Moontanman

Science videos

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

I want to discuss science, but I don't want to discuss science videos. AFAIC, they're the homework you should definitely use to build your knowledge, so you can come here and discuss it with peers.

If there was a suggestion about how to police these videos so they don't take up so much staff time, I missed it. Again, popularity, value, and availability aren't being questioned. I want to know how we allow the ones Moontanman approves but not the ones that other members want to post. You all don't see all the first-time posters that are spamming videos of their profoundness. 

I have conceded your point on the problem of policing them and maybe that is undoable here but my intent is not that (at least now) but more to discuss the role videos are playing and how we can if and we can figure away to begin to support the ones that are good science and deal with the ones that are not. 

This forum may very well not be the time and place to do so but at some point, and I think that point is either fast approaching or here, but we as a science community have to at least discuss the problem of the advance of the video medium. Almost anything can be shown to be true in pretty detailed CGI. I know of a couple of the worst but I won't post them due to not wanting to run up their views. 

What can be done? Can anything be done?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Majority of people coming here are posting videos (usually in the couple the first few posts *) they made by themselves with their pet-theories, or theories they support (like flat earthers, or similar nonsense). They place link to their video just to promote the video, to get attention, and viewers. Presence of such video on scientific website is suggesting other members/viewers of the forum, that provided information about pet theory is true and scientific knowledge...

*) couple years ago I even suggested swansont to make filter (or custom PHP script) which will automatically inform moderators about that newbie member made post with some URL.. but received negative response that they (mods) would be flood by notifications. That was prior movement to this new forum software.

ps. Simplified version: videos to make money, not to spread knowledge.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

What can be done? Can anything be done?   

It's two basic problems for us, so the solution should solve both. Video is becoming more popular but we aren't designed well for it, and we need a rating system for videos but vetting them in the first place is too time-consuming and/or unfair. Is there an existing review of the best science videos?

And would we be discussing them? If we choose the best, what would we discuss if the science is already good? Why should they be here at SFN if you can see them elsewhere?

There are many alternatives to discussion available. Podcasts are extremely popular as well. Like videos, they seem more like lectures, more like having someone prepare your food for you (nothing wrong with that). Discussion is different, imo, for the reasons I've already mentioned. I'm not against including something that will reduce my own ignorance, but I don't like the arguments for allowing videos so far.

It's like we have this sailing club that most get a LOT of enjoyment out of, but the popularity of jet skis and their shared connection to water is being proposed as a reason to allow them access to our harbor. Does that make sense? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I agree with both of you on the basics, simply posting a video would not be productive, but posting a video about what you want to discuss and quoting from the video and listing the time stamp for what you want to discuss is possibly a better idea but videos are problematic for many reasons and quite good for many as well. 

The wave of "fake science news" broke a while back and you tube did some demonetizing that helped and hurt the situation but as we fight the tsunami of fake news media the format of your tube videos is spreading bullshit faster than a mechanical field fertiliser. 

Reading is a wonderful format for fiction and draws in far more readers than science and yet fiction is in danger of being usurped by videos and CGI technology. As an avid reader i used to criticize the way books were often distorted when transferred the the medium of TV and movies but not so few actually read that movies made from books are not questioned at all and books we were all sure could never be made into movies will be if they are popular enough to or if the movie makers stop just repeating the same material over and over and they realise the depth of the material that could be made using books that before now simply couldn't be made into movies. 

The movie Avatar came damn close to rivaling what I see when I read a good book, can science compet as the medium becomes the message? Do we need video science? people like Bill Nye and his influence, mainly know for the video medium, was and is much bigger than it would have been with out video... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It occurs to me that we have a category where we can post anything we want as what we are listening to now... just saying... :ph34r: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 3:29 PM, Moontanman said:

Is there a place on the site for videos like this and if not should there be? 

 

 

During what period of time were these planets found?  Are these the most recent discoveries?  Of all the terrestrial planets found, how many of them are so much like Earth that we could survive on the surface without help from space suits?  As far as I know, we have not discovered any Earth 2.0.  Maybe that explains the Fermi Paradox?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Airbrush said:

During what period of time were these planets found?  Are these the most recent discoveries?  Of all the terrestrial planets found, how many of them are so much like Earth that we could survive on the surface without help from space suits?  As far as I know, we have not discovered any Earth 2.0.  Maybe that explains the Fermi Paradox?

