Comments on: In this corner, science…

By: Ken G

Ken G — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:11:33 +0000

But is it not also important for scientists to avoid stating that they “believe” in evolution? Neither disbelief, nor belief, has any place in science. Science is the act of taking a large number of observations and placing them into the smallest number of conceptual boxes, with no inconsistencies and as few unexplained problems as possible. But this takes too long to say, so we tend to fall back on “believe”, and so begins all the hullaballoo.

By: scott powers

scott powers — Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:16:11 +0000

Nigel, right on with the comment on evolution. it isnt a choice of belief. im a microbiologist/bioinformaticist studing molecular evolution in Burkholderia, and i live in a dorm with too many people who “dont believe in evolution” it drives me crazy

By: Kevin W. Parker

Kevin W. Parker — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:59:17 +0000

>>> Anyone who has taken a chemistry class knows that the color of light is direct response from the burning of a specific chemical element on the periodic table of elements. Each element gives off a unique color in spectrum of light that can be seen when that element is burned, regardless of the temperature.

This is not the complete truth. As a link ( http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach/Edu/Spectra/spec.html ) in Phil’s McCanney article explains, there are three types of spectra an object can emit. The emission spectrum you describe is only one of them. The most significant one is the continuous or blackbody spectrum, which is determined by the temperature.

Perhaps in future you should make sure you have your science right before you start calling someone a liar.

By: Nigel Depledge

Nigel Depledge — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:05:57 +0000

Truly is it said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The BA’s website also links to a series of astronomy lectures that, among other things, explain the difference between an emission line and a spectrum. In a nutshell, a material at low pressure (such as a low-pressure sodium streetlamp that emits a distinct orange light) emits light at specific wavelengths when excited (e.g. by electricity or heat). This is what you see in your flame tests in the chemistry lab; the best example I remember is copper, that produces a beautiful shade of green. As pressure is increased, the material emits a broader and broader swathe of wavelengths of light (hence the fact that medium-pressure sodium lamps emit a bright pink light and high-pressure lamps emit white light, even though it is the same material emitting the light). This is what is termed “black-body” radiation, and it is what is emitted by solids, liquids and high-pressure gases. The shape of the spectrum (i.e. the amount of light emitted at different wavelengths) depends on the temperature of the material, not on its composition. Thus, it provides a means by which to measure the temperature of a distant object and is considered to be an accurate technique (with some refinement that I shan’t go into here) by the entire scientific community.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. You don’t have to take the BA’s word for it. Go and read an astronomy textbook, paying particular attention to “Spectrometry” or “Spectroscopy”. Or do a web search on those terms (beware, though, that many of the “hits” will be highly technical and there is a chemistry technique of the same name that uses a different principle i.e. that of absorption rather than emission of energy). Alternatively, follow the link in the BA’s “Links” section to Nick Strobel’s Astronomy lectures and read them all. I found them to be a marvellously illuminating read (please excuse the pun).

By: Erik Johnson

Erik Johnson — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:06:21 +0000

As a truth seeker, I was initially refreshed by the critical thinking I encountered on this web site. Unfortunately, it is critical of the truth. According to an article on your web site located at http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/snowballs.html, Jim McCanney couldnâ€™t possibly be correct about comets not being balls of ice, because you can measure the temperature with a spectroscope. This URL of yours claims that you can use this device to read the temperature of an object in space depending on itâ€™s COLOR in the light spectrum. Anyone who has taken a chemistry class knows that the color of light is direct response from the burning of a specific chemical element on the periodic table of elements. Each element gives off a unique color in spectrum of light that can be seen when that element is burned, regardless of the temperature. This article of yours is blatant disinfo, and I am left wondering why you would slander McCanney with lies. Honestly, I already know why, and hopefully anyone who reads this will too. Hereâ€™s a clue: it has to do with Nikola Tesla.

By: Nigel Depledge

Nigel Depledge — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:56:32 +0000

Thanks for the info. I checked out their website, and they don’t have any overseas affiliates. Also, the waveband they use (medium wave, in the region of 100 kHz to 1 MHz) is unlikely to propagate large distances by ionospheric refraction. Add to this the fact that some stations transmit 50kW (they don’t specify whether this is input to the antenna or Effective Radiated Power [ERP]), if it were a frequency that propagates over large distances, they’d be causing interference all over the world. Also, they have a satellite radio channel, but this is only licensed for the US, and I guess its footprint will not extend much outside the continental US.
Perhaps, overall, I should be grateful that this is the case, given the BA’s past experience with pseudoscientists on Coast to Coast AM.

By: James Nelson

James Nelson — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:24:17 +0000

Nigel, Coast to Coast has a list of their affiliates that carry them at http://www.coasttocoastam.com/info/wheretolisten.html. Not sure if any of them will carry across the pond. You might also just check with any of the local AM stations in your area and see if they carry it. You can also stream it off their website, but I think that requires paying for their Streamlink membership (I think $35 US / year).