/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13338655

400KiB, 1152x648, Exoplanet_Discoveries_2017-12-14.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Is Astronomy of scam?

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 16:06:36 2021 No.13338655 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13340723 >>13341360 >>13341365 >>13341595 >>13344334 >>13344354 >>13344463 >>13347066 >>13347195 >>13350124

Thousands of Astronomers make a good living by "discovering" exoplanets, yet there is no way to verify their claims

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 19:38:13 No.13339401 Report

Quoted By: >>13339432 >>13339452

>>13339140
genuinely curious, how can they tell the difference between one large planet and several small planets of the same mass wouldnt they create the same wobble, and it was planet with a large moon wouldnt it dim the star the same as one planet without a moon?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 19:38:47 No.13339405 Report

Quoted By:

>>13339323
>But if we are unable to detect a planet in our own solar system, where we can visually confirm all other planets and moons, how can we hope to accurately make predictions about planetary systems around other stars
Because those are two completely different things. No one claims to have detected all bodies in the solar system. No one claims to have detected all planets in any exosolar system.
Planet 9 possibly existing didn't stop Le Verrier from correctly predicting Neptune. You don't need to know everything to know anything.

> where all we have to go by is periodical shift in the brightness of the star?
If Planet 9 regularly transited bright stars then it would be far earlier to find. The problem with Planet 9 is that it could be pretty much anywhere in the sky, and many not exist at all. Bright stars on the other hand are known.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 19:48:22 No.13339432 Report

Quoted By:

>>13339401
That's a legit question anon; the answer is: all they can do is keep watching the same system, and alter their best-fit curves accordingly.
Especially if the planets are in a Laplacian resonance it can be difficult to tease out all the orbits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 19:55:04 No.13339452 Report

Quoted By:

>>13339401
>how can they tell the difference between one large planet and several small planets of the same mass wouldnt they create the same wobble
And how would several smaller planets orbit at the same radius on the same side without colliding?

>and it was planet with a large moon wouldnt it dim the star the same as one planet without a moon?
The moon would also transit itself, and in some transits it would be in front of the planet or behind, creating a double transit. The moon's orbit would also cause the planet to wobble, so the timing to the planet's transits should vary slightly. Currently there are only a few tentative exomoon candidates.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 03:18:04 No.13340723 Report

Quoted By:

>>13338655
Over half could be errors

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 04:11:07 No.13340878 Report

Quoted By: >>13340993

>>13338774
You do realize the data is released publicly, you have the same access to the information that they do. You can take the data and analyze it yourself and come to your own conclusions.
https://archive.stsci.edu/missions-and-data/kepler

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 04:59:23 No.13340993 Report

Quoted By:

>>13340878
nobody cares
you watched too much star wars movies and black soience man as a kid and now you'll believe any spectacular soience lies about gay space fantasies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 08:26:04 No.13341347 Report

Quoted By:

>>13339163
Bro..Mars is about increasing species survival chances

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 08:32:31 No.13341360 Report

Quoted By:

>>13338655
They are verified though. That's kind of the point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 08:36:45 No.13341365 Report

Quoted By:

>>13338655
I have done the transit method analysis myself anon and it seems to check out.
I was just using the same data, libraries and procedures given by others tho, so it still be some bs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 08:53:55 No.13341395 Report

Quoted By: >>13342022

If the calculations and methodology of finding these exoplanets are so simple and accessable (as to apparently be easily verified by any rube with the desire to do so) then what is the purpose of professional astrologists? If people in this thread can do what they do with a laptop and a magnifying glass then what funds to these academics require?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 09:46:01 No.13341494 Report

Quoted By:

>>13338851
because i fugged her kosherhole

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 10:29:34 No.13341595 Report

Quoted By: >>13344345 >>13344480 >>13347138

>>13338655
ROFLMAO astronomy is probably the most verifiable science of all, as everyone has access to the same sky. You just need gear that is good enough to spot them and you can verify all you want.
I saw a lot of good relies here already so I wont expand on the topic further. However, I have seen even more schizos and pseuds not understanding basic highschool physics, which exposes the pitiful absolute state of this bard and that makes me sad

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 13:17:11 No.13342022 Report

Quoted By: >>13345845

>>13341395
>If cooking at home is so easy then what is the purpose of professional chefs? It's a scam I tell you!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 00:37:41 No.13344334 Report

Quoted By: >>13344412 >>13344521

>>13338655
>Is Astronomy of scam?

