William Flew and Supermoon (2)

From Bad Astronomy blog

this "supermoon" idea was started by an astrologer named Richard Nolle. On his website, he defines the term as a new or full Moon when the Moon is closer to Earth than usual. He goes and gives a more precise definition, but it’s rather arbitrary^*. He says quite bluntly — and quite incorrectly — that lots of seismic events (plus bad weather) can be attributed to the Moon.

For example, about this month’s Moon he says:

That makes this a major geophysical stress window, centered on the actual alignment date but in effect from the 16th through the 22nd.

Note that time period: seven full days. The lunar orbit is about 27 days long, so there’s a 25% random chance of something happening during that time, Moon or no Moon!

Fark comments went like this:

So how 'bout ponying up some real math and a realistic viewpoint? On one side people are saying the moon is gonna fark shiat up horribly tomorrow, and on the other hand you're saying tidal forces don't mean shiat, so you're just as bad as the doomsdayers.

Get real, yes?


How about this:

The Moon's possible effect on earthquakes has been studied for a long time. The result? Major earthquakes are not correlated with the Moon's position or distance.

In other words, people a lot smarter than you have studied the issue and concluded there's nothing there. If they tried to use math and explain it to you, you wouldn't understand or accept it anyway.

Swear not by the moon, the inconstant moon, that monthly changes in her circled orb, lest that thy love prove likewise variable.


/why yes I am a Capulet why do you ask?

Guys, guys! What if EVERY person in China lined up and jumped RIGHT as the Moon makes its closest approach? They could like, wipe out California! Guys! This is important! Somebody call Fox News! We have to stop those Commies!

Oh yeah?

Well, smart guy, how do explain the fact that nearly all earthquakes happen within two weeks on either side of a full moon?

Or why approximately 25% of *all* earthquakes happen in the first three months of the year?

Huh? Explain *that*, you elitist liberal college boy!

That's nothing. In the past three decades a full TWENTY FIVE PERCENT of all deaths on the planet have occured while my wife was having her period.

/You can't explain that

Oh yeah, well, 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and the others end in death! Yet the government does NOTHING about it! It's a conspiracy against family values I tells ya!

WeenerGord: I don't drink anymore, but I'd buy you a beer if you tell me more about your religion.

I will gladly tell you whatever you want to hear about what happens to your 'soul' after you die, in exchange for your money, now.


I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

Let's not waste it....

Cosmonaut On Fire

Today's top of Fark is story about a Russian cosmonaut launched in a capsule that everyone knew was seriously defective, but were too scared to tell the truth to their superiors. Inevitably the capsule failed and burned up on re-entry. The cosmonaut knew he was going to die - American intelligence recorded his last transmissions where he was cursing the Russian president. The other memorable part of the article

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/03/18/134597833/cosmonaut-crashed-into-earth-crying-in-rage?ft=1&f=1026

was the photo of the guy afterwards:

"Get ready, Brezhnev's coming!"
"Okay."
"Um, is he right-side up?"
"I think so...how should I know?"
"Is that his head?"
"What are you asking me for?"
"I just don't want Brezhnev to put the damn medal on his ass!"
"Well, if we can't tell--"
"Shhhh! Brezhnev's here!"
"Okay."
"...I think that's his head."
"Shut up!"

Of course, being Fark the discussion went off in several directions.

The photo prompted one guy to recall a pot roast that his wife had incinerated.(and someone else went "I'll bet you left her black and blue for that mistake!") Another suggested that a decent mortician could have tidied up the remains .....

The obvious reference was to Major Tom:

And then on to the Apollo capsule fire and the Challenger disaster, both being partly attributable to groupthink and not wanting to tell superiors about safety concerns.

Interestingly there was quite a range of what people recalled about Challenger, particularly as to what we were told about whether the astronauts were alive/conscious on the way down. Some believed that the crew capsule was found intact (it actually disintegrated on impact and was reassembled from debris).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078062/ns/technology_and_science-space/

But even if the crew cabin had survived intact, wouldn’t the violent pitching and yawing of the cabin as it descended toward the ocean created G-forces so strong as to render the astronauts unconscious?

