Habitable Worlds Around Binary Star Systems might not match Sci-fi

It's hard to talk about planets in binary (dual) star systems without mentioning Star Wars: A New Hope.  The famous scene of Luke Skywalker standing and looking off into the distance while two suns appear near the horizon is iconic.  However, there's a problem with that iconic scene.  The problem is a not full-fledged error, just an unlikelihood: both suns appear as the same size in the sky in very close proximity to each other.  The reason this is unlikely is due to the two types of planetary orbits in binary star systems: s-type and p-type.  A planet in either type of binary system would rarely see both suns as the same size in the sky and that close to each other, even if the suns are the same size.

S-type is the name for the orbit of a planet that revolves around just one of the two stars within a binary system. P-type is the name for the orbit of a planet that revolves around both stars within a binary system, having a common barycenter (or center of mass) with the suns as the suns orbit around each other.^[001]

S-type orbits are interesting, but for this article, I'll cover P-type because this is more interesting to me when talking about Habitable Zones, particularly where the suns have similar masses.  Of course, even with p-type orbits, there exist many possible varieties for how the suns can orbit each other.

The ability of a planet to maintain liquid water depends on the interaction between stellar radiation and the top of its atmosphere.  Also, that interaction is complicated in a binary system.  There can be substantial difference in energy received by the dual suns.  Sometimes both suns appear side by side in the sky, providing maximum energy.   However, when one sun is eclipsed by the other, the amount of energy is lessened due to the closer sun blocking the stellar radiation from its partner.^[001]

In either case, this variation in stellar radiation can limit how small a planet's orbit can be around the dual suns and still be capable of harboring life.   As stated in Calculating the Habitable Zone of Binary Start Systems II: P-Type Binaries:

This interaction strongly depends on the stellar spectral energy distributions implying that stars with different energy distributions will contribute differently to the absolute incident flux at the top of the planet’s atmosphere.^[001]

Even with all of these factors, planet formation within the Habitable Zone of a binary system would be similar to that of a singular star system.^[001]

Two suns of similar mass with elliptical orbits around a common barycenter

   Two suns of similar mass in the same orbit around a common barycenter

Where two suns are of the same size, their location to the planet can vary greatly depending on the size of their orbit around their common barycenter.  If there is a wide orbit, it is safe to assume that one sun will provide more energy than the other sun which is farther away.  In this case, the further sun would appear smaller in size within the sky, even though both suns are of the same mass.  The graphics above suggest why the iconic Star Wars scene isn't likely accurate.  The scene is possible maybe one or two times per year if the suns are in similar orbits which are tight and circular; or in rare instances where the suns have elliptical orbits and the planet just happens to be in the right place at the right time.

Sidebar

Here's a close up of Alpha Centauri A and B. Their distance from each other can be as much as 11 AU's, which would make a p-type planetary orbit so large, that habitable planets would be unlikely.  Planets have been discovered in s-type orbits around Alpha Centauri B and their sibling Proxima Centauri.

HZ reference:
N. Haghighipour, L. Kaltenegger, The Astrophysical Journal, 777 (Nov., 2013) 166, arXiv:1306.2890 [astro-ph.EP], Calculating the Habitable Zone of Binary Star Systems II: P-Type Binaries 

Response:
Hacker News
Reddit
Twitter

Article Series:

• Limited lifespan of Habitable Zones around other stars [and a loosely held secret finally revealed about me]
• Small stars may have stable Habitable Zones, but habitable planets might not be common there
• Habitable Planets around White Dwarfs
• Habitable Worlds Around Binary Star Systems might not match Sci-fi
• How many Earth-like planets are orbiting Sun-like stars?
• First round of life in the Universe might have been possible extremely early
• Factors a planet needs for suitability of life; perhaps
• "Goldilocks zone of metallicity" on a galactic scale
• Maybe we are the first

Habitable Planets around White Dwarfs

The white dwarf G29-38 (NASA)

Out of all the odd scenarios that might be possible in our Universe, the thought that there might be habitable planets around White Dwarfs is one of the stranger ideas, in my opinion.  Imagine what it would be like to look up to see a White Dwarf dominating the daytime sky.  How close would the planet have to be to the star to receive enough light and energy to support life?  How would a planet find itself within the Habitable Zone around a White Dwarf?

This last question is particularly interesting because White Dwarfs are the remains of a Red Giants.  Red Giants are the last phase of fusion based main sequence stars.  Between White Dwarf, Red Giant and main sequence phases, a star changes so drastically that it is unlikely planets close to the star would survive into the next phase.  Some very interesting things need to happen for a planet to form within the Habitable Zone of a White Dwarf.

With main sequence stars, the Habitable Zone slows moves away from the star because the star slowly gets hotter.  A planet that starts out within the Habitable Zone of a young main sequence stars may not remain within the Habitable Zone for the full length of that star's life-cycle.^[001] [002] Oddly enough, White Dwarfs have the exact opposite problem.  White Dwarfs cool down as they age.^[003]  Habitable Zones around White Dwarfs will shrink until being too small for any sizable planet to exist within it.

The Habitable Zone around a White Dwarf is very small compared to that of Sun.  The Habitable Zone around Sun is roughly between the orbits of Venus and Mars.  The Habitable Zone around a White Dwarf is much closer than even the orbit of Mercury around Sun.^[003]  It seems a planet that close to a White Dwarf cannot exist without some special events.

How do planets get to the Habitable Zone?

A planet could have existed in the previous solar system during the main sequence star phase, but much further out; so far out that it may not have been previously habitable.  When the main sequence star expands to become a Red Giant, then explodes to leave a White Dwarf, the planet would have to move from the outer reaches of the solar system to a stable close orbit.  This sounds incredible, but apparently it is possible since planets have been discovered around Neutron Stars, which go thru even more violence.^[003]

Another possible scenario is it the matter ejected from the exploding Red Giant, or other remaining debris within the solar system somehow creates a new accretion disk around the newly formed White Dwarf, from which new planets could form.^[003]

Water Cycle

Even if either of these scenarios do happen, a water related challenge presents itself.  A lot water must somehow remain or be (re)introduced on these special planets.  Water is likely stripped from any existing planet that moves so close to the White Dwarf.^[004]  Water is also unlikely to be available on any planet that forms so close to any star, White Dwarf or otherwise.  Maybe these planets could gather new water via the same processes as Earth, possibly "delivered to by a barrage of comets."^[003]

If a planet is lucky enough to form around a White Dwarf, what's that White Dwarf going to look like in the sky?  White Dwarfs have a lot of mass, but they are very small in size.  White Dwarfs are about the same size as Earth.^[005]  By my rough calculations, the Habitable Zone around a White Dwarf is about 5 times the distance of Earth to the Moon.  So, I image the White Dwarf would appear several times smaller in the sky as the Earth appears to the Moon.  Maintaining habitability of planet around a White Dwarf might be a bit like trying to keep warm outside on a freezing night next to a slowly fading campfire.

Primary reference:
A Loeb, D Maoz, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, Volume 432, Issue 1, p.11-15, arXiv:1301.4994 [astro-ph.EP], Detecting bio-markers in habitable-zone earths transiting white dwarfs

Article Series:

• Limited lifespan of Habitable Zones around other stars [and a loosely held secret finally revealed about me]
• Small stars may have stable Habitable Zones, but habitable planets might not be common there
• Habitable Planets around White Dwarfs
• Habitable Worlds Around Binary Star Systems might not match Sci-fi
• How many Earth-like planets are orbiting Sun-like stars?
• First round of life in the Universe might have been possible extremely early
• Factors a planet needs for suitability of life; perhaps
• "Goldilocks zone of metallicity" on a galactic scale
• Maybe we are the first

Small stars may have stable Habitable Zones, but habitable planets might not be common there

Protoplanetary accretion disk around a new star

The previous article Limited lifespan of Habitable Zones around other stars (September 2016) covered the topic of Habitable Zones for planets around other solar systems.  However, Habitable Zones are only one of considerations for finding other stars with habitable planets.  Given the lack of data right now, sometimes science has to fall back on simulations.  These simulations do not replace actual observations.  Instead, they offer clues as to how we may be proceed in our search for hard data.

Habitable Zones appear to be more stable and longer lasting around small stars, such as Red Dwarfs.^[001]  However, what are the chances of habitable planets appearing in these small zones around these small stars?  It turns out that the chances may not be good.

According to the study A Decreased Probability Of Habitable Planet Formation Around Low-Mass Stars, multiple simulations suggest that low-mass stars are unlikely to have terrestrial planets of sufficient size within their Habitable Zones.  This is due to a several factors.  That's not to say it is impossible nor improbable; just not as common as previous thought.^[002]

Other factors

Besides Habitable Zones, another factor to consider is the Habitable Planet Mass Limit.  There is evidence that suggests that plate tectonic activity on a global level is a necessary factor for supporting life on a planet similar to Earth.  Planets must be of a particular size in order to allow for global tectonics.^[002]  The lack or presence of global tectonics seems to be a factor in the differences between Venus and Earth.  Though Venus seems to be large enough, its surface heals too quickly to allow for global tectonics.^[003]   The examples within our own solar system suggest that even when planets are large enough, there is no guarantee they will have global tectonics.

Another factor is the Protoplanetary Disk.  During the planet formation phase (accretion), there has to be enough material within the disk of matter that forms around very young stars (Protoplanetary Disk) in order produce larger planets.  Though there are a lot of unknowns regarding this factor, the "ratio of disk mass to stellar mass is roughly constant with stellar mass".  Also, planets seem to form much faster around small stars for various reasons.  With less time to form and less mass within the Protoplanetary Disk, planets around low-mass stars may typically be much smaller.  A second issue with fast forming planets is that they are much less likely to have enough time to collect enough water to support life.^[002]

Exceptions?

Nothing is absolute.  Gliese 581 is a Red Dwarf that has a number of large planets, and also has a debris disk that appears to have tens times amount of comet debris than our own Solar System.  This suggests low-mass stars can have habitable planets.  That said, Gliese 581 may be an outlier.  Other factors are obviously involved that need further study.

Primary reference:
S. N. Raymond, J. Scalo and V. S. Meadows, The Astrophysical Journal 669 (Nov., 2007) 606–614, arXiv:0707.1711 [astro-ph], A Decreased Probability of Habitable Planet Formation around Low-Mass Stars

Response:
Hacker News

Article Series:

• Limited lifespan of Habitable Zones around other stars [and a loosely held secret finally revealed about me]
• Small stars may have stable Habitable Zones, but habitable planets might not be common there
• Habitable Planets around White Dwarfs
• Habitable Worlds Around Binary Star Systems might not match Sci-fi
• How many Earth-like planets are orbiting Sun-like stars?
• First round of life in the Universe might have been possible extremely early
• Factors a planet needs for suitability of life; perhaps
• "Goldilocks zone of metallicity" on a galactic scale
• Maybe we are the first

Limited lifespan of Habitable Zones around other stars [and a loosely held secret finally revealed about me]

Habitable Zone around a Red Dwarf star

I've been fascinated by the idea of planets around other stars since I was young.  In fact, I developed several fictional solar systems, one of which became the basis for an online gaming and science fiction club.  That solar system is called Greeop System,^[001]  which inspired the development of many more solar systems and formed the basis of many gaming and fictional story plots.^[002]

At some point, I stumbled across the book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon In The Universe (2000), which is one of the earliest sources that discusses the idea of Habitable Zones around stars.  

What's a Habitable Zone?  If a terrestrial planet orbits its sun at just the right distance, that sun provides the right amount of light and other energy to make life more likely, given several other factors.  If a planet is too close to its sun, it is likely too hot.  If a planet is too far from its sun, it is likely too cold.  This is why Habitable Zones are sometimes called Goldilocks Zones, in reference to the fairy tale Goldilocks and the Three Bears and finding options that are "just right" between two extremes.

In the past decade, the concept of Habitable Zone has been refined.  From the study Habitable Zone Lifetimes of Exoplanets around Main Sequence Stars, it is now often defined similar to,

...the circumstellar distance at which surface temperatures allow liquid water to be present on the planet’s surface, assuming variable H2O/CO2/CH4 greenhouse forcings.  The Habitable Zone has a minimum and maximum extent, forming inner (closer to the star) and outer boundaries that are set in part by biogeochemical climate feedback mechanisms and stellar luminosity.^[003]

Yeah, Goldilocks metaphor seems to get the point across easier.  The question is, what's "just right" for life?  Star size and age appear to play the substantial roles in setting the limits of a Habitable Zone.  Not only is the Habitable Zone different between large and small stars, it can move over the life-cycle of a star. For example, main sequence stars gradually output more energy over billions of years.  A planet that initially forms within the Habitable Zone of a young star might not remain in the Habitable Zone later in the star's life-span. It is predicted that our Sun will be so hot in 1.75B years, surface water will no longer be possible on Earth, presumably making life on Earth no longer sustainable.^[003]

If a planet has the right conditions and resides within the Habitable Zone, life still has to appear and evolve in some sort of sequence.  Taking Earth as the only example we have,

... this stepwise progression began with the origin of life, continued through the transition from replicating molecules to RNA and then DNA [1B years after Earth formation], from prokaryotes to eukaryotes [1.5 to 2.5B yrs after Earth formation] and cell differentiation [3.5 to 4B yrs after Earth formation], and concluded with the final step from primate to human societies [4.54B years after Earth formation].^[003]

However, if just one of these steps takes a lot longer, there is a drastically lessened chance of having enough time to develop intelligent life similar to humans; assuming the march toward more intelligent creatures is inherent to the process of evolution on different planets.  Different stars may also extend or reduce the time-frame within which life may appear and develop.  Larger stars will have short Habitable Zone lifespans.  Smaller stars, such as Red Dwarfs may have very long and stable Habitable Zone lifespans.

Of course, a lot of this is based on assumptions that life on other planets will resemble life that formed on Earth.  Maybe life of different kinds exist in the Universe.^[004]  The rules may be different for different kinds of life.  Maybe Earth is extremely unusual. Worse, maybe we will not be able to immediately recognize other forms of life simply because it is so different from our experience.  As more information is gathered, these issues will hopefully be addressed.

Pirmary reference:
Andrew J. Rushby, Mark W. Claire, Hugh Osborn, and Andrew J. Watson. Astrobiology. September 2013, 13(9): 833-849. doi:10.1089/ast.2012.0938, Habitable Zone Lifetimes of Exoplanets around Main Sequence Stars.

Response:
Voat.co

Article Series:

• Limited lifespan of Habitable Zones around other stars [and a loosely held secret finally revealed about me]
• Small stars may have stable Habitable Zones, but habitable planets might not be common there
• Habitable Planets around White Dwarfs
• Habitable Worlds Around Binary Star Systems might not match Sci-fi
• How many Earth-like planets are orbiting Sun-like stars?
• First round of life in the Universe might have been possible extremely early
• Factors a planet needs for suitability of life; perhaps
• "Goldilocks zone of metallicity" on a galactic scale
• Maybe we are the first

Wind what?

What do you call that giant tower with spinning blades that produces electricity from wind?  Windmill?  Well, kinda, but not really.  The word "mill" that forms the latter portion of the word "windmill" is just that, a mill.  In this context, a mill is a machine that grinds and crushes something, such as grain.^MD There isn't a whole lot of grinding and crushing of anything when using a rotor to produce electricity.  It's really the opposite of a mill.

The definition of "turbine" is a bit more broad.  A turbine is a machine that converts the movement of a fluid into rotary motion.^TD  With that definition, a mill is a type of turbine.  However, a turbine is not necessarily a mill.

There is no specific word that provides a special name for an electricity producing turbine, so the word turbine itself is used.  Turbine is also used to name machines that make electricity from flowing water, such as those found at Hoover Dam.^HD   So, that giant tower with spinning blades that produces electricity is more correctly called a wind turbine.  A collection of wind turbines at one location are frequently referred to as "wind farms".

Another wind powered machine is the windpump, which is used to pump water.  Windpumps and windmills have been in use for about 1500 years, being first developed in the Persian region between A.D. 500 and 900.^WP  Wind turbines owe their existence to our long history of windmills and windpumps.  It's somewhat understandable that there is some confusion of terms.

Interesting modern examples of wind power in use

There's even a wind-powered record player!  Well, that's mostly art, but apparently it works well.  Then, there's this guy, William Kamkwamba, who built wind turbines and pumps for his village in Malawi at a time of famine and when such luxaries were only experienced by 2% of their population.

Trouble with Wikileaks emails from DNC: as far as I can tell, no "election manipulation" is actually in the emails

Anyone can go to the Wikileaks page and peruse through the DNC leaked emails.

You know what I've seen no one do? Look through the emails and talk about any actual evidence of election manipulation.  I've seen journalist use rather dicey innuendo regarding email content, but not much else.

Most of emails are just reports.  What conversations I've seen are just people expressing their opinions and/or making strategies in support of those opinions and desires (like how best to get certain points across to their constituents).  I've not seen anyone showing anything from the emails about rigging the primaries.

The party insiders are supposed to be neutral by their own party rules, but I don't really care about DNC or any party's rules.  I'm not a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Greenie, etc.  Even if I were, I still wouldn't care because I understand that people are people.  We Americans all have the rights to our own opinions, and the rights to pursue our own interests.  What would've suprized me?  Seeing every person in the DNC expressing complete neutrality regarding who is going to represent their party in the General Election.

The DNC rules aren't laws of the land. The only person that needs to be upset, maybe, is Sanders since he was working under one set of rules, and others where not.  In the end, it still just people expressing their opinions and trying to work towards goals they feel are best for their interests.  None of this has anything to do with me, and none of this is in anyway a "manipulation" of elections.

If someone can dig up something that shows election rigging, then we have a story, as well as an actual crime.  Maybe it is buried somewhere deep in the emails.   I've not see it.  I'd be interested to see if something like that pops up.   The fact that no journalist have dug it up suggests that it's just not there.

At this point, after looking through the emails myself, I'm forming the opinion that anyone that uses the terms "manipulate" or "rigged" in reference to the primary elections based on these emails is being dishonest or honestly doesn't know what they are talking about (which is still a form of dishonesty).

I'm also now of the opinion that Julian Assange, who has made several incendiary statements regarding the content of these emails, is full of nonsense.  What little good he did in the distant past is now been cancelled out by his modern behavior.

Greenland with Caribbean nations superimposed on a Mercator Projection map - (Greenland is not that big)

via Instagram http://ift.tt/29WduvX

Think again.

Americans think robots will take everyone's jobs except their own


 http://flip.it/2JIJ- 

Bendable phones next year (2017)

Samsung Rumored to Launch Fully Bendable Smartphones in 2017

http://flip.it/BJ3MZ

Killing of the Real-time Strategy game

Real time strategy (RTS) game is often defined by what it is not, rather than what it is.  When looking up real time strategy game, you'll often find it described as a strategy game that is not turned-based.¹  I find this tendency as funny.  Normally, something is defined by its characteristics, not the lack thereof.  A real time strategy game is a strategy game played in real time (hence the name) between two or more opposing teams.  Elements of real time strategy games typically include fighting units used for attack, harvesting units used to gather resources, structures of various functions, terrains of various properties that aid or reduce defense, unit spawning, hidden map areas until explored (fog of war), etc.

Command & Conquer
(famous RTS)

Generally, real time strategy games allow the player to control position of units on a field of play (map) with various types of terrain. Units can be assigned to act on specified targets.  For example, harvesting units can be assigned to collect resources at a specific location on the map.  Another example, fighting units can be assigned to attack (cause damage) on specified opponent's units.  Typically, units without specified targets will act autonomously in how they attack nearby opposing units or collect nearby resources.

One of the first real time strategy games is The Ancient Art of War, which was initially released in 1984.  I played this game for many hours.  I even also designed many of my own levels for this game.  Many games have followed.  Dune II is often considered the break-thru title that popularized real time strategy.  Prior to online gaming, many releases of real time strategy games supported diverse game-play possibilities.

An alternate viewpoint about real time strategy games can be found in the article What is a real-time strategy game? An exploration and definition.

Currently, real-time strategy games are looking like the proverbial red-headed step child of gaming. Fairly few RTS are being made any more (for a variety of reasons, but that is a topic for another article perhaps) and they tend not to sell particularly well, nor do most of them hold on to viable communities for considerable periods of time...

The author of this article laments that real time strategy games have not been particularly common or successful in recent years.

I found another article, Did the multiplayer online battle arena kill real-time strategy, that claims to explain why real time strategy games aren't be developed anymore, from a perspective of a Blizzard fan.  In this article, the cause is passively blamed on the popularization of massive multiplayer (MMO) online games.  I think this author is wrong.  He references events long after real time strategy games began to falter.  However, the popularization of online gaming is related to the demise of the real time strategy genre, it wasn't related to MMO's, such as World of Warcraft.

Real time strategy games seemed to be an excellent fit for online gaming.  Instead of being pitted against the limited AI, players are able to play against other humans.  However, instead of valuing the challenge of playing against humans with various strategies, a vocal set of players didn't want other humans to use other types of winning strategies against them. They wanted to limit all human players to the same strategies that they chose for themselves.

Developers unfortunately listened to these vocal users too much and reduced real time strategy games down to frantic rushes to resources and frantic rushes on opponent's bases with very repetitive build order of units and structures.  Instead of adding capabilities to increase the number of possible strategies (to better match the real world), developers reduced game play down to focus on one strategy.  The games were still tactical in how you faced units against each other, but they lost all sense of strategy.  With reduced game play possibilities, developers lost their ability to be innovative and bring in new inspiration into the subsequent real time strategy games.  Without the ability to expand playable strategies of real time strategy games, the genre has atrophied.

Lack of reproducibility of scientific papers getting attention

A lack of reproducibility of published scientific studies is finally getting recognition by the corporations (that seems to me to that could lose millions from bad research).  Academia seems a bit resist.  Source article:
 Reseach uncovering unreproducibility faces backlash 

I know English is evolving when I hear these words in a courtroom

I was recently snared into Jury Duty in Massachusetts.  This isn't so much an article about that.  Instead, this is about something I noticed while listening to the case before me and my 5 other jurors; word choices.

The first interesting word was uttered by the Prosecutor quoting the defendant who was fighting a DUI charge. The Prosecutor stated that the defendant pleaded with the arresting officer to cut him a break because he was not cocked.  This word cocked was used in a mocking manner by the prosecutor several times in his opening and closing arguments.

The second word that stood out was spoken by the Defense attorney.  While questioning the arresting officer, the Defense attorney asked about the likelihood of something-or-another.  What caught my attention is that he used the prolly, instead of prob'ly or probably.  The use of this word in such a formal manner struck me, since the word is still considered by many to be of the mythically inferior not-a-word status.

The last spoken element I picked up on was the Judge's use of the idiom begging-the-question.  I've written about the idiom begging-the-question quite recently.  There are two official definitions for the idiom.  The traditional definition is based on a logical fallacy.  The modern definition is an alternative for raises-the-question; this was Judge's use that day.  It is interesting to note that both definitions appear in dictionaries now.

There is increased awareness of general problem with #scientific studies right now, with #preclinical at the crux

Over reliance on study conclusions and flaws within scientific studies is a troubling problem that is recently getting more attention, finally.

The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research study states,

Flawed preclinical studies create false hope for patients waiting for lifesaving cures; moreover, they point to systemic and costly inefficiencies in the way preclinical studies are designed, conducted, and reported. Because replication and cumulative knowledge production are cornerstones of the scientific process, these widespread accounts are scientifically troubling.

The problems go beyond preclinical studies.  I've approached this topic before in two previous articles.

• "To good to be true" - Criticism of scientific studies grows
• Reason why I'm skeptical of Skepticism

As more studies and data are revealed about this issue, the problem seems to be far worse than some may have believed.  This most recent study suggests that 50% of preclinical studies are plagued with errors which prevent their results from being reproduced.  As any high school graduate should know, reproducibility of a study's result is the cornerstone of the Scientific Method.  Anyone must be able to use the same methods of the study to find similar results.  If results cannot be reproduced, the study has no scientific value and cannot be used as a reference or source for further discovery.

To sound the alarm even louder, Nature's article Irreproducible biology research costs put at $28 billion per year cites that as much as 89% of studies may have irreproducible results.  They state,

Overall, the team [study researchers] found that poor materials made the largest contribution to reproducibility problems, at 36%, followed by study design at 28% and data analysis at 26%. The team estimates the overall rate of irreproducibility at 53%, but cautions that the true rate could be anywhere between 18% and 89%. That puts the potential economic cost of irreproducibility anywhere from $10 billion to $50 billion per year.

This is a problem that needs to be tackled.  It is costing billions of dollars, and perhaps putting lives at risk.

The stars can affect your life...well, one star in particular may help trigger strokes

There is a lack of respect in skeptic circles regarding Astrology and the ability of the stars to affect our lives.  Skepticism is sound, for the most part.  However, one star in particular cannot only affect our lives, it can kill or maim us, and not in a way that many expect.  There is growing evidence that links geomagnetic storms from our Sun to an increase number of strokes within the human population.

There is now growing concern about the frequency of first-time strokes and correlation with geomagnetic storms.  A study was released last year, titled Geomagnetic Storms Can Trigger Stroke - Evidence From 6 Large Population-Based Studies in Europe and Australasia (link is to abstract).

An article about this study by Medscape Medical News had the following additional comment,

Dr. Feigin told Medscape Medical News that geomagnetic activity has also been associated with increased rates of heart attacks, suicides, and acute psychiatric admissions."We have known for ages that geomagnetic storms can shut down electrical stations across many regions and affect satellite navigation equipment, so it is logical that they can also affect human health," he commented.

