Comparison: Battlescape vs. real world

Don’t know what you are on about. Perhaps you might want to read the thread. I simply restated something Nasa said about a planet made of diamond and Kichae responded with some ‘serious Grade A speculation’. Personally I think it is more science than speculation, especially when Naza suggests it. And unlike bloggers, I don’t believe Nasa grabs these things out of thin air…there is science involved. Like when our fore-bearers suggested the earth was round and wasn’t the center of the universe. Again, might want to try reading the thread for context.

2 Likes

Dumbfounded over here too. @Skyentist are you disagreeing with something?

3 Likes

This just in: Working for NASA makes it impossible for a person to speculate! Video at 11!

Unverifiable “what ifs” and “wouldn’t it be cools”. We don’t know the masses of most exoplanets, let alone the compositions. Keep in mind that most of these planets are wobbles on graphs.

First of all, no, they didn’t. Early scientists demonstrated observationally that the Earth was round, even going so far as to measure its circumference. That wasn’t speculative, since they were able to, you know, actually measure stuff. Copernicus and Galileo found early evidence supporting the heliocentric model, but it wasn’t widely quoted as gospel truth on the f’n internet until Kepler actually validated it by matching the model to careful observations.

Speculation is stuff like Giordano Bruno proclaiming that the sky is filled with inhabited planets, or the idea, accepted by many scientists of the day, that Venus was a thriving tropical paradise. Or, more topically, that there’s a large 9th planet trawling the Kuiper belt – there’s minimal evidence for an unseen world, the properties of which (mass, size, composition, orbit) are unknown and currently unknowable.

Or – and stay with me here – that there are unseen worlds made of precious gems. Or even that there are diamonds at the centre of Neptune. These are unverified, and currently unverifiable, claims. Even the ones that are believed by NASA scientists, artists, or PR reps.

Based on your years and years as an exoplanetary scientist?

Ah, no. Just based on argument from authoritative (if highly speculative) press release.

Kichae’s not a blogger. He’s an astronomer. Like, with an advanced degree, and a thesis, and everything.

That context being that you’ve made one strong but unverifiable claim, and several factually incorrect ones in order to support your support of the unverifiable one?

See, the thing with speculation is that, sometimes it’s right. Sometimes it’s based on hints and clues. Sometimes it’s done by people with lots of schooling who work for three- or four-letter government agencies. That doesn’t make it not speculation.

6 Likes

This thread isn’t about speculating on the nature of exoplanets it’s about comparing IBS to the real world where we’ve already gone off topic.

What I’m on about is that I was attempting to post sources where you might be able to read and learn why what you said was speculation. I responded with a quotation and a source from NASA where they dialed back that speculation to something more reasonable, if one can call a super critical atmosphere reasonable.The very same people you’re taking as a source for speculation on diamond planets, later redacted that and they said, “well maybe something else.” You can’t can’t cherrypick information especially from the same source.

I wasn’t disagreeing, I was trying to clarify with reputable sources. It’s a bit pedantic, but in science and topics of science it’s important. Although I admit I am unsure of the general quality of Astronomy.com and I chose it simply because it backed up my argument, I feel that a statement from NASA directly is a strong piece of evidence, especially since Zen is basing his entire argument on the comments of a few at NASA. I would love to be wrong and be pointed to the published paper that supports a diamond planet theory, but I have never seen one.

I see that the blogger was an attempt to discredit me(flew over my head the first time, I am not a smart man), which is fine. I would be interested in finding out when an unreputable internet blogger transforms into a reputable internet blogger, especially since I’m assuming that’s where Zen got their information in the first place.

Here’s a quick personal anecdote which serves to make a point.

My Uncle works for NASA, and he is extremely skeptical on the idea of anthropologically caused climate change. Does he speak for the entirety of NASA when expressing his opinion? Judging by the general consensus of statements and papers coming from NASA, he does not. He is one man with his own scientific opinions which is not representative of the agency as a whole. What he believes is irrelevant here, the fact that just because he is at NASA doesn’t make his beliefs fact is.

Again, I know this is nitpicky but, it’s important in the age of internet bloggers(as you said) to have reputable sources to back up your statements to avoid spreading misinformation. That’s all I’m asking for here.

Didn’t know that quoting Nasa in a comment that supports the potential wonders of space would make a few vocal minority so upset. Have to wonder if they are here to support a game about space or simply want to make everything about themselves. Appears to be the latter sadly.

Anyway, thanks Ovriki1 (if you are reading this thread). I agree fully: there are planets out there that come in every imaginable color but we haven’t discovered them yet. And I’m pretty sure Nasa would agree.

Oh stop it.

I think it’s as much to do with tone as anything else. When you’re speaking authoritatively about something that is part of someone else’s profession, they may feel obliged to correct your errors

Speaking as a professional software engineer and games developer, sometimes you just have to let that stuff go.

5 Likes

Whose speaking ‘authoritatively’ about something?

Oh. You mean the ‘lets weigh every possible explanation and research every imaginable quote from every single scientist on the Diamond planet hypothesis and make a big stink about it on a gaming forum’. Got it. People really have to chill out - this kind of ‘authoritative’ tone is not exactly conducive to bringing in new supporters. Of course we could check their credentials at the door first. Or demand they stop quoting NASA.

Here are some interesting links in regards to strange exotic planets - enjoy:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/g1265/space-oddities-8-of-the-strangest-exoplanets/?

http://www.space.com/159-strangest-alien-planets.html

With over 100 billion stars in the Milky Way alone and an estimated 100 billion galaxies, there’s probably one or two planets we couldn’t have even imagined out there.

Disclaimer: Diamond planet in each one - what is the universe coming to!

1 Like

Are you really so butthurt that someone corrected your comment (and yes, I do mean corrected) that you still haven’t moved along?

@Red_Syns dude chill out

1 Like

Please stop throwing gasoline around.

Back on topic!

8 Likes

That’s a really cool comparison.

It looks like some of the light is reflected from the rings back unto the planet in the first one. Am I seeing this right?

Or cut the passive aggressive BS. We could ask they stop doing that.

@crayfish Where’d you get that first picture?

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/newsrelease20130304/

1 Like

I agree with Crayfish, stop throwing gasoline around. Back on topic please.

Wow, other than the I-Novae Studios in the bottom right corner, I cannot tell the difference.

1 Like

Good find JB, I flipped it 180 degrees so it was the same orientation as the iNovae engine pic. That must have made a reverse image search more difficult.

For those interested the little dot visible through the rings towards the bottom left of the image is Venus.

2 Likes