The Milky Way as You’ve Never Seen It Before – AMNH SciCafe
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
So, there I was looking for the next in a series of lectures concerning the geology of our Pacific North West and something caught my eye.
Turns out a new satellite was recently launched which provided a download of data last April which has shaken the foundations of astrophysics. Seems we have been playing with tinker toys all these years.
Just two days ago (October 3, 2018) a presentation was given presenting an introduction of the discoveries to the public for the first time.
Fascinating.
P.S. For the graphics aficionados, comprehensive graphics SW downloads are made available to those who are interested.
P.P.S. Buzz, the title of this discussion is the title of the video presentation and here is the youtube url if it may be of any help. Just remove the space after HTTPS://
https:// youtu.be/LOJ1XmbSKhM
Tags
Who is online
111 visitors
We have just opened a new door to a better view of the Universe around us.
What are your thoughts?
E.A with Your permission I need to ask, what is the accuracy of Spectro analysis, and what does that have to do with astronomy?
Then again with your consent we can talk in more realistic terms of " new discoveries "
In this context I would I would have to defer to the admission of the astrophysicist Jackie Faherty when she mentioned something to the effect that degree of accuracy is still yet to be determined. I have to assume that statement also, applies to the spectro analysis.
As to how it would fit in with astronomy in this instance, my personal take is it applies to the subset of astrophysics, in that Jackie Faherty was able, in one example, to relate the different wavelengths emitted (colors observed) to ages of the stars.
I am neither an astrophysicist or academic astronomer, but sometimes I might sleep at a Holiday Inn Express.
E.A Thank YOU, we are here to learn from one another with due patience and diligence?:
I believe that a NASA study set it " at Best 5% Accuracy " And yes it is used to try to state the age and material make up of all we see in space ( The Spectra lines indication the Elemental make up ), did you happen to see the Video I posted on PJ Seed about the New Mars Insights and what they are hopping to get that they could not, so far?
You are welcome.
I did not see that vid. I will have to go back and take a look.
Now that they can begin gathering empirical data over time, they can begin fine tuning their algorithms.
We all have to start somewhere.
E.A Yes No Doubt, and what held back the " Fine Tunning " was the erroneous Belief ( Religion ) that " Speed of light is a constant " even tho " Gravity Lensing " and many other data proved it time and time again that it was false, see PHOTONICS now and how much it is changing science, once that " Creed " was pushed aside
Who claimed that? The speed of light (c) is simply the maximum speed of a mass-less particle in a vacuum. Photons cannot exceed 'c' but light does slow down based on interference.
No particle can move from source to target at a speed exceeding the speed of light.
E.A Ok it be interesting to hear your thoughts on it.
E.A::
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz4f7zlGETI
Very true. But, how does radiation escape a black hole? We know it does because we can see it.
The answer? I sent that very question to Stephen Hawking ~15 years ago and I was shocked to actually get a reply, but not an answer. The email contained 2 words.
"Good Question".
Damnit..
I think since then, the thought is this happens at the event horizon. This seems to be pretty well accepted when listening to them.
How? Don't know if they have any better answer yet.
deleted
On the contrary. I'm sure it would be greeted with delight. I, for one, heartily encourage you to give us the benefit of your knowledge.
This is why I encourage you to always give us the benefit of your scientific wisdom, EA:
Are you talking about optical spectrometry, the spectral analysis of light from stars to determine their metallicity and thus what generation they are?
Whatever study you read probably said it was accurate to within 5%, and is likely better in many cases.
Do you have a link?
He's confusing the constant of c with the observation that photons can be slowed as they pass through transparent or semi-transparent matter (like water) because they are being absorbed and re-emitted by atoms over and over again on their way through.
The light we see around black holes was never inside the event horizon. It is emitted from excited atoms in the high energy environment just outside of it. The gravitational energy near a black hole can heat the hell out of nearby gas, causing it to emit high energy photons, but we never actually see the black hole itself.
That's pretty cool, but odd.
Actually, he specified "gravitational lensing" as being able to slow light down.
I know. That's what I mean. He's confused.
E.A Just a little teaser::
What is the Difference between " Speed " and Velocity "
And for those more " intoit " Bose-Einstein Condensate, does what and why?
E.A Aha you got me!!
So Zero To Five, and you data shows?