Yes

Even the verified things, have no real use. It should be relegated to a hobby.

t.masters in astronomy
t.bachelor of sci. in Chem
t.only one of those is useful

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 00:40:18 No.13344345 Report

Quoted By:

>>13341595
>ROFLMAO astronomy is probably the most verifiable science of all, as everyone has access to the same sky. You just need gear that is good enough to spot them and you can verify all you want.
have you done that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 00:41:49 No.13344354 Report

Quoted By: >>13344499

>>13338655
it's a good scam and has endless possibilities, if u have authority in that scam field you can claim literally anything and if you get in trouble you put "theory" in it so you can't get fucked

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 00:58:28 No.13344412 Report

Quoted By:

>>13344334
Things that have no real use are the best. You're just convincing me I should study it. Knowledge for its own sake is a worthy pursuit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 01:14:50 No.13344463 Report

Quoted By: >>13344473

>>13338655
OP, you are a hero of /sci. It is absolutely easy to pursue the discovery of
exoplanets, nobody needs to spend more than an hour every day to do this,
and they get awarded with millions of $US.
But you have chosen to stay firm, and keep shitposting on 4chan instead of
succumbing to the lures of millions and millions of dollars in profit.
/sci salutes you, OP. May your life in a trailer home be unremarkable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 01:17:35 No.13344473 Report

Quoted By:

>>13344463
It's an exclusive club. Like Paris Hilton's mouth.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Observatory telescope.jpg, 39KiB, 720x480

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 01:20:41 No.13344480 Report

Quoted By: >>13344487

>>13341595
>ROFLMAO astronomy is probably the most verifiable science of all, as everyone has access to the same sky.
But only a few have access to the Larger Observatories telescopes capable of searching such exoplanets .

With a smaller amateur telescope you can not even see Pluto,
let alone a much far away exoplanet orbiting another star.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 01:21:01 No.13344481 Report

Quoted By:

>You just need gear that is good enough to spot them
Very good gear ($1k+) or good skill. I can't hold binoculars steady enough to look at the moon. Takes dedication and skill to be a stargazer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 01:22:50 No.13344487 Report

Quoted By:

>>13344480
Vatican telescope in the US is beside a telescope called Lucifer. Jokes just write themselves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 01:25:08 No.13344499 Report

Quoted By:

>>13344354
Back stabbing use to keep Big Science honest. Political nepotism has weakened that effect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 01:30:21 No.13344521 Report

Quoted By:

>>13344334
The big three theories:
Concave earth, flat earth, convex earth. Concave earth is the current orthodoxy. Need astronomy and space travel for that to be accepted. Need giants and mountains are giant trees for flat and convex earth respectively. (Theory that beliefs create reality. LOL)

El Arcón

El Arcón Thu 01 Jul 2021 01:39:03 No.13344557 Report

Quoted By:

I don't understand how gravitational wave interferometry works and I think there's a good chance that the whole industry including the LIGO and LISA collaborations is total sham operation. There is also a good chance that I just don't understand the experiment, however.

In grad school, I attended a talk about LIGO, I think. It was the one in Louisiana. I often asked questions in talks and this was one of the rare times I asked a question in a large colloquium. It was the only time the speaker ever said basically, "Dat-dat-dat, don't worry about that. We just wave the magic statistics hands." Usually speakers want to demonstrate their expertise by giving fantastic answers but I was not satisfied in this LIGO talk and my question got blown off.