I don't think that problem really does solve the fermi paradox. It assume a planet must be just like Earth but life on Earth has adapted to the Earth. No reason to assume that life elsewhere couldn't adapt to somewhat different conditions.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I don't think that problem really does solve the fermi paradox. It assume a planet must be just like Earth but life on Earth has adapted to the Earth. No reason to assume that life elsewhere couldn't adapt to somewhat different conditions.. 

Yes there could be "life" on frozen planets.  You will probably not find life on hot Jupiters.  We may find life under the surface of frozen planets.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think of the thousands of exoplanets discovered, we still have not found a planet as nice as Earth, right?

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Airbrush said:

Yes there could be "life" on frozen planets.  You will probably not find life on hot Jupiters.  We may find life under the surface of frozen planets.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think of the thousands of exoplanets discovered, we still have not found a planet as nice as Earth, right?

Actually some are pretty close even by strict standards but the standards assume quite a bit and ignore other possibilities. Super Earths for instance might very well be better than the Earth for life and could expand the habitable zone considerably. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets

Quote

In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way,[5][6] 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.[7]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Yes there could be "life" on frozen planets.  You will probably not find life on hot Jupiters.  We may find life under the surface of frozen planets.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think of the thousands of exoplanets discovered, we still have not found a planet as nice as Earth, right?

We have so far found a heap of near Earth sized planets that exist within the Goldilocks zone. As yet I don't think we have researched them thoroughly enough to determine their atmospheres etc. Planets in the Goldilock zones are those where liquid water can exist on the surface.

With hot Jupiters, we [astronomers]  have reason to believe in a process called planetary migration, at least early on in a stellar systems formation. Just as obviously the discovery of hot Jupiters was always going to be the easiest to find, hence the early numbers of them. Terrestrial sized planets in habitable zones came later as methodologies were refined.

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 Super Earths for instance might very well be better than the Earth for life and could expand the habitable zone considerably. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets

 

The only problem with any potential life on a super Earth, is that any space endeavours would be far harder to achieve then on Earth...escape velocities and all that.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, beecee said:

The only problem with any potential life on a super Earth, is that any space endeavours would be far harder to achieve then on Earth...escape velocities and all that.

There could be great potential for life on Super Earths, but how comfortable would a human feel stepping out on the surface weighing twice as much, or more, as on Earth?  Such a planet may be great for life forms that evolved for high gravity.  Humans from Earth would not enjoy the heavy gravity.  So for Earth 2.0, it should be nearly the same size as Earth, or I'm not going there.

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

There could be great potential for life on Super Earths, but how comfortable would a human feel stepping out on the surface weighing twice as much, or more, as on Earth?  Such a planet may be great for life forms that evolved for high gravity.  Humans from Earth would not enjoy the heavy gravity.  So for Earth 2.0, it should be nearly the same size as Earth, or I'm not going there.

Some place I read... I think.. that humans could possibly adapt to 2gs but I am not sure where. But as I have said, why bother with planets at all? We could pack 40 5 mile long 1 mile thick Mckendrick cylinders into an area about 15 miles in diameter covered in a couple hundred meters of regolith and ices to protect from small meteors. It would look like a 15 mile wide sphere but inside it would house 30 or 40 habitats inside in a geometric pattern. I'm not sure about waste heat dissipation. That might limit the number of cylinders. All we would need that we don't have now is controlled fusion... That would be 628 square miles of living space, full earth gravity and atmosphere...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes why bother with planets when you can find asteroids with water-ice and the metals necessary for industry?  Just burrow into such asteroids.  How can you excavate large volumes of rock, metal, and ice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Yes why bother with planets when you can find asteroids with water-ice and the metals necessary for industry?  Just burrow into such asteroids.  How can you excavate large volumes of rock, metal, and ice?

Dynomite! I'm sure a way would be found if we could get there! Hydrocarbons like methane would be very valuable in making habitats of large size. Use them to make graphene... But the 5 mile long and 1 mile thick ones could be made of metals for sure... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now