Getting to know young people like Caroline Moore gives me hope for the future. Caroline, as you may know, is the youngest person to discover a supernova. I first met Caroline when I interviewed her for a Slacker Astronomy episode last November in Boston. She had been invited by the AAVSO to come and accept an award for her achievement.
Today the Nova Science Now website features Caroline in their online series The Secret Life of Scientists. They did a great job of editing and presenting these pieces, but what really comes through in these bits is Caroline's personality. She has lots of that. I love the 30 seconds video. I'll be saying, "whatever", and laughing for weeks.
Showing posts with label Podcasts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Podcasts. Show all posts
Slacker Astronomy on 365 Days of Astronomy
Enjoy.
The Simostronomer featured on 365 Days of Astronomy
You may reproduce and distribute this audio for non-commercial purposes. Please consider supporting the podcast with a few dollars (or Euros!). Visit us on the web at http://365daysofastronomy.org/
Kevin Krisciunas on Slacker Astronomy
I noticed today this same topic is covered in the March issue of Astronomy magazine. We may be slackers, but we might accidentally be doing something right if we're nailing the same topics as Astronomy magazine.
Slacker Astronomy Interview on 365 Days of Astronomy Today
Astronomy.FM Every Day-and Friday Night!
Some well-known favorites are on the air each week- Astronomy Cast, 365 Days of Astronomy, Are We Alone?, Skepticality, The Naked Scientists, and if you haven't heard Space Pirate Radio! you are missing some real fun.
Friday night at 9PM EST (Sat 02:00UT) I will be on the air LIVE with Marty Kunz on the Event Horizon show. We'll be talking about the AAVSO, variable stars, cataclysmic variables, Citizen Sky, epsilon Aurigae, and whatever else we can squeeze into an hour show. If you miss the live show because you're on a hot date or out at the telescope, the taped show will run every four hours Saturday UT.
I'm looking forward to joining Marty, and I hope you tune it to check out the show. But you don't have to wait until Friday. There is something cool going on at Astronomy.FM all day, every day. Check it out!
Simostronomy on 365 Days of Astronomy
Tune in and check it out!
Extrasolar Asteroids and Ophiuchans
The Kepler mission is designed to discover Earth-like planets around other stars. The Kepler space telescope will stare at a field bordering Cygnus and Lyra for three to five years, continuously monitoring over 150,000 stars for exoplanet transits. According to a recent paper from Howell and collaborators, Kepler should also be able to detect asteroids orbiting white dwarfs.
And just for fun, Steve and I talk about the long lost astrological sign Ophiuchus.
Kepler Could Discover Asteroids Around White Dwarfs
Today on the 365 Days of Astronomy Podcast, I interview Steve Howell from NOAO, about the Kepler mission. We talk a little about the mission goals, debunk some misinformation and rumors about the detectors, and discuss the potential for Kepler to detect transits of asteroids orbiting around white dwarfs.
There will be a Slacker Astronomy episode later this month featuring the entire interview, which also includes some discussion of the 13th astrological sign, Ophiuchus, along with some other silliness.
Slacker Astronomy on 365 Days of Astronomy
Michael, Doug and I talk about "heat!" What is heat? What is temperature? What is the difference? What does any of this have to do with astronomy?
We take a crack at explaining it all on 365 Days of Astronomy. You tell me; how did we do?
My fear is the end result was something like this:
I'll be interested in the comments this time around.
New Slacker Astronomy Episode
Share on Facebook
Simostronomy Podcast on 365 Days of Astronomy
I'd like to dedicate this one to my mom, since it is her birthday today and she was Mission Control for us and our spacecraft in this story. I always wanted to be an astronaut when I grew up. Thanks, Mom, for never insisting I actually grow up!
Simo Slacker!
As promised, the interviews I did with five astronomers at the Wild Stars in the Old West II conference are now coming online, thanks to my friends at Slacker Astronomy, Michael Koppelman and Doug Welch. The first part of the series is now available.
The first interview in this episode is with Brad Schaefer from LSU. Brad is very excited about the results of his research on recurrent novae. These cataclysmic variables grab our attention and spark our imaginations because of the incredible amplitude of their outbursts, typically 8-12 magnitudes, and the rarity of these spectacular events. Many of these outbursts are once-in-a-lifetime events. Like an apparition of Halley's comet, witnessing an outburst of T CrB twice in a lifetime would be a matter of uncommon luck, longevity or both.
Artist's depiction of the recurrent nova, RS Ophiuchi, in outburst.
(Illustration Credit & Copyright: David A. Hardy & PPARC; Astronomy Picture of the Day 2006 July 26).
