<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Earth and Moon, from Mars</title>
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nigel Depledge</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74214</link>
		<dc:creator>Nigel Depledge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:50:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74214</guid>
		<description>Scott said:
"looking too close to the universe you cant see God’s handywork eh!.
READ DARWIN’ BLACK BOX… if you still believe everything including yourself is a mistake YOU’RE the one ignoring the facts.

You are part of the new religion, -science- men with nice placks on their wall tell you something and you bet your soul on it…

I hope you search and find the truth…

Love in Christ "

Well, Scott, isn't it a pity that not only is &lt;i&gt;Darwin's Black Box&lt;/i&gt; wrong in every important respect, but that its author, Michael Behe, actually lies in his follow-up book The Edge of Evolution.

Behe claimed that HIV has not evolved any new biochemical interactions.  A graduate student, who blogs under the name ERV and who works on virus biochemistry, called him out, pointing out at least two biochemical interactions that have evolved in some strains of HIV but not others.  Behe's response was both rude and irrelevant, completely ignoring ERV's substantive point that refuted Behe's claim.

Is Behe the person you wish to regard as an authority?  Really?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott said:<br />
&#8220;looking too close to the universe you cant see God’s handywork eh!.<br />
READ DARWIN’ BLACK BOX… if you still believe everything including yourself is a mistake YOU’RE the one ignoring the facts.</p>
<p>You are part of the new religion, -science- men with nice placks on their wall tell you something and you bet your soul on it…</p>
<p>I hope you search and find the truth…</p>
<p>Love in Christ &#8221;</p>
<p>Well, Scott, isn&#8217;t it a pity that not only is <i>Darwin&#8217;s Black Box</i> wrong in every important respect, but that its author, Michael Behe, actually lies in his follow-up book The Edge of Evolution.</p>
<p>Behe claimed that HIV has not evolved any new biochemical interactions.  A graduate student, who blogs under the name ERV and who works on virus biochemistry, called him out, pointing out at least two biochemical interactions that have evolved in some strains of HIV but not others.  Behe&#8217;s response was both rude and irrelevant, completely ignoring ERV&#8217;s substantive point that refuted Behe&#8217;s claim.</p>
<p>Is Behe the person you wish to regard as an authority?  Really?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: B Fenerty</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74213</link>
		<dc:creator>B Fenerty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:06:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74213</guid>
		<description>Thoughts on processed images:

Re lumpy atmosphere or missing stars, anyone who follows the link Phil gives to the source page of the Earth and Moon photo will see in the  HiRISE Operations Center's caption that the image was processed to some extent. In this case a good thing - for reasons given there.

Processing, as likely all readers here know of course, is actually often essential to obtain a meaningful image. (Think of infrared images of deep space objects: should they be left in infra-red? Well, sure if someone's eyes can see infrared, but then they'd be of interest to medicine for at least one reason, ha.)

As for missing stars, if that were to bother anyone, a few unshown stars are indeed in the background vicinity of the Earth and Moon HiRISE image.

But, at least per my planetarium program, Earth from Mars was roughly at, shall we say, a noticeably-bright magnitude of -3.05, our Moon at a slightly fainter 1.01 (original magnitude which the linked website says they adjusted in processing). However, the brightest nearby star would be TYC6842-1271-1 at a much fainter magnitude 9.75. (Remember that scale is not linear, so "much fainter" is correct.)

The HiRISE people could have also processed this faint star to appear, to keep some potential skeptics happy, but there are only two or three more stars at even fainter magnitudes in the photo's area, and whatever else is back there is so much fainter even my planetarium program doesn't bother listing them. Probably a few hundred super-super-faint galaxies? (But...if you know and like Malin's astrophotowork well then maybe the unshown background stuff does matter...) Anyway, anyone really wanting the image processed even further to show the stars might be rather like listening to a recording of wonderful heavy surf crashing against a rocky shore, and criticizing it for not including the sound of some tiny twig falling inland in a thick forest half a kilometer back from the shore. (Think Long Beach, Vancouver Island, or Agate Beach on Haida Gwai, which BTW is a memorable verrry dark-sky observing site.) But for most of us I suspect that the sound of waves and few faint seagull calls would likely portray the heart of the location very sufficiently, likewise seeing the Earth and Moon without stars, as defectiverobot indicated March 3rd, presents a beauty not requiring anything more. (Unless of course someone is actually from unshown star TYC6842-1271-1!)

At our science centre where the public also get weekly free telescope viewing I give very informal talks to adults and kids, including Keynote (powerpoint-on-Mac) images. Processed images too! (Will include the HiRISE EArth and Moon next time.) There, even the kids realize it is okay, even necessary, for astronomers to process images from Hubble etc into colourful deep space objects. They see details revealed in diverse ways that set them to wondering and learning. They don't waste time bad-logic-ing and conspiricizing if there's such a word. Some even begin to grasp why, for example, many astronomers use FITS files rather than the far more limited jpgs and tiffs the public are more familiar with. By processing images several different ways from data-thick originals, the very same source images can reveal much useful diverse info, as well inspire future scientists among those youngsters who have the good fortune (or blessing, your choice) of living in a remarkable time of wonder and discovery.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thoughts on processed images:</p>
<p>Re lumpy atmosphere or missing stars, anyone who follows the link Phil gives to the source page of the Earth and Moon photo will see in the  HiRISE Operations Center&#8217;s caption that the image was processed to some extent. In this case a good thing - for reasons given there.</p>
<p>Processing, as likely all readers here know of course, is actually often essential to obtain a meaningful image. (Think of infrared images of deep space objects: should they be left in infra-red? Well, sure if someone&#8217;s eyes can see infrared, but then they&#8217;d be of interest to medicine for at least one reason, ha.)</p>
<p>As for missing stars, if that were to bother anyone, a few unshown stars are indeed in the background vicinity of the Earth and Moon HiRISE image.</p>
<p>But, at least per my planetarium program, Earth from Mars was roughly at, shall we say, a noticeably-bright magnitude of -3.05, our Moon at a slightly fainter 1.01 (original magnitude which the linked website says they adjusted in processing). However, the brightest nearby star would be TYC6842-1271-1 at a much fainter magnitude 9.75. (Remember that scale is not linear, so &#8220;much fainter&#8221; is correct.)</p>
<p>The HiRISE people could have also processed this faint star to appear, to keep some potential skeptics happy, but there are only two or three more stars at even fainter magnitudes in the photo&#8217;s area, and whatever else is back there is so much fainter even my planetarium program doesn&#8217;t bother listing them. Probably a few hundred super-super-faint galaxies? (But&#8230;if you know and like Malin&#8217;s astrophotowork well then maybe the unshown background stuff does matter&#8230;) Anyway, anyone really wanting the image processed even further to show the stars might be rather like listening to a recording of wonderful heavy surf crashing against a rocky shore, and criticizing it for not including the sound of some tiny twig falling inland in a thick forest half a kilometer back from the shore. (Think Long Beach, Vancouver Island, or Agate Beach on Haida Gwai, which BTW is a memorable verrry dark-sky observing site.) But for most of us I suspect that the sound of waves and few faint seagull calls would likely portray the heart of the location very sufficiently, likewise seeing the Earth and Moon without stars, as defectiverobot indicated March 3rd, presents a beauty not requiring anything more. (Unless of course someone is actually from unshown star TYC6842-1271-1!)</p>
<p>At our science centre where the public also get weekly free telescope viewing I give very informal talks to adults and kids, including Keynote (powerpoint-on-Mac) images. Processed images too! (Will include the HiRISE EArth and Moon next time.) There, even the kids realize it is okay, even necessary, for astronomers to process images from Hubble etc into colourful deep space objects. They see details revealed in diverse ways that set them to wondering and learning. They don&#8217;t waste time bad-logic-ing and conspiricizing if there&#8217;s such a word. Some even begin to grasp why, for example, many astronomers use FITS files rather than the far more limited jpgs and tiffs the public are more familiar with. By processing images several different ways from data-thick originals, the very same source images can reveal much useful diverse info, as well inspire future scientists among those youngsters who have the good fortune (or blessing, your choice) of living in a remarkable time of wonder and discovery.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: galilayo</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74212</link>
		<dc:creator>galilayo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:18:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74212</guid>
		<description>The atmosphere is hyperboley in the sense that the moon is in constant pressure from its surrounding waves which would infact make the earth very lumpy indeed(i studied this many years and this picture is one of the best snap photos that we have, if in fact there were stars you would not be able to see the earth,(or moon in the sense of atmospheric pressure) but anyways this picture is very beautiful and remember the atmospheric pressure is all that matters in a world of planets in fact there are many oter universis but i aint talkin about that now nigga i got food to eat peace niggas.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The atmosphere is hyperboley in the sense that the moon is in constant pressure from its surrounding waves which would infact make the earth very lumpy indeed(i studied this many years and this picture is one of the best snap photos that we have, if in fact there were stars you would not be able to see the earth,(or moon in the sense of atmospheric pressure) but anyways this picture is very beautiful and remember the atmospheric pressure is all that matters in a world of planets in fact there are many oter universis but i aint talkin about that now nigga i got food to eat peace niggas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barton Paul Levenson</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74211</link>
		<dc:creator>Barton Paul Levenson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:41:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74211</guid>
		<description>Scott posts:

[[&lt;i&gt;looking too close to the universe you cant see God’s handywork eh!.
READ DARWIN’ BLACK BOX… if you still believe everything including yourself is a mistake YOU’RE the one ignoring the facts. &lt;/i&gt;]]

Behe's "Darwins' Black Box" had a number of problems with it.  Basically, he said that a number of biological structures were "irreducibly complex" that really weren't.  The mistakes vitiated his whole thesis.

[[&lt;i&gt;You are part of the new religion, -science- men with nice placks on their wall tell you something and you bet your soul on it… &lt;/i&gt;]]

Placques.  And the whole point of science is to actually find out how something works, not to depend on authority figures to tell you about it.