No. Getting to within 5% means better than 95% accuracy.
What data? I asked you for a link.
E.A You mean You failed to read 7 Eagle Averro
Get back to me, when you read the Huygens Titan Methane Saga! as Posted by yours truly!
Why can't you ever answer anything simply and directly? All I'm asking for is a link to the NASA study you cited. If you don't have it, then just say so.
Also, if what you posted @7 is supposed to show that spectroscopy is junk science, then I'm not seeing it.
Spectroscopy (at a basic level, anyway) is simple enough to be demonstrated in high school classrooms. It works. It's real. If you think it isn't, then write a paper showing why and submit it for peer review. You'll be famous if you can show that the entire world is wrong about it.
E.A Ok so you are not seeing ::
7 Eagle Averro
7.1 Eagle Averro
Nor the KISS questions, in that case how can we chat right, By the way what do you know about the " Missing Lunar Soil Isotope " and why was that a problem?
No need to answer since we are not " seeing "
Right!
OK we're now into that phase where EA starts slapping up a lot of random words or concepts he's seen or run across somewhere in an effort to divert attention away from the colossally false thing he's posted earlier.
The absurdity and hilarity never ceases. [Deleted]
The vid is now rendering.
In a famous philosophical treatise titled Appearance And Reality, Bertrand Russell spoke of the difficulties associated with perspective.
Good post.
Thank you.
Now we can begin exploring the universe beyond the earth with more senses that what we had just 6 months ago.
More senses mean more perspectives.
This is something I intend to follow.
I'm not sure that new perspectives are better, in the end they are just perspectives. They are not reality.
It is interesting to discuss the possibilities though.
E.A BINGO!!
AT best it is what WAS Millions of Years ago, At Medium at best gueestimation at 5%, is err we hope we are right but at that percentile, doubtful, see what they got about EARTH from a Rocket Heading to MARS, when they Spectra Analysed the EARTH to calibrate the equipment, and at that measly distance, almost nothing was right, not to mention EROS " Potato Asteroid " and the prelanding data and post!
As mentioned earlier, now they can begin gathering data to fine tune the algorithms.
Like my first engine algorithms. Version 0.01 hmmmm? needed more dyno and track testing. Add more empirical over years and many on going tests and accuracy gets better.
E.A If I can add to that ::
We have NEVER seen what we are Seeing NOW!
And that is because WE have never been HERE before!
So Like the Drake Equation one can not make a Function with a SINGLE entry!
That is true EA.
E.A Spot ON::
Tests on REAL thigs, Not on Theoretical.
Here is an Example that I am sure you will appreciate better then Most::
Modeling and testing with Fractional Size models:
It is a Very VERY Rough gage, but far far from reality, because we might " Model " the Car/Boat/Airplane, we can not " Scale to Size " the Air Molecules, the water Droplets the Water Tension, see what I mean?
E.A Thank You I try My Best but " Truth is a Hard Master " :-)
Yes I do and forces as well.
Without super computing power we can come up with rules of thumb and then extrapolate based on shape, size, materials and proportion, but that is about it. In these cases, we can not fully predict the distortions present 100% in components that may be of different sizes and proportions when operating at different rpm for reciprocating engines with valve trains.
At least I do not have that kind of computing power or the research resources to do so. However, I do have enough empirical data to develop constants for different situations that when plugged into appropriate situation result in predictable outcomes. That is about the best I can do.
E.A Yes A few years back I had a discussion about " Reinforcing existing Structures at the Point of Failure " but what was neglected was the old adage " Never put new wine in old cusks " or " never place a new Patch on old Clothes " and that wisdpm of that is that the " New has more power then the Old " so it will Burst of Reap.
SO when that was placed on an " Advanced Computer Model " it showed the old " Pyramid Structure " and that is " Three Points of Failure " what was needed was NOT reinforcement, but a Weakening to allow for " Flexing " and the problems disappeared, you in the Motor industry might have knowledge of that in the Riveting Vs Welding The Reverting allows Flexing, the welding Cracks! simple KISS, when it is Known :-)
So then, with regards to fine tuning the algorithms used as the engine behind this computer model is an iterative process of
Over time and with repeatable diligence in execution, the algorithms become more accurate.
Then with regard to the algorithms behind the data visualization model power put together by Jackie Faherty, the same fine tuning can happen by gathering the same celestial data periodically then running it through her data model.
Over time the expectation is for more accurate predictions of celestial objects paths and velocities.
At least that is how it works in my little world.
E.A Yes, so right, have you done the little task of " Looking back at the Science seeing what work, what did not " and what would you recommend as " refinements " 7 Eagle Averro
Yes, it is all theory of possibilities can lead to advances in the future.
What is so cool about the time in which we live is our ability to gather data that seems well beyond our reach and then enhance the data with interpolation and sophisticated dynamic visualization.
It is not being there but it is like being there.
Great seed! Thanks Dave.
Thank you TiG and you are right.
We are at an age where work done over generations of time id coming to fruition in untold numbers of areas.
We think it is a golden age of progress and learning now, yet, if we are able to avoid cataclysm, what we are doing now will seem like childs play.
and then what? and I'm not being facetious. You are there, in the middle of the Milky Way galaxy, with a perspective we have never before achieved. That and $2 will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts.
I do admire scientific achievement, but science is not a be all end all for human beings, particularly when you are talking about tens of thousands of light years.
The scientist in the video is very excited, as she talks about the fact that now we can visualize through software how stars "pair off". That's nice.
Some people cannot appreciate art either John. Some marvel at the imagination and skill of the artists while others see different colors placed on various spots of a canvas.
The purpose of science is to learn about our reality. What we learn cannot always be applied for immediate benefit. But just because we do not yet know the value of scientific findings is no reason to dismiss them as pointless.
Do you find all of scientific research (prior to application) a waste of time or just astrophysics?
Following TiGs thoughts, we can consider 2,600 years a fella (Pythagoras) put a stick in the ground and took some measurements of the shadow it cast at different times and determined the earth was round and just about predicted the correct diameter.
Back then, what did that mean to anybody? Certainly wouldn't get you an amphora of olive oil or wine. These days, it is important to know and understand.
Mind you I am not necessarily certain that Pythagoras was for certainty the first to make this determination. There was more to global civilization than the Mediterranean region. Not to mention the known destruction of the Mayan library and the Library of Alexandria. What ancient documents were kept in those facilities?
Really interesting vid.
There is so much out there.
Yes Ender, there is.
It seems there is always another threshold to pass through.
For those interested in REAL Science Vs Hypotheticals::
1. Titan and what was Hypothesized Prior to 1980, what Lander was designed based on those Hypothesis.
2.Phoenix Lander what was theorized and what was the reality see Photo Album with DATA from " Weather Reports " Nothing like what was thought before the event ( http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/Eagle_Averro/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxMTU5NjE1NA==/?ref= )
3.Eros and Other " Landed " Asteroids, what was thought and what the Spectra Analysis " predicted " and what was the End result outcome
Have FUN with Science!
E.A :: Huygens was designed to land on a Methane Ocean and was so equipped ::
Nature of the Surface
The surface of Titan was hidden from view of the cameras aboard the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft by the layers of small haze particles suspended in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, intriguing suggestions regarding the nature of the surface have been made, including the possibility that the surface consists of a global ocean of liquid methane ethane. Radar observations and direct observations at longer wavelengths strongly hint that the surface is not a global ocean. The range of fascinating surfaces observed by the Voyager mission on satellites of the outer solar system showed a surprising range of phenomena including craters, glacial flows, frost and ice coverings, and active geysers and volcanoes. These preliminary explorations of the small bodies of the outer solar system suggest that the surface of Titan also may well contain new surprises.
E.A Bold and Blue added
Equipped with::
DISR Instrument Overview
The Reality tho was?
And that Mishypothetized event meant what as to the Data sent back?
Surprises Continue Two Years After Probe's Landing On Saturn's Moon Titan
Date:
January 17, 2007
Source:
European Space Agency
"
"At the landing site we also saw rounded ice pebbles," says Jonathan Lunine, University of Arizona. The Surface Science Package (SSP) provided the final piece in this particular puzzle. The impact it detected when Huygens touched down indicated that the spacecraft had come to rest in compacted gravel. "Put it all together and it is clear that Huygens landed in an outflow wash," says Lunine.
