Area 51 » Science

The Astronomy site didn't have enough activity during the beta. It has been closed, and its content has been merged into Physics. You can download the data dump of all questions here.

133

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

188 Example Questions (10 closed)

active newest votes

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. – PICyourBrain 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, juanformoso 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 – juanformoso 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... – juanformoso 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 – juanformoso 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) – juanformoso 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 improvement suggestion

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, delete, 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 improvement suggestions

up vote -2 down vote

added by Nathan Osman, 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! – Nathan Osman 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. – juanformoso 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 juanformoso 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 – juanformoso 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 – juanformoso 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 – juanformoso May 31 '10 at 0:00

show 1 more improvement suggestion

up vote -3 down vote

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

Argumentative phrasing. – ire_and_curses Jun 4 '10 at 22:45

up vote -3 down vote

added by cindi, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around May 31 '10 at 18:51

-1 Subjective + argumentative – therefromhere May 31 '10 at 17:47

The whole idea of the SE sites is that they aren't appropriate for discussion. That's not saying this discussion is wrong, just that it's not for this site. – Chris Rowland May 31 '10 at 20:33

All of the Greatest Living Astronomers are dead. – Rusty Jun 5 '10 at 16:36

up vote -3 down vote

added by Mehper C. Palavuzlar Jun 3 '10 at 12:01

up vote -4 down vote

added by Arlen Beiler May 28 '10 at 15:26

not only offtopic, but offensive as well! – juanformoso May 28 '10 at 15:26

Because religion is offensive to atheists – juanformoso May 28 '10 at 15:58

I don't think this is off topic just because you happen to disagree with the premise of the question, nor is it offensive. Next, you'll be excluding Big Bang Deniers. I happen to think that people should be treated respectfully even if you disagree with them and IF you disagree, then you owe them an explanation as to WHY you disagree rather than being dismissive. So the point is, are we excluding questions based on the beliefs of the asker, or do we accept the questions then answer them politely but ruthlessly correctly and fairly? I prefer the latter. – Tim Long May 30 '10 at 11:32

@Tim while tolerance is a great thing and should be worshipped, even creationists should understand that astronomy is about things that are really observable. so since noone hears the stars sing (vacuum -> "in space, no one can hear you scream") this question still has to be dismissed as speculative – Tobias Kienzler May 31 '10 at 6:11

@Tobias: I agree with you. While it should not be offensive for someone to ask that, it is certainly off-topic. I do think, however, that there is a difference between bad questions and off-topic questions. A bad question would be like "how do I automatically spam customers if they don't pay", while an off-topic one would be something like this one. I think that we should answer off-topic questions with something, but bad questions can just be closed with a reason why. – Arlen Beiler May 31 '10 at 14:31

show 4 more improvement suggestions

up vote -4 down vote

added by juanformoso May 30 '10 at 17:51