The signal in gravitational wave interferometry is on the order of 10^-15 meters. The radius of an atom is ~10^-10 meters. The interferometer works by bouncing lasers off mirrors made from atoms. Since lasers are monochromatic and in phase, if you split the beam and recombine it, if a gravity wave has gone through the area, then the recombined beams will be out of phase slightly. Now... if the lasers bounced off perfect mathematical reflectors, I can see how to detect a signal on the order of 10^-15. However, the mirror is made of atoms whose quantum fuzziness in five orders of magnitude larger than the signal. Can you pull 10^-15 out of 10^-10 noise with statistics? Maybe. However, the atoms are spheres with separations and the mirror does not have some uniform fuzziness of 10^-10 which needs to be subtracted. The mirror is fuzzy at 10^-10, and it is bumpy at probably more than 10^-9 since the surface of the mirror cant be perfectly flat at the atomic level, and even a flat layer of atoms a non-flat union of many spheres. I don't see how to use statistics to detect 10^-15 in noise of 10^-9 bumpiness which is inseparably mingled with 10^-10 atomic radii fuzziness.

Can they do it? Maybe. Maybe not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 09:15:41 No.13345845 Report

Quoted By: >>13347145 >>13347151

>>13342022
professionally discovered exoplanets taste better? did you seriously think that was an adequate answer? what the heck are you trying to imply?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 16:41:13 No.13347066 Report

Quoted By:

>>13338655
>there is no way for a NPC like me to verify their claims
FTFY

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 17:03:53 No.13347138 Report

Quoted By: >>13347168

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 17:06:15 No.13347145 Report

Quoted By:

>>13345845
people go to restaurants because they are too lazy to cook and clean up afterwards for themselves. they don't know what the chef puts in the food, they just trust him because thats less effort than cooking and cleaning.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 17:08:05 No.13347151 Report

Quoted By: >>13347224 >>13349862

>>13345845
>What is an analogy?
The state of the art in professional astronomy is far beyond what amateurs can accomplish. Unsurprisingly if you devote your career to something you get better results, be it cooking or astronomy. How difficult is that to understand?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 17:11:00 No.13347168 Report

Quoted By: >>13347185

>>13347138
That is not true in general. If the hypothesis is that the phenomenon exists then yes it's a valid test.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 17:15:05 No.13347185 Report

Quoted By: >>13347202

>>13347168
in astronomy, such a valid hypothesis is "it is possible to view a bright, point-like luminous object that varies in brightness with some predictable periodicity"

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1625030794657.jpg, 51KiB, 960x738

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 17:20:09 No.13347195 Report

Quoted By: >>13349876

>>13338655
>Is High energy physics a scam? thousands of High energy physicists make a good living by "discovering" particles, yet there is no way to verify their claims
>Is botany/zoology/paleontology a scam? thousands of them make a good living by "discovering" animals and plants, yet there is no way to verify more than half of their claims
>Is microbiology a scam? thousands of microbiologists make a good living by "discovering" micro organisms/organelles, yet there is no way to verify their claims
>Is synthetic organic chemistry a scam? thousands of synthetic organic chemists make a good living by "creating" organic chemicals, yet there is no way to verify their claims
>Is geology a scam? thousands of geologists make a good living by "discovering" rocks, yet there is no way to verify their claims
and so on

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 17:21:21 No.13347202 Report

Quoted By: >>13347215

>>13347185
But the point you're leaving out is that the periodicity and lightcurve profile are predicted by a model of an exoplanet. By observing a transit you are testing that hypothesis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 17:25:14 No.13347215 Report

Quoted By: >>13347277

>>13347202
the point you're leaving out is that often the model is constructed around the observation.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 5-Imbecile-Scale.jpg, 1MiB, 4958x4437

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 17:27:04 No.13347224 Report

Quoted By: >>13349603

>>13347151
I've worked as a professional chef and I can't pull off the same level of quality cooking in my home kitchen that I could at work because I don't have all of the extremely expensive specialty equipment that I had at work. It took a day to train an experienced employee to operate a million dollar oven system up to professional standards, inexperienced employees required 2 or 3 days.
Regardless my lesser kitchen at home and the fact that I no longer have access to a pro kitchen, I generally avoid eating at restaurants because I'd rather prepare my own food.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 17:27:39 No.13347227 Report

