Green Baron

If you ever see a cumulus cloud with two boots sticking out, it is a probably a paraglider. Yes, they know the minimums. So ?

Its a telescope. No vibrations. A softly humming pump circulates the helium.

A few days ago i participated in a guided tour around the observatory here. Before i thought that dark- and bias frame subtraction was mainly an amateur thing, because of the lower quality sensors and electronics. Wrong. The professionals do the same thing. Biggest difference, especially for infrared imaging, is the sensor temperature and shielding, e.g. from thermal radiation from the housing/cupola. While an amateur sensor can be cooled to -20 to -40°C below ambient, they cool their sensors down to ~70K (~ -200°C). Liquid Helium is a cost factor ... Brrrrr ... sniff :-)

We should construct a cladogram based on morphological traits to find out which ones are inherited and which ones are derived. This way we should be able to deduct the relations between and phylogeny of sandwiches, tacos, bocadillos, canapés, heated canids, etc. :-)

2897

@Delay: i read a humorous/ironic text, i think it was in a developer forum titled "Python is for losers" or so, stating that if you want to accomplish something, hands off from engines and scripting and do it right(tm). This is, of course, not the whole truth. But maybe it comforts you :-) Complaint: am trying to wrap my head around a continuous distance dependent level of detail algorithm (say it 3 times very fast). It just won't do. Too many things at once for a novice like me. Every time i think i made a step forward something new pops up and laughs at me. One day i'll have it, hopefully :-) Don't attack too many levels of difficulty (LOD) at once if you're not really persistent at it ....

This idea has been thematised for example by Stanislaw Lem in his scifi novel "Fiasko", a book that combines a criticism of communication difficulties as well as of the madness of war in space. I would principally agree with that, there is no guarantee that another evolution takes a similar path, but i would also say that a sedentary organism (of which we had and have quite a few on earth) lacks part of the pressure to develop manipulation organs and planning abilities. But that is only a thought. And i still say: same material + similar processes ~= similar outcome. Wow, an equation What i want to say as well that many people actually assume the existence of ET & consorts a priory, and there is the problem that creates the paradox. The whole "problem" becomes non-existent if we all lean back and wait until a real world positive. IRL, there is no paradox, it only exists through our stomping feet that there must be whoever.

Part of the variation processes (mutation) can actually be described as random, the selection part of evolution is not. Selection gives a better probability for procreation to those who are a little more "fit" under given conditions. Evolution has a lot of mass to play with, it can afford the fact that most of its experiments (mutations) go wrong, some even are unable to survive. Similar structures (convergence or analogies, for your dolphin it is homology, its bones, lungs, brain, etc. are all those of a mammal, not of a fish. A dolphin is not fish-like, rather elephant-like !) are not necessarily a sign of selection. Structures can be interdependent, the one does not come without the other, only one of them actually being the selective criterion, not the other, for example because the material demands so or the rest of the organism cannot function properly without it. Nothing is best adapted, that would actually be the end of an evolutionary branch. No more selection. Only "good enough" with a little variation in individuals or part of a population, enough that the experiments carry on. That is what makes it so successful. Yeah, it is a vast field. Look up homology and analogy in convergent evolution for the details :-)

Looks like: http://www.2857.org.uk/ ----------- 2861. A cpu ?

Yeah, who knows what the brain is good for. But attributing usefulness to a structure is close to seeing a plan. Evolution does not plan, but it can freely experiment through variation, discard through selection, etc. The relatively big brain happened in mammals at some time, and rapidly developed further in primates. Arguing "it is good for something" is misusing our standing today, as we have occupied many niches and eliminated most of the competition and reduced other occupants or completely replaced them. Other humans before had even bigger brains, but did not have as much influence. For an archaeologist it is easy to imagine humanoids with super big brains occupying a landscape for 200.000 years without leaving much of a trace, not talking about electromagnetic signals to the stellar environment. All that probability arguing does not help. We.need.data. :-)

The GTC (10.4m mirror, largest optical single mirror telescope today) rests on a very thin oil film. Though it weighs 385 tons it can easily be pushed by hand. I checked during a guided tour.

Most of us are, i'd say. The elements aren't rare and they are well-, maybe best-suited for the "job". The paper @tater linked is really a good read. Filling uncertainties with speculations (that's what these equations do) and assuming the existence before looking at the detail is not helpful. We understand the processes on earth quite well and have a reasonable overview from ~3.7Gy to now, though many things are in discussion and flow. Besides the availability of the necessary elements physics are the same everywhere. So assuming similar processes isn't totally unreasonable, though speculative. Only, there is no new insight in going that path, before we actually find or detect something real that then would need explanation. It only leads to nonsense like megastructures that blur the view on reality. imo

Yep. Or in simple words: microbes may not be a big deal, a billions of years lasting constant evolution surely is. We do not know if there are other mechanisms that provide a long term stability than the ones we observe for our case. A moon may not be necessary, but it helped maintaining stability. Gas giants may not be necessary, but it helped keeping the lawn clean(er). Tectonics may not be necessary, but without we'd need other mechanisms to provide and renew the elements on the surface. But this is all speculation.

... or if civs just do not emerge like mushrooms, and if they do they soon reach a carrying capacity and go headlong, or if the whole concept of interstellar space travel is just a concept that is too hard or impossible to realize, which still is a pretty good bet, imo, as sorry as i am about it ... Missing data ...

Unfortunately the Drake equation has no empirical basis and cannot be used for conclusions, wikipedia has it as a "probabilistic argument", which imo hits the point quite well. It can be used in the media, or to talk money out of potential sponsors. A heated discussion on the topic took place here some time ago:

Because i am in the mood :-)

Imagine Jellinek's daughter's name was Edith ...

Mercedes is actually a female first name. It was the name of the daughter of Emil Jellinek, a rich guy and aristocrat who did races with Daimler motor cars at the end of the 19th century in France (i think) and appeared on the list with the pseudonym "Mercedes", his daughter's first name. This name became so popular (and he actually started to design engines for Daimler motor company) that the cars were branded as Daimler Mercedes in ~1900. Or so. Later name changes and rebranding have washed that away, as well as the names of Lenoir, Otto, Benz and Maybach, who played decisive roles. Only Daimler has "survived". And no, i don't own a Mercedes. Too expensive, too heavy, too big. I own a small Toyota. Karl Schwarzschild is one of my favourites. Nobody gets it right. :-)

It is already now. But "measure" doesn't always refer to a 1m-ruler. There are more sophisticated methods to "measure" something. I do not understand what you want, my friend. We said "it might be infinite", which is a real possibility. We may one day find out for sure. Both, the hypothesis ("we assume that it is infinite") and the methods to find out (is it flat, is it expanding, slower or faster, value of a cosmological constant, plus those who still need to be invented) are well within the boundaries of proper natural science. And one day we will know, or not. Relax. Everything's fine. And find out more. It may be worth it :-)

This is one of your jokes, right ? If it is finite, then one day we can measure it. Next question ? (Pop science article)