I've written about recurrent novae before. The cause of a nova eruption is a thermonuclear reaction on the surface of the white dwarf. After years of mass exchange between the binary pair, temperature and pressure at the surface of the white dwarf build sufficiently to cause the layer of accreted material to explode like a hydrogen bomb. This bomb, however, can have the mass of 30 Earths! Once the temperature becomes high enough, this layer begins to expand. Minutes into the process the shell can be radiating at 100,000 solar luminosities and expanding outwards at 3000 km/s. Eventually the shell envelopes the entire binary and the orbital motion of the pair acts like a propeller to whip things up. After 1000 days or so the envelope expands to the point it can be seen as nebulosity surrounding the pair. Over hundreds of years the shell dissipates into the interstellar medium.
Most novae probably erupt more than once in their lifetime, with the mass of the white dwarf determining the amount of accreted material that needs to accumulate before triggering on outburst. Systems with a white dwarf of 0.6 solar masses might take as long as 5 million years between eruptions. A system with a 1.3 solar mass white dwarf might only take 30,000 years between eruptions. Systems with recurrence times of 100 years or less probably have very massive white dwarf primaries.
With so few known examples and the rarity of these events it is no wonder that recurrent novae eruptions are extremely interesting to astronomers. Monitoring these stars for outbursts over decades of relative inactivity is still one of the extremely valuable contributions visual observers can provide to science.
The second interview is with Steve Howell, of NOAO. Steve and I talked about the advances that have been made in CV research since the last Wild Stars meeting ten years ago. I also asked him where he thinks new research is heading.
But, I have to admit, I really wanted to talk to him about his awesome image of magnetic accretion. I saw this in his poster presentation at the meeting and was blown away by the whole concept of the complicated, beautiful way mass is accreted in polars.
Image credit: S. Howell / P. Marenfeld/NOAO
The first interview in this episode is with Brad Schaefer from LSU. Brad is very excited about the results of his research on recurrent novae. These cataclysmic variables grab our attention and spark our imaginations because of the incredible amplitude of their outbursts, typically 8-12 magnitudes, and the rarity of these spectacular events. Many of these outbursts are once-in-a-lifetime events. Like an apparition of Halley's comet, witnessing an outburst of T CrB twice in a lifetime would be a matter of uncommon luck, longevity or both.
Artist's depiction of the recurrent nova, RS Ophiuchi, in outburst.(Illustration Credit & Copyright: David A. Hardy & PPARC; Astronomy Picture of the Day 2006 July 26).
I've written about recurrent novae before. The cause of a nova eruption is a thermonuclear reaction on the surface of the white dwarf. After years of mass exchange between the binary pair, temperature and pressure at the surface of the white dwarf build sufficiently to cause the layer of accreted material to explode like a hydrogen bomb. This bomb, however, can have the mass of 30 Earths! Once the temperature becomes high enough, this layer begins to expand. Minutes into the process the shell can be radiating at 100,000 solar luminosities and expanding outwards at 3000 km/s. Eventually the shell envelopes the entire binary and the orbital motion of the pair acts like a propeller to whip things up. After 1000 days or so the envelope expands to the point it can be seen as nebulosity surrounding the pair. Over hundreds of years the shell dissipates into the interstellar medium.
Most novae probably erupt more than once in their lifetime, with the mass of the white dwarf determining the amount of accreted material that needs to accumulate before triggering on outburst. Systems with a white dwarf of 0.6 solar masses might take as long as 5 million years between eruptions. A system with a 1.3 solar mass white dwarf might only take 30,000 years between eruptions. Systems with recurrence times of 100 years or less probably have very massive white dwarf primaries.
With so few known examples and the rarity of these events it is no wonder that recurrent novae eruptions are extremely interesting to astronomers. Monitoring these stars for outbursts over decades of relative inactivity is still one of the extremely valuable contributions visual observers can provide to science.
The second interview is with Steve Howell, of NOAO. Steve and I talked about the advances that have been made in CV research since the last Wild Stars meeting ten years ago. I also asked him where he thinks new research is heading.
But, I have to admit, I really wanted to talk to him about his awesome image of magnetic accretion. I saw this in his poster presentation at the meeting and was blown away by the whole concept of the complicated, beautiful way mass is accreted in polars.
Image credit: S. Howell / P. Marenfeld/NOAOI hope you enjoy the podcast. My sincere thanks to Michael, Doug, Brad and Steve for making these Simo-interviews possible.
The Manners of Skeptisism
I've read and heard far too many political, religious and skeptical rants on what I thought were supposed to be science blogs, podcasts and television shows lately, and it's got me stirred up. So I'm writing one of my own just to get it off my chest.
I admit to being an atheist, and I don't think much of UFO claims, ghost sightings or psychic powers, but I don't close the door entirely on any of this stuff. I'm skeptical, and in the end, all I want is someone to show me proof. Then you can win the argument.
It would be comforting to know that God is somehow responsible for all this mess and beauty at the same time. It would be exciting to finally know for sure we are not alone in the Universe. It would be fun to come back and haunt some of the people I've known in my life after I'm gone, or check in on the great-great-great grandkids one day from the beyond.
Mostly, I avoid getting in these discussions because I've found that the people who rabidly defend their point of view are never interested in hearing your point of view. It is always a one way conversation. No one listens to the other person. It's futile and a waste of time. You are not going to change their mind suddenly with your brilliant argument today.
That is why I wonder at the attitude of so many of the 'skeptics' who write blogs, author books, do podcasts and appear on TV. I've grown as disinterested in reading or hearing their rants as I am of hearing the rants of the fanatics and religious zealots they are so eager to discredit. To me, they come off as arrogant, sarcastic, egotistical, inflexible, bitter, and just plain rude. I don't care how many books you've written, or how many degrees you have, you don't know EVERYTHING. Many of these skeptics act like they DO know everything. Apparently there is a God, and THEY are He.
Infinitely worse, and far more annoying, is the way they talk about anyone who doesn't agree with them. In the "world according to skeptics" if you don't think like they do, believe in what they do, or disagree with them, you are obviously undereducated, narrow-minded, ignorant, j-holes not worthy of breathing the same air as the almighty brilliant ones. The skeptics I'm referring to often condescend to the people who disagree with a wink and a nod to their readers or audience, as if to say, "Just look at these stupid losers. We know how pathetic they are."
The other night I watched Phil Nye, the science guy, on Larry King arguing with a panel of people who had different opinions about what was really going on with the Roswell incident. Some of them were merely recounting what their parents had told them when they were children, or telling of veiled confessions made by people who were scared to death of the long hand of the government. Most of them calmly and succinctly stated their case, or told their story, including a former NASA astronaut. None of them was losing their cool or jumping up and down all excited. They weren't looking for converts or trying to win the argument once and for all.
But the science guy was rolling his eyes and acting like a superior intellect the entire time, dismissing everything and anything these people had to say, often without hearing all of what they had to say because he was too busy being rude and interrupting them. None of his counter arguments were particularly compelling, and yet he acted as if only a fool would disagree with him. What a jerk.
I don't know why so many of these 'skeptics' have this attitude problem, and I don't care. Maybe they grew up in a sheltered environment where they didn't have to live with, respect and cooperate with other people. That's sad. It seems to me they're not as interested in making the world a better place as they are in showing everyone how smart they are. What a waste of potential good.
All I know is I don't want to hear any more from these social retards. I won't be plugging, feeding, linking, reading or watching anyone who can't promote science and rational thinking without making the other guy look bad.
Get some manners or get lost.
I admit to being an atheist, and I don't think much of UFO claims, ghost sightings or psychic powers, but I don't close the door entirely on any of this stuff. I'm skeptical, and in the end, all I want is someone to show me proof. Then you can win the argument.
It would be comforting to know that God is somehow responsible for all this mess and beauty at the same time. It would be exciting to finally know for sure we are not alone in the Universe. It would be fun to come back and haunt some of the people I've known in my life after I'm gone, or check in on the great-great-great grandkids one day from the beyond.
Mostly, I avoid getting in these discussions because I've found that the people who rabidly defend their point of view are never interested in hearing your point of view. It is always a one way conversation. No one listens to the other person. It's futile and a waste of time. You are not going to change their mind suddenly with your brilliant argument today.
That is why I wonder at the attitude of so many of the 'skeptics' who write blogs, author books, do podcasts and appear on TV. I've grown as disinterested in reading or hearing their rants as I am of hearing the rants of the fanatics and religious zealots they are so eager to discredit. To me, they come off as arrogant, sarcastic, egotistical, inflexible, bitter, and just plain rude. I don't care how many books you've written, or how many degrees you have, you don't know EVERYTHING. Many of these skeptics act like they DO know everything. Apparently there is a God, and THEY are He.
Infinitely worse, and far more annoying, is the way they talk about anyone who doesn't agree with them. In the "world according to skeptics" if you don't think like they do, believe in what they do, or disagree with them, you are obviously undereducated, narrow-minded, ignorant, j-holes not worthy of breathing the same air as the almighty brilliant ones. The skeptics I'm referring to often condescend to the people who disagree with a wink and a nod to their readers or audience, as if to say, "Just look at these stupid losers. We know how pathetic they are."
The other night I watched Phil Nye, the science guy, on Larry King arguing with a panel of people who had different opinions about what was really going on with the Roswell incident. Some of them were merely recounting what their parents had told them when they were children, or telling of veiled confessions made by people who were scared to death of the long hand of the government. Most of them calmly and succinctly stated their case, or told their story, including a former NASA astronaut. None of them was losing their cool or jumping up and down all excited. They weren't looking for converts or trying to win the argument once and for all.
But the science guy was rolling his eyes and acting like a superior intellect the entire time, dismissing everything and anything these people had to say, often without hearing all of what they had to say because he was too busy being rude and interrupting them. None of his counter arguments were particularly compelling, and yet he acted as if only a fool would disagree with him. What a jerk.
I don't know why so many of these 'skeptics' have this attitude problem, and I don't care. Maybe they grew up in a sheltered environment where they didn't have to live with, respect and cooperate with other people. That's sad. It seems to me they're not as interested in making the world a better place as they are in showing everyone how smart they are. What a waste of potential good.
All I know is I don't want to hear any more from these social retards. I won't be plugging, feeding, linking, reading or watching anyone who can't promote science and rational thinking without making the other guy look bad.
Get some manners or get lost.
I think I was born for this
Sometimes life pushes you downstream to a place where you just have to paddle over to the bank and take a longer look, maybe even stay for a while.
Today I've beached the canoe in a new land I've only glimpsed from afar before, Blogs and Podcasts. I've dipped my toe in the water before. I just wasn't very excited at what I found the first few times around; mostly boring people with extreme opinions or boring people with nothing to say.
Then some friends of mine created a podcast called Slacker Astronomy
I wasn't smart enough or tech-savvy enough to see where this was going at the time, but over the past couple years I've caught up a bit. Now I listen to the podcast regularly, at least as often as they actually produce one (they are slackers after all), and I've discovered other excellent astronomy blogs and podcasts I like to visit also, namely Astronomy Cast and Bad Astronomy.
What I find most refreshing and amazing is that these sites actually expose and explain astronomy to the public in an entertaining and exciting new way, and tens of thousands of people are tuning in, downloading and sharing this content every week.
So what lead me to actually create my own blog?
I've just returned from the 212th Meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) in St. Louis, MO. As a part of this meeting within a meeting, the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (ASP) held a symposium on 'Preparing for the International Year of Astronomy'. Most of the papers, talks and discussions I participated in dealt with 'new media' or 'citizen science' projects, and I have to confess, I'm geeked and I want in on the fun.
Do we really need another astronomy blog?
I'm not sure, I hope so.
I think I was born for this.
I love to write, and I'm not shy about sharing my opinions. I've been an avid amateur astronomer since I was a teenager. I'm one of the most prolific variable star observers on the planet and I am now employed by the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO). I've been writing articles on variable stars for over a decade now for AAVSO, my personal website on variable stars and another site specifically geared towards cataclysmic variables, CVnet. I think I have a unique perspective and voice to bring to the astronomy web round table.
From a more personal standpoint, I've also found that the vast majority of the people I've met through astronomy have been friendly, intelligent, interesting people eager to share what they know and are studying. Perhaps through this blog I'll get to know some more of you and we can double the joy by sharing our study of and amazement at the one cosmic laboratory we all have to play in- the Universe.
Today I've beached the canoe in a new land I've only glimpsed from afar before, Blogs and Podcasts. I've dipped my toe in the water before. I just wasn't very excited at what I found the first few times around; mostly boring people with extreme opinions or boring people with nothing to say.
Then some friends of mine created a podcast called Slacker Astronomy
I wasn't smart enough or tech-savvy enough to see where this was going at the time, but over the past couple years I've caught up a bit. Now I listen to the podcast regularly, at least as often as they actually produce one (they are slackers after all), and I've discovered other excellent astronomy blogs and podcasts I like to visit also, namely Astronomy Cast and Bad Astronomy.
What I find most refreshing and amazing is that these sites actually expose and explain astronomy to the public in an entertaining and exciting new way, and tens of thousands of people are tuning in, downloading and sharing this content every week.
So what lead me to actually create my own blog?
I've just returned from the 212th Meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) in St. Louis, MO. As a part of this meeting within a meeting, the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (ASP) held a symposium on 'Preparing for the International Year of Astronomy'. Most of the papers, talks and discussions I participated in dealt with 'new media' or 'citizen science' projects, and I have to confess, I'm geeked and I want in on the fun.
Do we really need another astronomy blog?
I'm not sure, I hope so.
I think I was born for this.
I love to write, and I'm not shy about sharing my opinions. I've been an avid amateur astronomer since I was a teenager. I'm one of the most prolific variable star observers on the planet and I am now employed by the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO). I've been writing articles on variable stars for over a decade now for AAVSO, my personal website on variable stars and another site specifically geared towards cataclysmic variables, CVnet. I think I have a unique perspective and voice to bring to the astronomy web round table.
From a more personal standpoint, I've also found that the vast majority of the people I've met through astronomy have been friendly, intelligent, interesting people eager to share what they know and are studying. Perhaps through this blog I'll get to know some more of you and we can double the joy by sharing our study of and amazement at the one cosmic laboratory we all have to play in- the Universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)