Which planet do you find more interesting for studying and exploration? (Page 6) LiptonCambell: Didja know about the strange Hexagon they found on Saturn? http://tinyurl.com/bnavk7x LiptonCambell: It's a complete mystery as to what it is or why its there, or even if it has any significance,.... LiptonCambell: You ever watch History Channels "The Universe"? I thought it'd be about everything in existence- you know, how a muffler works and how the sun works- but its just celestial objects and such.... ...Anyways, they go over alot of the legitimate mysteries that plague real scientists....they also have an episode or 4 dedicated to junk science, like what would aliens look like, but even those sound alright, because they talk about how heavy gravity would effect their evolution and such.... Still, its an interesting show- they talk about shit like how the spot on Jupiter confounds people, because its goes AGAINST the movement of the other clouds, and such....definitely worth a watch- almost on par to those "Planet Earth" shows...  StuckInTheSixties: I don't have cable or satellite TV, so I don't. But the little I've seen of the History Channel was pretty unimpressive ... no ... let me amend that ... I was VERY impressed. I was impressed with how dumb it was, and how anti-educational it was. I was over at a friend's house, and he was surfing around the TV a little bit, and we landed on the History Channel. We watched a segment on a purported UFO incident in 1962, when supposedly there was a sighting in Washington, DC, USAF jets were scrambled, etc. We then watched another segment on a supposed scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin. Both segments had the same tone. Lots of stuff that was anything but scientific, yet was presented in a way that SUGGESTED that it was science, with interviews authoritative experts wearing lab coats that were actually just some silly dorks like those that have silly websites all over the internet. Both had really dramatic, sinister music soundtracks, and narrators with deep, overly melodramatic sonorous voices. Both summed up at the end the same way, with the narrator saying something like: "While we may never know if the [UFOs/Shroud] is authentic, it certainly causes one to wonder ...  "Both were basically half-hour programs that spelled out ridiculous speculations sprinkled with a little science-flavored skepticism, and ended telling you that there was no answer. It was intellectual chewing gum. It was just jive. LiptonCambell: Lol well this show, like I said, is more like that "Planet Earth" show....the later seasons they get desperate, but the entire first season goes on in great detail each planet, with an episode dedicated to the planet, how it formed, what its like, ect ect- and following seasons explain things like Pulsars, Quasars, Black holes, and all those fancy thingys. A personal favourite of mine is the "strange liquids" episode, where they describe how on different planets and moons, they have Methane lakes, or how if you dive deep enough into Jupiter, there's an Ocean of a certain gas(which it was escapes me) that, under the pressure of Jupiter seems to form a liquid that's hotter than the surface of the sun.... Again, as the show went on it got worse and worse, but they originally had actual scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Alex Filippenko , and Michio Kaku StuckInTheSixties: MIchio Kaku is the guy all of these shows and news programs go to because he's got a speaking style that's super-dramatic. I've seen him stoop pretty low in shows like we're talking about. What's his name ... Mega organ or something ... linked to a video where he purportedly spoke about the certainty of super-intelligent technological aliens out there somewhere. Mega distorted what was actually said, but still, Kaku stuck to a script that dramatically inflated the notion of the POSSIBILITY of such, speaking very ethusiastically and dramatically, and in great detail about what those aliens would be like, what sort of technology they might have, etc. before finally getting to the reality that there's no real proof, we don't actually know for certain, etc. After seeing that, the guy, and his name, stuck in my mind, and when I saw him in other situations, I payed attention. I've come to the conclusion that he's made a cottage industry for himself as the go-to guy for television when you want a guy that has credentials, but also is willing to do that tightrope walk of hyping up the sensationalistic aspects of those "what if" type stories while finally dropping in the more rational, more objective "we may never know" punch line at the end. I saw him do a some seqment on "2012" where he spent most of his time explaining how terrible all of the supposedly possible calamities might be, how destructive earthquakes would be, tsunamis, famine, solar flares wrecking the power grid, etc. etc. etc. before finally saying something like, "Yet, there's no evidence that it'll actually happen ..." So I don't have a great deal of respect for the guy. Tyson, on the other hand, when asked about controversial subjects, delivers the straight, non-deluted-with-sensationalism science. He's got a great style of speaking. He's sort of taken the mantle from Carl Sagan in what he's doing, in that he sticks to the science, yet has a really palatable, compelling way of explaining stuff. I'm sure if you asked him about 2012, he'd just laugh and say it's stupid. (Edited by StuckInTheSixties) LiptonCambell: He is delightful. But the jist of what I'm trying to say is this; The show "The Universe" is an excellent program....for about the first 2 or 3 seasons.....it is very informative and enjoyable- I hope you look past the channel its on and at least look into it... StuckInTheSixties: I don't have cable or satellite television, so I only rarely get to see it. (shrugs) LiptonCambell: Me either....I watch it through other means, though I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to discuss it here...  oh_good_laughs: Yes, spelled illegal wrong.. I am too used to the spellcheck, underlinine thing, that i payed no attention before i clicked.  (Post deleted by staff ) DiscoDub31: Jupiter's moon Europa and Saturns moon Titan. Both might have liquid water beneath their surface. (Edited by DiscoDub31) LiptonCambell: Lol Titan has liquid Methane....it'd be a terrible place to visit, with a temperature of -179 degrees C..... DiscoDub31: Ok, then maybe we should give Titan a pass then. -179 degrees sounds a lil chilly. I might be wrong but wouldnt every planet that we know of either be extremely hot or extremely cold compared to here? I still think we should go tho, well thats my opinion. StuckInTheSixties: On the surface, yeah. But Europa is thought to have a water ocean beneath it's frozen crust, and the hypothesis proposes that heat energy from tidal flexing causes the ocean to remain liquid and drives geological activity similar to plate tectonics. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon) (Post deleted by staff ) | Science Chat Room Similar Conversations |