The geomagnetic storm study (source) itself found that,

...high levels of geomagnetic activity (ie, those accompanying geomagnetic storms, predominately during solar maxima years) are important predictors of stroke.

What does this mean for the average person?  I don't know.  I haven't found any sources that convert this new found knowledge into something actionable for us laypersons.  It does leave the mind to wonder and speculate, though.  If someone is in a high-risk group of stroke susceptibility, should they chill out for a couple of days for geomagnetic storms to pass? If so, how so?

Begs the question is the idiom that you aren't using wrong, but some think you do

Are you begging the question?  What is begging a question?  Well, it depends.  There are two different terms that are very similar, but have very different uses.  The first is beg the question fallacy.  This is the traditional use of the term. This is a type of fallacy where a premise includes the claim or assumption that its conclusion is true.  (This is covered in some brief detail at Fallacy: Begging the Question (backup link).)

For example, "All cats are evil, otherwise you would not see cats do evil things."

The premise of this statement is that cats are evil, and the justification is that you see cats do evil things.  The statement forms a circular argument.

But, there's another common use of the term that often appears as , "begs the question", as in, "your statement begs the question of who will do this work".  It means that there is an obvious or ignored question that arises from a statement.

There are grammarians and logicians that will argue that this is somehow the wrong use of the term, such as the website begthequestion.info (backup link) (which dedicates itself to this topic).  Ironically, these individuals often employ logical fallacies to disregard the modern usage of the term.  There are people that seem gleefully unaware of how English works.  Common usage is correct usage. Dictionaries now list the modern usage on equal weight as the logical fallacy definition.  See idioms area on freedictionary.com (backup link).

There is often a claim that using the phrase in the modern sense is somehow confusing (see some of these claims on QuickAndDirty.com (backup link) by Grammar Girl). However, common usage is so prevalent, there is no confusion as to when the term is being used one way or another.  If someone wishes to distinguish between the logical fallacy and the assertion of an obvious/ignored question, then they do so with context, just as they would for the use of any other common terms with multiple meanings.  This begs the question, why is denial of the validity of the modern definition so important to some people?

Awesome hall of shame devices - Interesting link

There's a cool article with ten hall of shame automotive devices that are/were supposed to do something or another to improve your vehicle's gas mileage, performance, and even ectoplasm removal (because I guess ghosts are slowing your car down؟). Popular Mechanic Gas Saving Gadgets (backup link) covers it all.  My favorite is the magnets used to "straighten" fuel molecules to improve ignition efficiency. (If anything, the magnets would add more weight to your car, thus reducing fuel efficiency).

"To good to be true" - Criticism of scientific studies grows

It is almost ironic, the other day I posted this article Reason Why I'm Skeptical of Skepticism which criticized over reliance on many study conclusions without actual supporting or valid data within the studies.  Now, just a few days later, there is a new published "study of studies" which reinforces the idea of being skeptical of scientific study conclusions, Excess Success for Psychology Articles in the Journal Science.  This study exposes that many studies in Psychology have issues, where the declared conclusions are simply "to good to be true" based on the strength of the data.  The inference being that there may be a general problem with all fields of science.

"Not every experiment is methodologically sound, and some experiments (even if methodologically sound) do not clarify the status of a theoretical idea. There is little reason to publish such experimental results, whether they are statistically significant or not. Unfortunately, in day-to-day scientific practice it is quite easy to interpret an unsuccessful outcome as being irrelevant to the theory or as being methodologically flawed and therefore not worth reporting."

In other words, data is cherry-picked in support of the theory rather than attempting to take contrary results into account.  This is basically throwing out the Scientific Method when it doesn't result in data this supports a theory.  In other cases, data collection is just too imprecise to form a suitable theory.  Kind of like garage-in-garbage-out.

I have a feeling a growing criticism of the current system is going to force changes into the process of study publishing and utilization.

Reason why I'm skeptical of Skepticism

There is a plague on modern science and Skepticism.  That plague is over reliance upon research reports.  Research report is a gathering of pre-existing data (the "re" in "research"), repurposed to find patterns.  The problem is that many research reports are created to find correlations in support of predetermined conclusions (assumptions).  Research reports are often formatted as scientific studies and published in science journals along side scientific studies that use the Scientific Method.

What is the Scientific Method?  First, wonder about a phenomenon and ask a question.  Conduct research on that question.  Then, construct a hypothesis (a proposed explanation for the phenomenon). A hypothesis must be formed in such a way to be tested for being  false (falsifiability). The subsequent test must be done in such a way as to try to disprove your hypothesis.  Only after all of this can you analyze your data and form a conclusion from that data.  The final step is to share your results for others to review and check, often in the form of their own studies.  For a study to have value, its results must be replicated by others.¹

The Scientific Method is valuable because it helps eliminate incorrect explanations for a phenomenon.  For example, say someone as a hypothesis that lemons are yellow because someone paints them with yellow paint.  You can test this in any number of ways.  You can go to an orchard and watch the lemons grow, changing color as they mature.  You can buy a lemon at a store and cut it, looking for a layer of paint.  You can peel the lemon and send the skin to a lab to search for significant amounts of paint.  Any of these tests would prove the hypothesis false.  Someone else could create a new hypothesis about why lemons are yellow, knowing that the cause is not paint.

The limitation of an unscientific research report is that it only requires you to visit a grocery store to see that the lemons are yellow in order to confirm your assumption that they've been painted yellow by a person.

Research reports often lack several crucial steps compared to Scientific Method.  First, the purpose of a research report is often to collect data in support of a pre-existing assumption.  An assumption is different than a hypothesis because an assumption is not a proposed explanation for a phenomenon; rather an assumption is that there is a phenomenon ("someone is painting those lemons yellow", instead of asking "why are lemons yellow?").  Second, no test is performed in support of this assumption.  Data is unscientifically collected from different studies, reports and other sources rather than being the results of a direct test.  There is certainly no falsifiability test.  Third, the results of the collected data are often correlated to the original assumption rather than standing on their own within the conclusion.

What's wrong with correlation between data sets?  Correlation is an indicator, but it is not a identifier. The common phrase is "correlation is not causation."  It is extremely easy to correlate unrelated things.  There is a website dedicated to just this.  This is why the Scientific Method requires a falsifiability test.  It eliminates the reliance on correlation.

Now, this is not to say all research reports are bad.  A research report that uses the Scientific Method to analyze data in a way that can be demonstrated with falsifiability does have value.  But, it is very hard tell good reports apart from bad reports using quick Twitter or reddit title links.  You have to read the report to know if it has value or if it is pseudoscience.  You have to read the whole report because the report's title and conclusions often do not even match-up the data within the report.

This is where I run into issues with Skepticism.  Skepticism tends consider any conclusions of a published research report (in support of presumed consensus) to be the same as studies using the Scientific Method.  Opinions regarding concepts outside the presumed consensus are immediately rejected (even if they are published) without regard to the quality of the report or study.  I cannot count how many times I've read a promoted research report, only to find that the evidence in the report is based correlated cherry-picked data.  Blind acceptance of research report conclusions is a big problem with Skepticism, especially as it grows in popularity among Atheists and other non-religious folks.  I've seen seen sources such as "skeptic" magazines that site unscientific research reports as though they are undeniable fact.  It is a problem being exacerbated by the ease with which (mis)information flows on the Internet through various social media and various other media outlets.

Other reading

In researching this topic, I found a very interesting "study of studies" about the flaws in most studies, Why most published research findings are false. Nothing in my article here is based on this study, so take this as a completely different source.  It is worth the read, and more fuel for the fire to be skeptical, not just of Skepticism, but of anyone trying to use a "study" to promote a notion.

Sensless Sunday: Mammoth Star

1. The last pyramids in Egypt where finished before the last of the Woolly Mammoths died out.^{1 2}
2. The World as we know it was designated to end by a Viking myth on 2/22/2014³ and by a modern economist on 3/4/2014.⁴ The quote from War Games rings through my head right now about "We're still here! We're STILL HERE!".
3. Our Solar System is traveling at an average speed of 514,000 mph relative to the Milky Way galactic center.⁵

Senseless Sunday: Rubbing dreamt cources

1. Only five words in the English language actually end with the letters "mt": dreamt, daydreamt, undreamt, redreamt, and outdreamt.
2. The invention of matches (rubbing a chemical dipped stick to create a flame with friction) came about in 1826.  The invention of the lighter (mechanical device to produce a flame) was first developed in the 1500's.¹
3. As of 2008, the USA has more golf courses than the rest of the world combined.²