Area 51 » Science

134

followers

Announcements

The proposed description of this site is quite weak and doesn't provide any real direction. Personally, I think amateurs (and their equipment) have to be explicitly included, because astronomy, perhaps more than any other science, relies on amateurs for observational data and other input. A great example is the list of observatories, many amateur, maintained by the IAU Minor Planet Center at cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/ObsCodesF.html - mine is code J58. While amateur astronomers represent a wide spectrum of interests, the top end certainly overlaps the professional arena. – Tim Long May 27 '10 at 15:36

I think the question of whether spaceflight and space exploration are on- or off-topic needs to be explicitly incorporated into the charter. The overlap between "people interested in astronomy" and "people interested in spaceflight" is very large, but not necessarily 100%. – Larry OBrien May 29 '10 at 18:37

There may be three populations of questions here, Professional Astronomy and Astrophysics, Practical Amateur Astronomy and Space Flight and Exploration. – Chris Rowland May 31 '10 at 7:37

show 49 more announcements

This proposal is now in the Beta phase — example questions are locked!

188 Example Questions (10 closed)

active oldest votes

up vote -1 down vote

added by therefromhere May 30 '10 at 14:36

	On-topic as includes space-flight: area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy/… – Arlen Beiler May 31 '10 at 1:04
	Is space flight on topic? I'm not at all convinced that it is. – Chris Rowland May 31 '10 at 7:28
	@chris currently there is an <sarcasm>overwhelming</sarcasm> 5:2 vote that it is on-topic – Tobias Kienzler May 31 '10 at 7:46
	2:2 now. The fundamental thing is that if I can't find the questions I want to answer among all the noise I won't stay around. This applies to everone else as well of course. – Chris Rowland May 31 '10 at 10:16
	@chris the 5:2 referred to the question whether space exploration is on-topic (area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy/…). I accept your opinion considering this noise, but democracy states different – Tobias Kienzler May 31 '10 at 12:19

up vote -1 down vote

added by Larry OBrien May 30 '10 at 18:43

	dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/05/… – Larry OBrien May 30 '10 at 18:46
	From the linked page: "Your link is a website run by Richard C. Hoagland, a HACK conspiracy theorist ... is an American author and a proponent of various conspiracy theories about NASA, lost alien civilizations on the Moon and on Mars and other related topics. " – WikiSpeedia hang-around May 30 '10 at 22:58
	@Larry OBrien: it is a very good question you posted. It raises the question whether questions that have a background in conspiracy theories and other misguided beliefs are on-topic or off-topic. Answers would debunk, but it could also lead to extended discussion. I can't currently make my mind up. What are your thoughts? – WikiSpeedia hang-around May 30 '10 at 23:07
	It isn't really on topic, but can still be answered with something meaningful, such as, why it is off-topic. Really, though, who ever heard of a round body with rectangular voids in it. – Arlen Beiler May 31 '10 at 11:58
	My feeling is that just because something involves an extraordinary claim it's on-topic until it's overwhelmingly rejected by science or history (astrology, moon-landing) or there's good cause to believe that the "debate" is being fostered in bad faith (creationism, climate change denialism). – Larry OBrien Jun 5 '10 at 2:23

up vote -1 down vote

added by Mike Grady May 31 '10 at 4:45

Up to now, the lensing that has been demonstrated has been done either in the visual bandwidth of light, and infrared. It has not however, been linked to anything in the discourse of dark matter/energy. One is a proven, the other is simply theoretical at this time, and probably for the foreseeable future. – Bob Bethman Jun 5 '10 at 0:19

up vote -1 down vote

added by dswan May 31 '10 at 12:10

up vote -1 down vote

added by dagorym May 31 '10 at 15:11

up vote -1 down vote

added by dagorym May 31 '10 at 17:24

up vote -1 down vote

added by dswan Jun 1 '10 at 11:00

up vote -1 down vote

added by dagorym Jun 1 '10 at 21:06

up vote -1 down vote

added by Corey Jun 4 '10 at 4:57

up vote -1 down vote

added by Aim Kai Jun 4 '10 at 12:58

up vote -1 down vote

added by Binoj Antony Jun 19 '10 at 13:21

up vote -1 down vote

added by Binoj Antony Jun 19 '10 at 13:21

How/why is this not a good example of an Astronomy question? If it's not obvious don't down vote without an explanation. – Jordan S Jun 23 '10 at 13:10

up vote -1 down vote

added by Binoj Antony Jun 19 '10 at 13:22

up vote -1 down vote

added by Harry Gindi Jun 22 '10 at 21:47

pluto is a dwarf planet. – Aim Kai Jun 23 '10 at 6:01

up vote -2 down vote

added by Giorgi May 25 '10 at 6:52

up vote -2 down vote

added by Giorgi May 25 '10 at 6:57

closed as off topic by Peter K., therefromhere, Tobias Kienzler, cindi, Juan Manuel Jun 8 '10 at 18:29

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

This is an excellent example of a question that shouldn't be allowed in this site – Juan Manuel May 27 '10 at 3:16

It can be answered by simple fact, but can easily lead to some idiotic "you can see the strings, people!" arguments – Gnoupi May 27 '10 at 5:33

From a search engine point of view, this question might lead some new users in and allow for serious answers based on evidence. Besides, dumb answers can and will be downvoted. – Spoike Jun 3 '10 at 13:10

up vote -2 down vote

added by Joel Spolsky♦ May 25 '10 at 14:51

off topic because it's argumentative – Joel Spolsky♦ May 25 '10 at 14:51

@Joel - although it could be made on topic if asking about "What is the next objective for NASA is exploring space?" (even if potentially localized) – Gnoupi May 27 '10 at 5:34

I agree that it's a little localized... – Juan Manuel May 27 '10 at 13:38

Or maybe better phrased as "When will NASA start manned exploration of space again?". Exploration comes in all forms from Hubble, STEREO, near earth object watch and so on. – Kev Jun 3 '10 at 23:06

up vote -2 down vote

added by Ciaran De Buitlear1 May 25 '10 at 15:12

up vote -2 down vote

added by Good Person May 28 '10 at 6:28

	This is specifically NOT "did a man land on the moon" but "how can I prove a particular argument wrong" – Good Person May 28 '10 at 6:29
	I would say "because they took videos and pictures of men walking on the moon". – Arlen Beiler May 28 '10 at 14:48

up vote -2 down vote

added by Tobias Kienzler May 28 '10 at 7:00

This could be on topic if the site included physics and not only astronomy – Juan Manuel May 28 '10 at 12:35

nope, even then. there is no indication for the existence of tachyons (particles faster than light) let alone the possibility of "switching" from slower than light to faster. although you might in that case count the question as on-topic and accept the answer "current knowledge indicates you can't". but I'd retag it esoteric then... – Tobias Kienzler May 28 '10 at 13:18

Well, theories and new ideas should be welcomed... in fact, all your comment could be an answer to the question (if the site included physics) – Juan Manuel May 28 '10 at 13:45

If you travelled faster than light, no one could see you coming. – Arlen Beiler May 28 '10 at 14:45

@arlen well if you could travel faster than light then there might also be something travelling even faster than you to announce your presence – Tobias Kienzler May 29 '10 at 17:20

show 1 more comment

up vote -2 down vote

added by Tobias Kienzler May 28 '10 at 7:00

up vote -2 down vote

added by Arlen Beiler May 28 '10 at 15:58

closed as off topic by Larry OBrien, dswan, therefromhere, Charles Stewart, Mike Grady Jun 9 '10 at 2:45

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

	It is about optics but not Astronomy. – Arlen Beiler May 28 '10 at 16:00
	Bird-Watching will be a good site proposal :) – spinodal Jun 18 '10 at 14:22

up vote -2 down vote

added by dagorym May 28 '10 at 16:20

	Could be because clouds are in the way and that is not astronomy that is the weather! – Aim Kai Jun 7 '10 at 15:00
	Good point. I didn't think about ambiguity based on weather. Being an astronomer, in my mind it's a given that if I'm looking at the sky it's clear. – dagorym Jun 7 '10 at 21:19

up vote -2 down vote

added by Larry OBrien May 29 '10 at 0:40

Take out "best" and replace by "good" or list features you need otherwise it's a candidate for "subjective". – ChrisF May 29 '10 at 20:51

up vote -2 down vote

added by Tobias Kienzler May 29 '10 at 17:14

@Tobias: do you mean the fictional planet Tatooine, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatooine? – WikiSpeedia hang-around May 29 '10 at 17:17

@peter the very same ;-) – Tobias Kienzler May 29 '10 at 17:18

up vote -2 down vote

added by Tobias Kienzler May 29 '10 at 18:01

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator – Tobias Kienzler May 29 '10 at 18:02

The comment above happens to be the answer to this question. – Arlen Beiler May 29 '10 at 19:32

@arlen I know :) but it would be an on-topic question if you accept space exploration as part of astronomy – Tobias Kienzler May 29 '10 at 21:10

This is a discussion subject and doesn't fit into the SE paradigm. – Chris Rowland May 30 '10 at 6:26

Once you get past the trivial and literal answer everything is up for discussion. But I'm not convinced that any of these space and space flight subjects are on topic in an Astronomy Site. I see this as belonging to a separate Space site where the engineering aspects of space flight can be discussed. – Chris Rowland May 30 '10 at 14:00

show 3 more comments

up vote -2 down vote

added by George Edison, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Jun 3 '10 at 8:53

are you sure you mean acceleration? That would mean your arm travels with the rock and accelerates it all the time. Change this into m/sec – Tobias Kienzler Jun 2 '10 at 8:24

Aha! You spotted the error! – George Edison Jun 2 '10 at 16:44

This question could be on-topic if it were worded differently, baceause it is alluding to concepts like trajectory and escape velocity - but I think in its current form it is a little too frivolous. – Tim Long Jun 3 '10 at 11:23

Besides, "will my are hurt?" is plain nonsense. ;-) – Arlen Beiler Jun 23 '10 at 13:08

up vote -3 down vote

added by Giorgi May 25 '10 at 6:53

	I'm inclined to vote "no", but it could be a nice exercise to estimate it. – Juan Manuel May 27 '10 at 3:18
	I don't like the wording of it - the answer is really "all of the ones in the visible universe". Maybe "How many stars are visible to the naked eye in perfect conditions in the southern hemisphere" – therefromhere May 27 '10 at 14:57

up vote -3 down vote

added by Juan Manuel May 30 '10 at 17:49

closed as off topic by Jason Punyon♦, Peter K., cindi, Massimo, Mike Grady Jun 9 '10 at 2:42

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

off-topic - atrology – Juan Manuel May 30 '10 at 17:52

@Juan - the zodiacal constellations are real. So knowing what they are and what they look like could be considered on topic. Especially for locating planets at different times of the year. – ChrisF May 30 '10 at 18:00

@chris, zodiac signs != zodiac constellations – Juan Manuel May 30 '10 at 18:32

@Juan - point taken. A new question perhaps? – ChrisF May 30 '10 at 21:38

I don't know, I posted it to illustrate an off-topic question on an issue that will come up often in this site – Juan Manuel May 31 '10 at 0:00

show 1 more comment

up vote -3 down vote

added by cindi, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around May 31 '10 at 19:06