as such due to the fact it would still be sufficiently large to create a nuclear winter. I'm struggling to recall how large the Tunguska object was. Like Chelyabinsk, that was an air burst and not an impact.  

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Line-X said:

My thoughts too - but they have labelled it as such due to the fact it would still be sufficiently large to create a nuclear winter. I'm struggling to recall how large the Tunguska object was. Like Chelyabinsk, that was an air burst and not an impact.  

The Tunguska asteroid is estimated at roughly 50-60 metres wide - so about 1/30 of the size of the asteroid you refer to and much smaller still than the K-Pg event. As far as can be ascertained, such things don't leave a crater unless they're 100m or more across, below that they airburst. Of course, an event equivalent to 12 megatons of TNT like the Tunguska event is enough to give any population centre a bad day.

 

Regarding the asteroid around a mile across. from what I can tell it would be iffy if an asteroid that size would cause a dust winter and therefore an extinction event, it's certainly at the low end of the scale but it is possible. It would certainly be nasty enough to set humanity back centuries, but I'm not sure it would kill us off.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

First Falcon Heavy launch for three years due to light in 1hr 15 mins from now.

It's about time! Live stream starts in about 30 minutes.

SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted

USSF-44 as a classified mission. It contains the micro satellite TETRA-1 and this other larger unconfirmed Space Systems Command satellite - likely reconnaissance - bound for geosynchronous orbit. 

 

Shame about the fog. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...