Quoted By:

Thousands of Astronomers make a good living by “discovering” space objects, yet there is no way to verify their claims except traveling through space to them. I shitted myself

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 17:45:04 No.13347277 Report

Quoted By:

>>13347215
Past observations, not future ones. If you believe these episodes are caused by something else then there is no particular reason it should continue to fit the predictions of an exoplanet model. And these models aren't infinitely flexible, there is only so much freedom.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 17:56:37 No.13347313 Report

Quoted By: >>13347367 >>13347594

>>13338720
>buy a telescope.
how can I know that it is not just an elaborate electronic display rigged to show false results?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO UP12-5S.jpg, 309KiB, 2000x3000

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 18:10:57 No.13347367 Report

Quoted By:

>>13347313
If you knew anything about telescopes you wouldn't ask such a stupid question. There is nowhere to put a screen in the optical path, and many have no power at all. You can build one yourself from scratch, many amateurs do.

Also this is not a scientific argument, it's /x/-tier bargaining. With each level of conspiracy it just becomes more contrived and more disfavoured by Occam's Razor. It also makes no useful predictions because any result can be handwaved away, it's not a scientific hypothesis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 18:24:20 No.13347420 Report

Quoted By: >>13347485

>hey guys, lets spend all our time and resources attempting to detect planets around distant stars because they might be potential future homes for humanity
sure, very good and intelligent distribution of resources, no human even inhabits another planet in our own solar system, but lets spend our energy looking for planets millions of times more distant.
contemporary human spaceflight doesn't even go as far as 500 miles above the surface of the planet, so lets build a trillion dollar telescope to look for planets around alpha centauri

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO cuck.png, 307KiB, 612x926

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 18:44:45 No.13347485 Report

Quoted By: >>13347565

>>13347420
If astronomy is so disinteresting and irrelevant then why do you waste so much of your own time crying over it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 19:07:31 No.13347565 Report

Quoted By:

>>13347485
it seems like what you're trying to tell me is that you're fat, bald and ugly and that it offends you when that is pointed out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 19:15:53 No.13347594 Report

Quoted By:

>>13347313
If you want to be absolutely sure, make your observations with it, then take it apart

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Jul 2021 05:52:44 No.13349603 Report

Quoted By:

>>13347224
what book is that pic from

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Jul 2021 08:00:39 No.13349862 Report

Quoted By: >>13350188

>>13347151
so astronomy is not as transparent as many in this very thread have proposed? if these results can not in fact be verified by those outside the sphere of professional astronomy with their access to exorbitant equipment and funds from deep pocketed elites then the OP is correct and these professionals do in fact make a living insisting that they have discovered some extraordinary cosmic entity so faint and far away that no person outside of their insular academic circle could ever hope see it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Jul 2021 08:08:17 No.13349876 Report

Quoted By:

>>13347195
>no way to verify
>micro organisms/organelles
visible under a light microscope. can be directly shown to the skeptical
>animals and plants
>organic chemicals
>rocks
can be physically presented to the skeptical. can often be held in the hand
>particles
correct

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Jul 2021 10:13:29 No.13350124 Report

Quoted By: >>13350188

>>13338655
isn't this like where they applied an algorithm to practically an infinite amount of data and then got an image of the black hole their algorithm was always going to produce

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Jul 2021 10:44:37 No.13350188 Report

Quoted By:

>>13349862
>>13350124
Stop samefagging your own thread, it's obvious and pathetic.

> if these results can not in fact be verified by those outside the sphere of professional astronomy
But they can. Public data archives exist. You don't need a telescope to be an astronomer. This was pointed out to you multiple times. There are also public observatories which will consider proposals from anyone.

What you suggest is utterly regressive, that science should stop when it goes beyond the means of an average person. Microscopes were also only available to the "deep pocketed elites" when they were first invested. So was the apparatus for early EM experiments, had they just given up the electrical revolution never would have happened.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches