Starship Asterisk*

BeautifulUniverse wrote:Isn't it interesting how "objective" astronomers and scientists will project their own fundamental worldviews to how they describe space phenomena? In the above picture, dust and gas (fertile cosmic soil) becomes refined due to natural processes to ignite a star, which then continues its evolution. But the astronomer implies, darkly (without realizing it), that the dust bodies are living beings being killed by the stars they create.

This is how it is in most of astronomy ... from galaxies cannibalizing one another (instead of beautifully merging), black holes consuming voraciously (black despite they are the brightest phenomenon in the universe, and destructive despite that they unify the whole galaxy together), to supernova being stars 'death-throws', instead of just another evolutionary phase ... evolution which creates all life ...

Such astronomers project the idea that death, destruction, and competition are the fundamental principles underlying all of Nature ... ignoring the harmony, cooperation, and inter-dependence that support universal evolution ...

geckzilla wrote:

Beyond wrote:

geckzilla wrote:

Geckzilla, I hope you've got a few of those smilies on hand. You may be wearing them out pretty Fast!!

Chris Peterson wrote:

BeautifulUniverse wrote:Isn't it interesting how "objective" astronomers and scientists will project their own fundamental worldviews to how they describe space phenomena? In the above picture, dust and gas (fertile cosmic soil) becomes refined due to natural processes to ignite a star, which then continues its evolution. But the astronomer implies, darkly (without realizing it), that the dust bodies are living beings being killed by the stars they create.

This is how it is in most of astronomy ... from galaxies cannibalizing one another (instead of beautifully merging), black holes consuming voraciously (black despite they are the brightest phenomenon in the universe, and destructive despite that they unify the whole galaxy together), to supernova being stars 'death-throws', instead of just another evolutionary phase ... evolution which creates all life ...

Such astronomers project the idea that death, destruction, and competition are the fundamental principles underlying all of Nature ... ignoring the harmony, cooperation, and inter-dependence that support universal evolution ...

Astronomers are human, too! And these kinds of expressions have a power in written language that makes them good choices in forums like this. Of course, these concepts aren't found in the underlying science. Scientists certainly introduce an element of the subjective into their research, as well. But what distinguishes science from other approaches to knowledge, and shows its tremendous power, is how little of that subjectivity makes it through into the actual knowledge base that is produced.

Sam wrote:For me, clicking on the link for "evaporating" caused a loud "What are you doing Sam?" to be blared across an otherwise silent computer lab.

Anthony Barreiro wrote:Scientists generally aspire to freedom from subjective values, and the scientific method provides means of assessing and critiquing the subjectivity of findings and interpretations. But science is an inherently human enterprise, and scientists are just as subjective and just as driven by personal values as anybody else.

BeautifulUniverse wrote:Isn't it interesting how "objective" astronomers and scientists will project their own fundamental worldviews to how they describe space phenomena? ...

Chris Peterson wrote:

Anthony Barreiro wrote:Scientists generally aspire to freedom from subjective values, and the scientific method provides means of assessing and critiquing the subjectivity of findings and interpretations. But science is an inherently human enterprise, and scientists are just as subjective and just as driven by personal values as anybody else.

It it wasn't clear, that was exactly my point. Individual scientists are inevitably influenced by subjective choices; science as a method, however, is very effective at removing these biases, so that our knowledge base is much more objective.

Anthony Barreiro wrote:At the risk of earning the "beating a dead horse" icon, I disagree that the scientific method is completely effective at removing biases.

Hi Judy - Oli Usher (ESA/Hubble) here - generally we do remove ghosts. We didn't do so in this case, but there's no particular reason. Sorry that's not a very satisfying answer!

poppafiji wrote:Since the "evaporating blobs" are actually dust particles and not liquid, shouldn't they be called "sublimating blobs" instead?

Chris Peterson wrote:

poppafiji wrote:
Since the "evaporating blobs" are actually dust particles and not liquid, shouldn't they be called "sublimating blobs" instead?

Evaporation is a better term. Sublimation almost always refers to a phase change between solid and gas states (which is not happening here). Evaporation is much more general, and is not restricted to a phase change from liquid to gas, but includes dissipation in the form of particles.

PoppaFiji wrote:Thanks, Chris, for your response, which implies there is no phase change occurring here, only the dissipation of particles (from dense clouds into space?). Is that correct?

Chris Peterson wrote:

PoppaFiji wrote:
Thanks, Chris, for your response, which implies there is no phase change occurring here, only the dissipation of particles (from dense clouds into space?). Is that correct?

Well, there's a lot of energy in an area like that, so undoubtedly there is some material undergoing phase changes there. But the structures we see are simply the result of gas and dust dissipating, both by diffusion and under the forces of stellar winds.

Poppafiji wrote:Thanks, again, Chris. When I think of this gas and dust dissipating into the space of the host galaxy, and when one considers all of the nebulae and other regions within the galaxy where this is occurring, one can easily conclude that there is quite a substantial amount of mass that has been dissipated into the space of the host galaxy. My understanding is that the concept of dark matter was introduced to account for the extra mass needed to reconcile the angular rotational behavior of spiral galaxies. Do you know whether the mass of the dissipated gas and dust was considered when the requirement for dark matter was proposed?