“But Bill Nye The Science Guy, a s c i e n t i s t (???) said in a TV Show twenty years ago that chromosomes determined gender!”
Aye lads, fifty years ago, they thought the best way to treat disabilities was to shove a needle into people’s eyes and like a hundred years before that, they thought sticking leeches onto people’s skin would surely get the job done.
It wasn’t until literal years ago that scientists realized babies felt pain when they were being operated on.
Plato once defined a man as a featherless biped so Diogenes threw a plucked bird at him and cried, “Behold, a man!”
The point is that science in general does this little thing called evolve.
Scientists say shit. Scientists realize the shit is wrong. Scientists research shit. Scientists say the right shit. That’s the very definition of science.
For my Masters I have to run a blog dedicated to explaining the science behind something. I picked curly hair. But part of the marks come from my ability to get views. If you could click through the pages (and even read them if you want) that would be amazing!
It’s way too late for this, but it’s important to note that NASA didn’t discover the new earth-like planets. It was a group of astronomers lead by a dude name Michaël Gillon from the University of Liège in Belgium. Giving NASA credit for this gives the United States credit for something they didn’t do, and we already have a problem with making things about ourselves so. just like…be mindful. I’d be pissed if I discovered a small solar system and credit was wrongfully given to someone else.
This is valid. NASA’s involvement in this was predominantly in the use of of Spitzer data to validate findings from a primarily European funded program (TRAPPIST). There were Americans (or at least, an American) on the team, but beyond it being a collaborative and data-sharing arrangement this isn’t primarily an Agency achievement.
I’m here for the Belgians in the tags and also…totally didn’t know trappist was the name of a beer, I fucking love learning shit on my own posts.
Our Spitzer Space
Telescope has revealed the first known system of seven Earth-size planets
around a single star. Three of these planets are firmly located in an area
called the habitable zone, where liquid water is most likely to exist on a
rocky planet.
Assisted
by several ground-based telescopes, Spitzer confirmed the existence of two of
these planets and discovered five additional ones, increasing the number of
known planets in the system to seven.
This is
the FIRST time three terrestrial
planets have been found in the habitable zone of a star, and this is the FIRST time we have been able to measure
both the masses and the radius for habitable zone Earth-sized planets.
All of
these seven planets could have liquid water, key to life as we know it, under
the right atmospheric conditions, but the chances are highest with the three in
the habitable zone.
At about
40 light-years (235 trillion miles) from Earth, the system of planets is
relatively close to us, in the constellation Aquarius. Because they are located
outside of our solar system, these planets are scientifically known as
exoplanets. To clarify, exoplanets are
planets outside our solar system that orbit a sun-like star.
In this
animation, you can see the planets orbiting the star, with the green area
representing the famous habitable zone, defined as the range of distance to the
star for which an Earth-like planet is the most likely to harbor abundant
liquid water on its surface. Planets e, f and g fall in the habitable zone of
the star.
Using
Spitzer data, the team precisely measured the sizes of the seven planets and
developed first estimates of the masses of six of them. The mass of the seventh
and farthest exoplanet has not yet been estimated.
For
comparison…if our sun was the size of a basketball, the TRAPPIST-1 star would
be the size of a golf ball.
Based on
their densities, all of the TRAPPIST-1 planets are likely to be rocky. Further
observations will not only help determine whether they are rich in water, but
also possibly reveal whether any could have liquid water on their surfaces.
The sun at
the center of this system is classified as an ultra-cool dwarf and is so cool
that liquid water could survive on planets orbiting very close to it, closer
than is possible on planets in our solar system. All seven of the TRAPPIST-1
planetary orbits are closer to their host star than Mercury is to our sun.
The
planets also are very close to each other. How close? Well, if a person was
standing on one of the planet’s surface, they could gaze up and potentially see
geological features or clouds of neighboring worlds, which would sometimes
appear larger than the moon in Earth’s sky.
The
planets may also be tidally-locked to their star, which means the same side of
the planet is always facing the star, therefore each side is either perpetual
day or night. This could mean they have weather patterns totally unlike those
on Earth, such as strong wind blowing from the day side to the night side, and
extreme temperature changes.
Because most
TRAPPIST-1 planets are likely to be rocky, and they are very close to one
another, scientists view the Galilean moons of Jupiter – lo, Europa, Callisto,
Ganymede – as good comparisons in our solar system. All of these moons are also
tidally locked to Jupiter. The TRAPPIST-1 star is only slightly wider than
Jupiter, yet much warmer.
How Did the Spitzer Space Telescope Detect this System?
Spitzer,
an infrared telescope that trails Earth as it orbits the sun, was well-suited
for studying TRAPPIST-1 because the star glows brightest in infrared light,
whose wavelengths are longer than the eye can see. Spitzer is uniquely
positioned in its orbit to observe enough crossing (aka transits) of the
planets in front of the host star to reveal the complex architecture of the
system.
Every time a planet passes by, or transits, a star, it blocks out some
light. Spitzer measured the dips in light and based on how big the dip, you can
determine the size of the planet. The timing of the transits tells you how long
it takes for the planet to orbit the star.
The
TRAPPIST-1 system provides one of the best opportunities in the next decade to
study the atmospheres around Earth-size planets. Spitzer, Hubble and Kepler will
help astronomers plan for follow-up studies using our upcoming James Webb Space
Telescope, launching in 2018. With much greater sensitivity, Webb will be
able to detect the chemical fingerprints of water, methane, oxygen, ozone and
other components of a planet’s atmosphere.
At 40 light-years away, humans won’t be visiting this system in person anytime soon…that said…this poster can help us imagine what it would be like:
my god but I get mad when someone flippantly dismisses important scientific progress because you can make it sound dumb by framing it the right way.
For a start, of course a lot of science sounds dumb. Science is all in the slogging through the minutiae, the failures, the tedious process of filling in the blank spaces on the map because it ain’t ’t glamorous, but if someone doesn’t do it, no one gets to know for sure what’s there.
Someone’s gotta spend their career measuring fly genitalia under a microscope. Frankly, I’m grateful to the person who is tackling that tedium, because if they didn’t, I might have to, and I don’t wanna.
But let’s talk about why we should care about this particular science and spend money on it. (And I’ll even answer without even glancing at the article.)
Off the top of my head?
-advances in robotics
-advances in miniature robotics
-advances in flight technology
-advantages in simulating and understanding the mechanics and programming of small intelligences
-ability to grow crops in places uninhabitable by insects (space? cold/hot? places where honeybees are non-native and detrimental to the ecosystem?)
-ability to improve productivity density of crops and feed more people
-less strain on bees, who do poorly when forced to pollinate monocultures of low nutrition plants
-ability to run tightly controlled experiments on pollination, on the effects of bees on plant physiology, on ecosystem dynamics, etc
-fucking robot bees, my friend
-hahaha think how confused those flowers must be
Also worth keeping in mind? People love, love, love framing science in condescending and silly sounding terms as an excuse to cut funding to vital programs. *Especially* if it’s also associated with something (gasp) ‘inappropriate’, like sex or ladyparts. This is why research for a lot of women’s issues, lgbtq+ issues, minorities’ issues, and vulnerable groups in general’s issues tends to lag so far behind the times. This is why some groups are pushing so hard to cut funding for climate change research these days.
Anything that’s acquired governmental funding has been through and intensely competitive, months-to-years long screening by EXPERTS IN THE FIELD who have a very good idea what research is likely to be most beneficial to that field and fill a needed gap.
Trust me. The paperwork haunts my nightmares.
So, we had a joke in my lab: “Nice work, college boy.” It was the phrase for any project that you could spend years and years working on and end up with results that could be summed up on a single, pretty slide with an apparently obvious graph. The phrase was taken from something a grower said at a talk my advisor gave as a graduate student: “So you proved that plants grow better when they’re watered? Nice work, college boy.”
But like, the thing is? There’s always more details than that. And a lot of times it’s important that somebody questions our assumptions.
A labmate of mine doing very similar research demonstrated that our assumptions about the effect of water stress on plant fitness have been wrong for years because *nobody had thought to separate out the different WAYS a plant can be water stressed.* (Continuously, in bursts, etc.). And it turns out these ways have *drastically different effects* with drastically different measures required for response to them to keep from losing lots of money and resources in agriculture.
Nice work, college boy. :p
Point the second: surprise! Anna Haldewang is an industrial design student. She developed this in her product design class. And, as far as I can tell, she has had no particular funding at all for this project, much less billions of dollars.
‘grats, Anna, you FUCKING ROCK.
ps: On a lighter note, summarizing research to make it sound stupid is both easy AND fun. Check out @lolmythesis – I HIGHLY RECOMMEND. :33
I’d also like to chime in that a chunk of my family are apple farmers, and one thing I learned visiting them is that you can’t always let bees pollinate. With certain apple varieties, people have to go out with little paintbrushes to pollinate them by hand, because if they cross-pollinate with the wrong variety the apples won’t come out the same. Beebots could potentially be a huge time-saver at that task, because depending on how the algorithms work, you could just tell them “Don’t go into the Gala field next door” and let them do the job more efficiently than you without having to worry about getting weird mutant apples.
It should also be mentioned that this is a great backup in the event that we cannot save the bees
I’ve said this before and I’ll point it out again -
Menstruation is caused by change in hormonal levels to stop the creation of a uterine lining and encourage the body to flush the lining out. The body does this by lowering estrogen levels and raising testosterone.
Or, to put it more plainly “That time of the month” is when female hormones most closely resemble male hormones. So if (cis) women aren’t suited to office at “That time of the month” then (cis) men are NEVER suited to office.
If you are a dude and don’t dig the ladies around you at their time of the month, just think! That is you all of the time.
And, on a final note, post-menopausal (cis) women are the most hormonally stable of all human demographics. They have fewer hormonal fluctuations of anyone, meaning older women like Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would theoretically be among the least likely candidates to make an irrational decision due to hormonal fluctuations, and if we were basing our leadership decisions on hormone levels, then only women over fifty should ever be allowed to hold office.
Reblogging hard for that last comment.
I WANTED TO SAY THIS BUT THEN SOMEONE ELSE DID and I’m damn proud.
I don’t trust anyone who thinks that science isn’t incredibly problematic
Because someone asked me to elaborate:
Science is a social construct. It only exists because we, humans, do it. And we are full of, often unconscious, bias. We, as scientists, can’t separate ourselves from the society that we’re a product of, which is sexist and racist and ableist and transphobic, so, at some level, the science we produce will also carry those biases.
So no matter how much we want to think of ourselves as unbiased seekers of truth, we aren’t. Not really. In plenty of cases this doesn’t really matter, however, there are tons of examples where it does. Where the questions we ask and the problems we construct and base our research around are based on said bias. Or the way we interpret results.
Society is rigged to benefit those in power, and thus, science is too. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of funding comes from the government.
To say that science is objective and only, inherently, a force for good in the world is at best simplistic and at worst actively harmful. Has it done a lot of good? Of course, unquestioningly. But it’s also done a lot of harm, both historically and currently.
Science is a tool. And how it’s used depends on who is using it.
You can’t fake pupil dilation. And you know nobody’s playing with the lighting to make them dilate (what would be the point, from a production point of view?). This is 100% natural reaction. Destiel? Cockles? Both? The world may never know…
MISHA TOO MISHA TOO
Ummm. S'gotta be Cockles. You can’t *act* pupil dilation either. Go try it. I’ll wait.
Signed: A girl with acquired Horner’s syndrome (go Google it) who has spent too much time staring at her pupils and thinking about how they act.
for anyone who doesn’t already know, if your pupils dilate when you look at someone it’s most likely a sign of interest / attraction / arousal (take your pick).
I’m going to talk about Jensen’s pupil dilation for a second, because it’s incredibly obvious compared to whatever Misha’s eyes are doing.
let’s say controlled pupil dilation was possible. Jensen would probably attempt to conquer that ability for the sake of acting better. he’s all about the subtleties. we know that about his acting.
so if Jensen did indeed have impossible eye-controlling superpowers, I have a question. why would Jensen make a point of using that power to show Dean as attracted to Cas? let me list the reasons. 1. he was consciously playing Dean as bisexual, 2. he was invested in Destiel as a romantic relationship from the get-go, 3. both of the above. (of course, this is assuming that he dilated his pupils ~on purpose~.)
the thing is, though, over the years hundreds of actors and actresses came and went, playing other characters who interact with Dean, and Jensen didn’t bother to use this fantastic pupil-dilating power each time Dean was attracted to someone. so what made Misha different? was it that he’d be sticking around, and it was worth putting in the effort? nope. the writers hadn’t even planned on bringing Cas back after the first three episodes of season 4. Misha was supposed to be on set for a few weeks and then he’d be gone. at the time Jensen and Misha met, not expecting it to last, Jensen couldn’t have been deeply invested in Destiel as a future relationship – certainly not enough to care whether or not his goddamn pupils were dilated. this gifset is from the second episode they had together.
sure, Jensen could’ve been going for “the pushy angel turns Dean on”; end of story. whether he played that consciously or not, that’s what became canon. Dean is totally into Cas, hooray! nobody is surprised.
but c’mon, let’s face it. those aren’t magical eye-controlling superpowers. nothing’s happening to the lights to make Jensen’s pupils expand. it’s definitely not CGI. above all: Jensen’s not dilating his pupils on purpose. what you’re looking at is not singularly Dean’s attraction to Cas. you’re seeing Jensen’s attraction to Misha too. these dorks just met two weeks ago (8 days filming each episode), and Jensen is already hopelessly gone on Misha.
in conclusion, this is straight-up Cockles.
Pupillary response is a physiological response that varies the size of the pupil
Natural release of the hormone oxytocin can cause mild to moderate mydriasis. Strong sexual arousal can often lead to very enlarged pupils, rather than the minor dilation observed during sexual affection
Misha’s doing it too, it’s just harder to tell because the angle of the shot’s more oblique.
These pupils are widened but not blown, so I’d call it more sexual interest than all-out arousal, but still, look at that!
I love how we all as a fandom have deeply analysed the dilation of Jensen’s pupils and manage to uncover the truth about his attraction to Misha.