The Gas Chromatograph and Mass Spectrometer (GCMS) instrument confirmed the nature of the liquid that shapes the surface of Titan. It detected methane evaporating from the Huygens landing site. "Methane on Titan plays the role that water plays on Earth," concludes Lunine. But there are still mysteries. It is not yet clear whether the methane falls mostly as a steady drizzle or as an occasional deluge.
The GCMS also detected two isotopes of argon. Both have important stories to tell. The Ar40 indicates that the interior of Titan is still active. This is unusual in a moon and indicates that perhaps an insulating layer of water ice and methane is buried in the moon itself, close to the surface, trapping the heat inside it. Occasionally, this heat causes the so-called cryo-volcanoes to erupt. Icy 'lava' flows from these cryo-volcanoes have been seen from the orbiting Cassini spacecraft. Because Ar40 is so heavy, it is mostly concentrated towards the base of the atmosphere, so having Huygens on the surface was essential for its detection.
Daniel Gautier, Observatoire de Paris, France, thinks that the other isotope, Ar36, is telling scientists that Titan formed after Saturn, at a time when the primeval gas cloud that became the Solar System had cooled to about 40 ºK (-233 ºC).
The atmosphere of Titan held surprises too. "Huygens made a fantastic and unexpected discovery about the wind," says Gautier. At an altitude of around 60 kilometres, the wind speed dropped, essentially to zero. Explaining this behaviour presents a challenge for theoreticians who are developing computer models of the moon’s atmospheric circulation.
The Huygens Atmosphere Structure Instrument (HASI) provided the temperature of the atmosphere from 1600 kilometres altitude down to the surface. "This has helped put all the other data into context," says Coustenis. Huygens measured the composition profile of the atmosphere to be a mixture of nitrogen, methane and ethane. The methane and ethane provide humidity, as water does in Earth’s atmosphere. At the surface of Titan, Huygens measured the temperature to be 94 ºK (-179 ºC) with a humidity of 45 percent.
Even though the Huygens data set is now two years old, the discoveries have not yet stopped. "There are lots of surprises still to come from this data," says Francesca Ferri, Università degli Studi di Padova. In addition, Huygens gives planetary scientists a wealth of 'ground-truth' to complement and help interpret the observations still coming from Cassini. At the beginning of 2007, Cassini showed that liquid methane is present on Titan in lakes. "
E.A So Spectra Analysis did what?
E.A ::
E.A: Notice what 1 is " Global ? Ocean "
E.A East Adiri Archipelago. TITAN
Fitting Name but guess what?
E.A Well that speaks Loud and Clear, none seem to comprehend basic science, but so many are willing to rave about " what is not known " as if it is Fact!
What I noticed is that you ignored the word 'subsurface' for some reason. Why is that? So you could pretend that someone made a huge mistake because Huygens didn't splash down in liquid?
Here's something else you seem to have ignored, in what you posted before that:
You boldfaced the part about a global surface ocean of methane and ethane, but you conveniently skipped the word 'possibility' immediately preceding it, as well as the clarification following it that observational data suggested the surface was NOT a global ocean.
Apparently, from the very ESA article snippet you posted, their GCMS instrument provided information about the molecular makeup of the surface of Titan, which is exactly what it was supposed to do.
Someone does seem to have a comprehension problem here. Can you figure out who it is?
E.A At Daves request Via::" If you could do this; please draw conclusions to your posts in and under #7 so folks can have a direct understanding of your interpretation of the outcomes of the information presented in those posts." 10.1.2 seeder dave-2693993
As an Example:: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19810064429
Science for many many decades thought that N-15/N-14 was non existent on the Moon, because of Long held " Science expectation " so soil testing that did not take that into consideration therefore were at best " False ", Pleaser read the Titan Huygens METHANE in its completion to better understand how a " Single UNKNOWN Isotope ( Impurity ) Can throw the whole Spectra analysis a " Curved Ball "
All Questions will be " Fielded " !!
If this may be allowed, a little about the Huge dangers of Hydrazine Rocket Fuel & Nitrogen Tetroxide Oxidizer, and My Amazement that it is still allowed to be used, for more about alternatives see My Album about Electro magnetic Linear accelerators for Space ASSIST launches (Maglev)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDRKeM9kKxs
Am I going too Far/Fast?
EA, I haven't had a chance to review these posts in detail to determine a relationship to Jackie Faherty presentation.
Please hold up until I get a chance later tonight.
Thank you.
E.A Will do, and Thank YOU:
Key Points is Spectra Analysis
Bear with me EA
Apologies for the delay EA.
The part about the chemical propellants, though very interesting, really doesn't play into Jackie Fahertys presentation. I don't want it deleted, but let's not add to that conversation.
The remainder, concerning the Spectra analysis has a tie in, however, the questions posed and examples given, probably won't help the average reader make the correlation to what Jackie Faherty is showing to the open public for the first time.
If you don't mind me giving you a suggestion, I would say the average reader will lose interest at the question without you drawing explicit conclusions and then explaining how those conclusion pertain to the presentation and how at some point result in modifications to the algorithms currently in use.
Does that make sense?
E.A I knew there would be pressure to not have a Science chat, that is obvious with the over Two Dozen " Blocks " to it, but ::
" 1.1 Eagle Averro replied to dave-2693993 E.A with Your permission I need to ask "
The only time a topic is worthy of discussion is what the " Average Reader " comprehends it? do please tell how they get to that Level, with no discussion on what they do not yet know?
E.A Dave is that not what a " Discussion " is supposed to be?
What two dozen blocks?
By doing exactly what I stated here from my post last night:
Otherwise you are talking to people with no point of reference. They do not know what to think, without any reference and soon, they won't care what to think.
Feel free to create your own discussion and handle it as you please.
This is also, addressed in 9.2.3.
Once people have a point(s) of reference, then their mind is engaged and are now ready to question or contribute.
For emphasis.
[deleted]
[deleted]
E.A then Please Make any comments on what I posted about the Hudgens Missions, and let Begin
You Seed Your Home I will Follow, Many Thanks
[deleted]
9.2 seeder dave-2693993 replied to Eagle Averro @9 Does that make sense?
E.A How can it?
If " Citizen X " does not know it cannot be discussed, how does Citizen X get to know what is not discussed?
The only area I mentioned no further posts on was the post about propellants. That post does not relate to Jackie Fahertys' presentation. The reason I posted this article was to discuss the topic of her presentation.
The other posts need conclusions so folks can see the connection to the presentation.
You have some interesting things to discuss. Create a discussion for General Science Discussions.
E.A I wish to have a Congenial Discussion on Your seed on Your Terms, please continue!
Good enough then.
If you could do this; please draw conclusions to your posts in and under #7 so folks can have a direct understanding of your interpretation of the outcomes of the information presented in those posts.
Then there will be no ambiguity regarding your perspective. This may seem redundant to you, but it won't be for others.
Eg. I have a year and a half long conversation going on with a very intelligent, highly educated person in Western Australia (WA). This fellas academic credentials blow mine out of the water. By a lot. In the broad spectrum the academic comparison isn't close. He has multiple advanced degrees in Mechanical Engineering, Chemistry and Physics.
There is a topic of engine design that is really at cult status. Up front it seems like an easy topic, but for many, it is a struggle, for many who are adamant in supporting the wrong understanding and implications.
This fella from WA is one.
Connecting rod length vs crankshaft stroke ratio (Rod/stroke ration) is a sorely beaten dead horse.
To complicate matters, he also has the idea the wrong understanding of differing rod/stroke ratios in combination with leaner than ordinary air/fuel (stoichiometric) ratios results in better engine performance.
When put to the test in real world dyno testing and race track competition, those approaches always come in second place.
Do you see, how when one is left to their own interpretations that it is possible to have as mach as a 180* difference in estimated projected outcomes?
Then once they see and understand your conclusions from the information presented, then they have points of reference regarding their interpretation vs theirs.
At that point the doors to discussions open up.
At least, that is how it works for me.
E.A Will do as an Addition to #7
E.A Yes Indeed Hence why I have the Photobucket and use it as a "blackboard " for Chats because some times a " picture says a thousand words "
Just to show that I understand and fully appreciate:
Water ( Atomized ) injection to Combustion chamber Vs Contaminated Fuel with water.
11 went " missing " same as Bigbang Vs Creation, wonder how that Miracle occurs!!!!
Happens all the time.
I don't have an answer.
deleted
Meta [comments (comments about the site] or [its members) are always off-topic.]
[deleted]
It that with your Requirements Dave?
7.2 Eagle Averro replied to Eagle Averro @7