That may have once been believed. But that was before the investigation turned up the key piece of evidence that led to the inescapable conclusion that they were alive: On the trip down, the commander and pilot’s reserved oxygen packs had been turned on by astronaut Judy Resnik, seated directly behind them. Furthermore, the pictures, which showed the cabin riding its own velocity in a ballistic arc, did not support an erratic, spinning motion. And even if there were G-forces, commander Dick Scobee was an experienced test pilot, habituated to them.

The evidence led experts to conclude the seven astronauts lived. They worked frantically to save themselves through the plummeting arc that would take them 2 minutes and 45 seconds to smash into the ocean.

William Flew on Fark 18 March

Today's interesting Fark thread discussed the benefits of red wine as a protection against radiation.
http://www.fark.com/comments/6040286/Apropos-of-nothing-too-much-red-wine-protects-against-radiation

Obviously relevant with Japanese power stations in danger of meltdown and releasing radioactivity.
Debate got off to a good start with first commenter referring to the Neil Diamond song "what about red red wine?"


Then we had suggestions for positive action: "So, should I send a case of pinot noir to Japan?" answered by "Haven't they suffered enough?" while others reckoned that it meant they could stand in the reactor with a hose for a week without harm.


At this stage the inevitable nit-picker stuck his head in "They found that one chemical in red wine when combined with acetyl and injected into a mouse protected it from some radiation damage. That's not the same thing as getting the benefit by drinking wine. Not that there isn't enough reason to drink wine anyway... just saying... that's not whet they found and not what they claimed to have found."


This is getting pretty close to trolling, so it was justly ignored. Nobody really cared about how accurate or realistic the article was, it was the principle of the thing that appealed.


Another commenter gave us this dialog to illustrate the way the message gets garbled:


Scientist: It seems evidence points that an isolated compound might help to prevent the common cold.

Journalist: Neat-o! Is this compound found in anything we normally consume?

Scientist: Yes, red wine, but you'd have to consume 300 glasses of wine to to absorb enough of the compound to be of any potential benefit. Furthermore, the testing and trials are still in early stages, as there are many variables involved. It's really too soon to make any claims.

Journalist: HEY GUYS, RED WINE PREVENTS AND CURES THE COMMON COLD!
Wine Industry Publicist: BUY OUR CRAP IT'S A MIRACLE CURE!

Scientist: ...


Then thread diverted slightly "Actually very few people can tell the difference between a white and red by taste. If you were given a blind test of wine, you probably would have no idea." This was met with scorn from some who were absolutely sure they could tell the difference.


This may be the dumbest claim I've ever read on fark, and I read a lot of fark.

If you have a valid citation to back this up, I'd be astonished.


In 2001, Frederic Brochet conducted two experiments at the University of Bordeaux.

In one experiment, he got 57 wine experts together and had them taste one glass of red wine and one glass of white wine. He had them describe each wine in as much detail as their expertise would allow.

What he didn't tell them was both were the same wine. He just dyed the white one red.

In the other experiment, he asked the experts to rate two different bottles of red wine. One was very expensive, the other was cheap.

Again, he tricked them. This time he had put the cheap wine in both bottles.

So, what were the results?

The experts in the first experiment, the one with the dyed wine, described the sorts of berries and grapes and tannins they could detect in the red wine just as if it really was red. Every single one, all 57, could not tell it was white.

In the second experiment, the one with the switched labels, the experts went on and on about the cheap wine in the expensive bottle. They called it "complex" and "rounded." They called the same wine in the cheap bottle "weak" and "flat."


Yet another study has tasters rate cheese eaten with two different wines. One they were told was from California, the other from North Dakota. The same wine was in both bottles. The tasters rated the cheese they ate with the California wine as being better quality, and they ate more of it.

What this points out is the nasty beast of expectation.

Expectation, as it turns out, is just as important as raw sensation. The build up to an experience can completely change how you interpret the information reaching your brain from your otherwise objective senses.

Your expectations powerfully influence the final vote in your head over what you believe to be reality.

Your expectations are the horse, and your experience is the cart. You get this backwards all the time because you are not so smart.


You learn something new every day.


More stuff on drink here