[[&lt;i&gt;I hope you search and find the truth…&lt;/i&gt;]]

Agreed, and in your and my case we have.  But &lt;i&gt;please&lt;/i&gt; don't tie your evangelism to your views about creationism or science!  I know from personal experience that creationism is a big stumbling block for a lot of non-believers.  Right or wrong, evolution is part of what they've believed since they were kids, and attacking it makes them think everything you're saying is wrong and doesn't need to be listened to.  I really think creationism has turned more people away from Christ than it has led to Him.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott posts:</p>
<p>[[<i>looking too close to the universe you cant see God’s handywork eh!.<br />
READ DARWIN’ BLACK BOX… if you still believe everything including yourself is a mistake YOU’RE the one ignoring the facts. </i>]]</p>
<p>Behe&#8217;s &#8220;Darwins&#8217; Black Box&#8221; had a number of problems with it.  Basically, he said that a number of biological structures were &#8220;irreducibly complex&#8221; that really weren&#8217;t.  The mistakes vitiated his whole thesis.</p>
<p>[[<i>You are part of the new religion, -science- men with nice placks on their wall tell you something and you bet your soul on it… </i>]]</p>
<p>Placques.  And the whole point of science is to actually find out how something works, not to depend on authority figures to tell you about it.</p>
<p>[[<i>I hope you search and find the truth…</i>]]</p>
<p>Agreed, and in your and my case we have.  But <i>please</i> don&#8217;t tie your evangelism to your views about creationism or science!  I know from personal experience that creationism is a big stumbling block for a lot of non-believers.  Right or wrong, evolution is part of what they&#8217;ve believed since they were kids, and attacking it makes them think everything you&#8217;re saying is wrong and doesn&#8217;t need to be listened to.  I really think creationism has turned more people away from Christ than it has led to Him.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74210</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:33:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74210</guid>
		<description>looking too close to the universe you cant see God's handywork eh!.
READ DARWIN' BLACK BOX... if you still believe everything including yourself is a mistake YOU'RE the one ignoring the facts.

You are part of the new religion, -science- men with nice placks on their wall tell you something and you bet your soul on it...

I hope you search and find the truth...

Love in Christ

Scott</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>looking too close to the universe you cant see God&#8217;s handywork eh!.<br />
READ DARWIN&#8217; BLACK BOX&#8230; if you still believe everything including yourself is a mistake YOU&#8217;RE the one ignoring the facts.</p>
<p>You are part of the new religion, -science- men with nice placks on their wall tell you something and you bet your soul on it&#8230;</p>
<p>I hope you search and find the truth&#8230;</p>
<p>Love in Christ</p>
<p>Scott</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simple Guy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74209</link>
		<dc:creator>Simple Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:16:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74209</guid>
		<description>So I post this to Digg as soon as I see the post here. It gets a grand total of 2 diggs. Two hours later someone else posts it, and whaddya know, 1800 Diggs!!!. Mind you I linked directly to the HiRISE webpage (to try and save Phil's servers :^) ). Which leaves me with two theories.

1. There now exists "The BA effect" whereby even the slightest mention by Phil Plait or linking to him will gain you instant notoriety.

Or

2.  Creationists are digging up Phil's stories in an effort to crash his server's and prevent him from delivering a healthy dose of reality to those who need it most.

Either way, great job Phil</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So I post this to Digg as soon as I see the post here. It gets a grand total of 2 diggs. Two hours later someone else posts it, and whaddya know, 1800 Diggs!!!. Mind you I linked directly to the HiRISE webpage (to try and save Phil&#8217;s servers :^) ). Which leaves me with two theories.</p>
<p>1. There now exists &#8220;The BA effect&#8221; whereby even the slightest mention by Phil Plait or linking to him will gain you instant notoriety.</p>
<p>Or</p>
<p>2.  Creationists are digging up Phil&#8217;s stories in an effort to crash his server&#8217;s and prevent him from delivering a healthy dose of reality to those who need it most.</p>
<p>Either way, great job Phil</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Irishman</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74208</link>
		<dc:creator>Irishman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:31:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/03/earth-and-moon-from-mars/#comment-74208</guid>
		<description>Petrucio, that &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; the high resolution one. ;-)  As Rod states, the HiRISE camera is not really intended for distant object viewing (other than viewing the one distant object, of course ;-) .)

Calli Arcale, thanks for those. I really like the THEMIS one. That one shows the Moon and Earth at approximately max separation (perpendicular view). I'm particularly interested in scale presentations of the Solar System, things that show the bodies and distances between them at the &lt;i&gt;same&lt;/i&gt; scale.  That one is excellent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Petrucio, that <i>is</i> the high resolution one. <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' />  As Rod states, the HiRISE camera is not really intended for distant object viewing (other than viewing the one distant object, of course <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> .)</p>
<p>Calli Arcale, thanks for those. I really like the THEMIS one. That one shows the Moon and Earth at approximately max separation (perpendicular view). I&#8217;m particularly interested in scale presentations of the Solar System, things that show the bodies and distances between them at the <i>same</i> scale.  That one is excellent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
