aesmael: (haircut)
It has long confused and bothered me that in the question of how to respond to climate change one of the major governmental concerns appears to be "How can we ensure that industries like coal remain profitable?" As concerns go it seems almost nonsensical, since in order to respond effectively to the problem the coal and other industries need to cease existing in their present form - an effective response cannot I think include 'energy producing industries continue to exist profitably as they are'. If they do want to keep existing as companies they probably should be investing in changing what they do and how.

Perhaps this is because 'growing less than fast is a sign of a bad economy' has never made sense to me as a goal either. It seems like a whole lot of people pretending the planet's resources are infinite and putting off any problems to be dealt with in some indefinite 'later'. Any economic focus other than a sustainable, non-destructive one has always struck me as misguided.

I was watching Lateline earlier tonight and the businessperson interviewed seemed much more charismatic than the politicians and political analysts. Maybe that explains this.
aesmael: (Electric Waves)

  • There weren't ads insisting it were really possible and could happen

  • The plot weren't an annoying apocalyptic myth going around for years already

  • And if astronomers and others weren't having to reassure terrified people that the end of the world is not imminent, thanks partly to the film's advertising

...

2008-03-30 00:58
aesmael: (just people)
Video thingy )

Link.

1) Heard this before, oh yes
2) Still not played the game, oh no
3) With what was read to tonight plus other, broader context
4) Why is it so beautiful?
5) Oh goodness, perfect moment, the metafictional inspiration, it burns
6) Inspired where?
7) Jayde-Stacey-Last Speaker?
8) Jayde?
9)
aesmael: (haircut)
    From this post I learn there is a small chance of a recently discovered asteroid colliding with Mars. Naturally I went to my own favoured sources to get more information.
    Anyway, there is news here. Numbers are all there. The object is about the same size as the one that exploded over Tunguska in 1908 but since Mars has a thinner atmosphere than Earth, if it hits it is expected to make a crater roughly 1 km in diameter.
    There have not been many observed impacts, however, so if this object (2007 WDS) does hit
 it will be a good opportunity to test the models that have been developed in the past. Previous impact possibilities (aimed at Earth usually because that is where we are and where we look to guard) have on further observation negligible chance of impact (with one possible exception). It is likely that further observations and refined orbital predictions will also lead to the conclusion 2007 WDS is going to miss Mars but from what I have been reading most scientists are hoping it will hit.
    It seems odd to me at first thought, to be hoping for catastrophic change to a planet's surface, but then I am quite preservationist in instinct. There is no conscious agency behind the asteroid's movement, which would be one of a few more momentous discoveries than an impact and a large part of my initial concern over such an event comes from my perspective in time, I think.
    Humans are ephemeral creatures, our culture barely less so. There have likely been several such impacts on Mars - indeed, on Earth too - since the beginning of recorded history, but not since we have been able to detect them in advance. Over longer timescales this is insignificant, a commonplace and minor occurrence, but possibly a fascinating opportunity for us to learn from.
    This post suggests that the impact flash would not be visible from Earth, but fortunately we have a number of probes available to collect data on-site. The projected impact site is even near to the area being explored by the Opportunity rover, although not so near that the rover itself is in danger. I wonder if it would be able to return any images of the event.

    Perhaps seeing the creation of a crater roughly this size by an object only 50 m across would remind governments of the importance of funding projects to survey the sky for objection which might impact Earth, such as the one which discovered 2007 WDS.
    I should note that 2007 WDS was discovered after its closest approach to Earth, as is often the case.
    But since I'm not, why not elaborate? The two deep sky objects I saw Monday night, the Jewel Box and Omega Centauri, are both star clusters. This means that unlike, say, most of the stars in a constellation or a random telescope field, these stars are actually associated with each other and formed together, from the same nebula. The Jewel Box is an example of an open cluster, which are typically found in star-forming regions of space (such as the spiral arms of galaxies like our own) and normally contain a few dozen to a few hundred stars. They do not tend to last long on the cosmic scale, falling apart as the stars gradually seperate in their orbits about the galactic centre until they no longer appear to have anything to do with one anothe, or else grow old and die. This is what is happening to the Jewel Box; it received its name due to the spectacular contrast between its hot, blue main sequence members and the cooler redder stars which have entered their giant phase. One way to tell the age of a cluster is to identify the most massive members which still reside on the main sequence. So there you have it, dear reader: the Jewel Box owes its fame and beauty to fact it is dying.
    Omega Centauri is a globular cluster, the other kind. Those contain anything from thousands to millions of stars and they tend to be, as the name suggests, shaped like an enormous blob of stars. They get incredibly dense toward their centres with stars believed seperated by less than a light year on average (by contrast, the normal seperation in our neighbourhood is more like four light years) and their orbits tend to be highly elliptical and may have little to do with the plane of their host galaxy (yes, I am speaking about spirals - we humans can be parochial like that(. I tend to think of them as miniature satellite galaxies.
    Unlike open clusters, globulars are not normally formed in the present universe. Their stars are old, some of the oldest in the universe. The only stars in most globular clusters still on the main sequence are significantly less massive than our sun. If the solar system had been formed in a globular cluster the Sun would be dead and the Earth ashes by now - except an earthlike world would probably not have formed in an environment like that because the stuff to make it from did not exist back then. There is at least one way new globular clusters can be made, though. When galaxies collide so do their giant molecular clouds, triggering an intense burst of star formation and you can get the thousands-to-millions of stars condensing from the interstellar medium all at once that are needed to make a globular cluster. Huge doses of ionising radiation being tossed about too, and with increased star formation comes a heightened rate of supernovae. These are the dangers that make galactic mergers so hazardous to the health, the actual odds of two stars colliding are infinitesimal (though methinks 'twould be fun to watch from a safe distance). We may get to see this closeup for ourselves in two billion years, but probably not from Earth.
    Back to Omega Cen, I think one of the more massive of the Milky Way's globulars. It bears the designation 'Omega' because to the unaided eye and at small magnifications it appears to be a fuzzy star, and so it was miss taken. With a bigger scope, like the one I was using, it looks more like a sea or cloud of stars, a swarm filling that space. The gaps between the stars are occupied by other stars. Although it appears somewhat larger in the eyepiece than the Jewel Box, I would guess Omega Centauri is ten times as distant so it is actually much bigger.

    In fact, I went to fetch some facts and some illustrations and became briefly confused. I mistook the actual Jewel Box for a different but very spectacular cluster (NGC 290) described the same way but more than ten times as distant as Omega Centauri. it actually lies in our neighbouring galaxy the Small Magellanic Cloud, 200,000 light years away. Omega Centauri is still more than twice its size at 150 light years across and contains many, many more stars even though NGC 290 is quite large for an Open Cluster.
    If you wish to see what I am talking about, have a look at the Jewel Box and Omega Centauri for yourself. These pictures are of course of much higher quality than what I saw; the human eye has only a short exposure time compared to what can be done with a camera. And since I am feeling generous, here is the cluster that confused me: NGC 290.

Peace, Tricia.
They get information of substance in their news articles. Then again, they did have a great bloody explosion happen over their heads. Hey - they had a great bloody explosion happen over their heads! Why have I not heard about this from local news sources?

Profile

aesmael

May 2022

S M T W T F S
12345 67
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 2025-07-17 06:00
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios