The Earth Actually Has At Least Three Moons, Not Just One: Two Are Made Entirely Of Dust - Canadanewsmedia
Connect with us


The Earth Actually Has At Least Three Moons, Not Just One: Two Are Made Entirely Of Dust



The Earth doesn’t have just one Moon, it actually has three — possibly even more — although the two “newest” ones are made entirely of dust, the New York Post is reporting.

You’ve likely believed since elementary school in the immutable and unimpeachable fact that the Earth has only one natural satellite: the Moon. That particular ball of rock has been orbiting our own little ball of rock since billions of years before Homo sapiens evolved and started venerating it. And since the advent of telescopes, scientists have failed to find any evidence of another one — until now.

Or 1772. Or 1961. It all depends on how you look at it.

Back before the Revolutionary War, astronomers posited the existence of so-called “LaGrange Points,” which, according to the simplest and shortest of explanations, are five points in space — labeled L1 through L5 — “where the gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon balance each other out.” Then in 1961, Polish astronomer Kazimierz Kordylewski spotted what he believed was a dust cloud near L4. However, scientists failed to replicate Kordylewski’s results for the next 57 years.

After nearly 60 years of controversy, however, scientists this week announced, via Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, that they’ve found not just one of Kordylewski’s proposed moons, but two of them.

The proposed moons had evaded detection by our telescopes for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they are essentially clouds of dust. The fine particulate composition of these moons scatters what little light they reflect, making it next to impossible to spot them. Nevertheless, Hungarian astronomers Judit Slíz-Balogh and Gábor Horváth — using computer models and good old-fashioned observation — found them. Or at least, indisputable evidence of them.

They’re believed to be about nine times as wide as the Earth, according to ZME Science, and are believed to be about the same distance from us as the actual Moon is — that is, about 240,000 miles away.

Don’t think that you’re going to spot them with a backyard telescope, however. They evaded detection for decades, with the best astronomical minds in the world using the best equipment that money can buy to search for them. An off-the-shelf telescope in a suburban back yard isn’t going to see anything.

Even if you could see them, there’s not much to see. The new “moons” are essentially cosmic “dust bunnies.” Not unlike the dust bunnies that accumulate under your furniture, these moons are just a loose collection of dust, far from solid and with no real form.

The discovery — or, confirmation — of the existence of the two dust clouds could have far-reaching implications for the future of astronomy. For example, the much-anticipated James Webb Telescope is scheduled for launch in a few years, headed towards L2. However, if L2, like L4 and L5, were to be home to a giant and previously-undetected dust cloud, it could prove catastrophic for the telescope’s mission.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Researchers walk back major ocean warming result





googletag.cmd.push(function() googletag.display(‘post_link_unit’); );


Scripps Pier after sunset in La Jolla, California. Image via Hayne Palmour IV/ San Diego Union-Tribune/ os Angeles Times.

This is good news. It is less certain today that Earth’s oceans are 60% warmer than we thought (although they may still be that warm). As reported in the Los Angeles Times today (November 14, 2018), researchers with UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University have had to walk back a widely reported scientific result – based on a paper published in Nature last month – showing that showed Earth’s oceans were heating up dramatically faster than previously thought, as a result of climate change.

The October 31 paper in Nature stated the oceans had warmed 60% more than outlined by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On November 6, mathematician Nic Lewis posted his criticisms of the paper at Judith Curry’s blog. Both Lewis and Curry are critics of the scientific consensus that global warming is ongoing and human-caused.

In his November 6 blog post, Lewis pointed out flaws in the October 31 paper. The authors of the October 31 paper now say they’ve redone their calculations, and – although they find the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC – they agree that they “miffed” the range of probability. They can no longer support the earlier statement of a heat increase 60% greater than indicated. They now say there is a larger range of probability, between 10% and 70%, as other studies have already found.

A correction has been submitted to Nature.

The Los Angeles Times reported that one of the co-author’s on the paper – Ralph Keeling at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography – “took full blame” and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake. Keeling told the Los Angeles Times:

When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there. We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.

In the meantime, the Twitter-verse today has done the expected in a situation like this, where a widely reported and dramatic climate result has had to be walked back. Many are making comments like this one:

But cooler heads on Twitter and elsewhere in the media are also weighing in, pointing out – as has been necessary to point out time and again – that science is not a “body of facts.” Science is a process. Part of the reason scientists publish is so that other scientists can find errors in their work, so that the errors can be corrected.

All scientists know this. The Los Angeles Times explained it this way:

While papers are peer-reviewed before they’re published, new findings must always be reproduced before gaining widespread acceptance throughout the scientific community …

The Times quoted Gerald Meehl, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, as saying:

This is how the process works. Every paper that comes out is not bulletproof or infallible. If it doesn’t stand up under scrutiny, you review the findings.

Bottom line: An error has been found in the October 31, 2018 paper published in Nature – showing an increase in ocean warming 60% greater than that estimated by the IPCC. The authors have acknowledged the error, and a correction has been submitted to Nature.

October 31 paper in Nature: Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition

November 6 blog post by Nic Lewis: A major problem with the Resplandy et al. ocean heat uptake paper

Deborah Byrd


Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Upsettingly Large Fungus in Michigan Weighs 440 Tons and Is 2500 Years Old




[unable to retrieve full-text content]

  1. Upsettingly Large Fungus in Michigan Weighs 440 Tons and Is 2500 Years Old  Gizmodo
  2. Could this giant 2500-year-old fungus hold the cure to cancer?  Mother Nature Network
  3. Full coverage

Source link

Continue Reading


NASA wants Canadian boots on the moon but feds still pondering space options




OTTAWA — The Trudeau government faced criticism Wednesday for a tepid response to the head of the U.S. space agency saying he wants to see Canadian astronauts walking on the moon in the near future.

Jim Bridenstine, the administrator of he National Aeronautics and Space Administration, said a reconstituted lunar program is the first step toward deeper space exploration, including a mission to Mars.

On a two-day trip to Ottawa, the NASA chief made an impassioned pitch for Canada to continue its decades-long space partnership with the U.S., including by supplying astronauts.

NASA is embarking on the creation of its new Lunar Gateway, a space station it is planning to send into orbit around the moon starting in 2021. The agency wants to create a “sustainable lunar architecture” that would allow people and equipment to go back and forth to the moon regularly, Bridenstine said.

“If Canadians want to be involved in missions to the surface of the moon with astronauts, we welcome that. We want to see that day materialize,” he told a small group of journalists in Ottawa ahead of his keynote speech to the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada.

“We think it would be fantastic for the world to see people on the surface of the moon that are not just wearing the American flag, but wearing the flags of other nations.”

The U.S. is seeking broad international support for its new lunar initiative, Bridenstine told the industry conference. He said NASA wants Canada’s expertise in artificial intelligence and robotics, which could include a next-generation Canadarm on the Lunar Gateway and more Canadian technology inside.

Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains, a vocal booster of Canada’s AI hubs in Ontario and Quebec, said the government is committed to sustaining its partnership with NASA, but he had no specifics.

The minister said the government is still working on a long-awaited space policy that has many dimensions and will be made public before next fall’s federal election.

“At this stage, we would not take anything off the table,” Bains told reporters, when on pressed on the possibility of contributing astronauts to moon missions. “We demonstrated very clearly we want to work with NASA. We want to work with other allies as well.”

The head of one leading Canadian space technology firm said he and many other business leaders at the conference were surprised by the government’s apparent lack of enthusiasm for Bridenstine’s ambitious request.

“There was a lot of excitement about the opportunity that was clearly being given to Canada here,” Mike Greenley, the president of MDA, said in an interview. “I’m a little bit concerned about that lack of response.”

MDA makes sensors, robots and components for satellites.

Greenley said it is possible the government is still considering its options, but given the urgency of the U.S. timetable, that might not be wise.

“The concern would be if we wait too long we can miss the opportunity,” he said. “We best not ponder this too long.”

Greenley said he’d like to see Canadian astronauts on the moon one day, but to get to that stage Canada needs to participate in NASA’s broader lunar program.

Bridenstine said the return to the moon is a stepping stone to a much more ambitious goal: exploration that could include reaching Mars in the next two decades.

“The moon is, in essence, a proving ground for deeper space exploration,” he said.

Marc Garneau, who was the first Canadian to reach outer space in 1984 and is now Canada’s transport minister, told the conference he wants Canada to continue being a “star player” in all fields of the aerospace industry. But he had no new space initiatives to announce.

On Dec. 3, Canadian astronaut David Saint-Jacques will travel to the International Space Station on his first mission.

Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2018 Canada News Media

%d bloggers like this: