Editing 2783: Ruling Out
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
− | + | {{incomplete|Created by a TECTONICALLY-ACTIVE BOT WITH SUBSURFACE OCEANS. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} | |
− | + | Most science studies are intended to discover new things. In astronomy, the goal is often to find different types of objects in space, or learn how astronomical objects are formed and behave. But often from studying things that exist, we also learn about limits in the kinds of things that 'can' exist; when this happens, we say that we've ruled out these other phenomena. | |
− | * "Earthlike stars": A play on "Earth-like planets" which scientists are very interested in finding. The | + | [[Cueball]] lists a number of obviously impossible objects. |
+ | |||
+ | * "Earthlike stars": A play on "Earth-like planets" which scientists are very interested in finding. The Earth is not a star, hence stars cannot be Earthlike. | ||
: Searches for both {{w|List of potentially habitable exoplanets|Earth-like planets}} and {{w|Solar analog|Sun-like stars}} go unabated, with various near matches found. | : Searches for both {{w|List of potentially habitable exoplanets|Earth-like planets}} and {{w|Solar analog|Sun-like stars}} go unabated, with various near matches found. | ||
Line 20: | Line 22: | ||
: Planets in our solar system (even {{w|Planets beyond Neptune|undiscovered ones}}) are unaffected, as is the {{w|List of exoplanet search projects|search for exoplanets}} around other stars, with conclusive evidence of both. | : Planets in our solar system (even {{w|Planets beyond Neptune|undiscovered ones}}) are unaffected, as is the {{w|List of exoplanet search projects|search for exoplanets}} around other stars, with conclusive evidence of both. | ||
− | * "Habitable | + | * "Habitable zone quasars": {{w|Quasar}}s in the {{w|habitable zone}}s of stars are only theoretically feasible for small {{w|black hole}}s with active {{w|accretion disk}}s near the Earth, because of the technical criteria for classifying them in terms of their apparent magnitude relative to that of their galaxy.[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/26] None such have ever been observed.{{fact}} |
− | :While not certain, habitable zones around some quasars have not been ruled out.[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b2f/meta][https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2364/1/012057/meta] | + | :While not certain by any means, habitable zones around some quasars have absolutely not been ruled out.[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b2f/meta][https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2364/1/012057/meta] While typical galaxies usually have only one quasar in their center, merging galaxies often have two far apart. |
− | * "Stars with subsurface oceans": Because the temperatures inside stars are higher than that which can support the existence of liquids as we understand them, stars cannot have subsurface oceans. After many billions of years, a {{w|white dwarf}} will cool to the point where it no longer emits significant heat or light, becoming a {{w|black dwarf}}, eventually cooling to the point where it might develop subsurface liquids.{{acn}} However, the universe is not old enough for any black dwarfs to exist yet,[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/375341/pdf] and sufficiently cool black dwarfs might not even be considered stars | + | * "Stars with subsurface oceans": Because the temperatures inside stars are higher than that which can support the existence of liquids as we understand them, stars cannot have subsurface oceans. After many billions of years, a {{w|white dwarf}} will cool to the point where it no longer emits significant heat or light, becoming a {{w|black dwarf}}, and eventually cooling to the point where it might develop subsurface liquids.{{acn}} However, the universe is not old enough for any black dwarfs to exist yet,[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/375341/pdf] and sufficiently cool black dwarfs might not even be considered stars according to the conventional definition. |
− | : The possibility of subsurface oceans within various planets and moons is an {{w|Extraterrestrial liquid water|active subject of study}} | + | : The possibility of subsurface oceans within various planets and moons is an {{w|Extraterrestrial liquid water|active subject of study}}. |
* "Tectonically active black holes": Black holes do not have {{w|tectonic plate}}s, so they cannot be tectonically active. | * "Tectonically active black holes": Black holes do not have {{w|tectonic plate}}s, so they cannot be tectonically active. | ||
− | : There are theories that neutron stars can exhibit {{w|Quake (natural phenomenon)#Starquake|tectonic-like movements}} (as some of the more typical rocky bodies certainly do), but the physics of the 'inside' of a black hole | + | : There are theories that neutron stars can exhibit {{w|Quake (natural phenomenon)#Starquake|tectonic-like movements}} (as some of the more typical rocky bodies certainly do), but the physics of the 'inside' of a black hole is thought to have {{w|Black hole#Singularity|strange physics}} incompatible with any form of geology, and cannot be observed anyway. |
The joke is that you don't actually have to study anything to come to these almost patently obvious conclusions. The counter-proposals would need far more effort to even justify them as valid theories, by common understanding, and greater still to try to observe any supporting proof. | The joke is that you don't actually have to study anything to come to these almost patently obvious conclusions. The counter-proposals would need far more effort to even justify them as valid theories, by common understanding, and greater still to try to observe any supporting proof. | ||
− | Some studies are also done to confirm the results of previous studies, to ensure that the conclusions were not mistaken or a fluke. The title text describes a study that was done to confirm the existence of a moon orbiting Earth, even though | + | Some studies are also done to confirm the results of previous studies, to ensure that the conclusions were not mistaken or a fluke. The title text describes a study that was done to confirm the existence of a moon orbiting Earth, even though the existence of the moon has been known for at least as long as humanity has existed, and the fact that it orbits the Earth has been assumed or known for upwards of 3000 years.{{acn}} The ancient Greeks and Babylonians, for example, thought that the Moon orbited the Earth, though they lacked a detailed physical understanding of the system. {{w|Anaxagoras}} (c. 500–428 BC) is credited with the correct explanation of lunar eclipses, and reportedly was the first to explain that the Moon shines due to reflected light from the Sun. However, it was not until the work of {{w|Nicolaus Copernicus}} in the 16th century that a detailed and accurate model of the Moon's orbit around the Earth was developed. Regardless, at this stage, a study to confirm the validity of Copernican orbits would contribute nothing to the scientific process, much less a study confirming the mere existence of the Moon. |
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
+ | {{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} | ||
:[Cueball is talking to Megan.] | :[Cueball is talking to Megan.] | ||
Line 47: | Line 50: | ||
[[Category:Astronomy]] | [[Category:Astronomy]] | ||
[[Category:Science]] | [[Category:Science]] | ||
− |