Orion in the night sky
Life, Science

My God, it’s full of stars!

I saw a shoot­ing star last night as it streaked across a sky full of stars. I kid you not! You could look up and see thou­sands of stars. Now, astro­nomy mavens might not be too impressed by that. Many people can see stars as dim as mag­nitude six in a dark sky, lucky people can see dim­mer stars. There accounts for around 6000 vis­ible naked-eye stars. But for many of us that’s simply not true.

I used to live in a sub­urb of Derby. When I moved to Powys I noticed there were more stars in the sky. A lot more. So many I was temp­ted to buy a tele­scope. The next 30 days were clouded out, so that killed that idea, but on the days when stars are vis­ible they’re stun­ningly impress­ive. There is a way to quantify how impress­ive the night sky is that you can help with next year.

Orion in the night sky

Orion, the Hunter by Eduardo Mariño.

When I was in Derby I took part in GLOBE at Night. It’s a sur­vey that asks you to describe what you can see. The ver­sion I took part in asked people to say which stars they could see in Orion, the image on the right. It’s a good choice because the belt makes it easy to identify. I could see those. I could also see Betelguese (top-left), Bel­lat­rix (top-right) and Rigel (bottom-right). If I squin­ted and stared hard I could ima­gine I could see Saiph (bottom-left), but really I couldn’t. There was a sodium glow of dank yel­low reach­ing up into the sky like lurid phlegm-coloured fog. It was the first time I’d real­ised how bad the local light pol­lu­tion was. In con­trast, I can’t account for every star in the photo shown, partly because as your eye dark-adapts you see more stars. How­ever, this image is a very good impres­sion of what I saw. I had no trouble at all see­ing Orion’s belt. It didn’t look like a fig­ure of gems on a vel­vet back­ground. Instead the major stars looked like gems over a back­ground where someone had sneezed dia­mond dust.

It’s pos­sible this long-term cold I’ve had since Septem­ber is affect­ing me more than I think.

The dif­fer­ence isn’t just in quant­ity. A dark sky makes a big dif­fer­ence to the qual­ity of the sky. I thought I knew my way around the night sky pretty well. Last night I could see Orion out of my win­dow, but took a little while to find Taurus. Again, a good ama­teur astro­nomer might find this funny. Taurus should be unmiss­able. Even more so when you have a dark sky, mak­ing the stars even easier to see. In the North­ern hemi­sphere you look a little way to the right and you’ll see the horns of Taurus the bull live a V shape. Alde­baran sits at the top of one of the horns. This V is made of bright stars, it’s the most vis­ible part of the con­stel­la­tion, it is strik­ing. But when you have a prop­erly dark sky it’s strik­ing among a whole load of other stars. In Derby Taurus was to the right of Orion. In Powys it still is, but this time there’s an awful lot of stars in between them. It’s easier to find your when around the night sky when you can only see the prom­in­ent stars. Here, it’s almost like the sky has developed a glit­ter­ing inter­fer­ence pattern.

I know that light pol­lu­tion has been a topic of pain for astro­nomers for dec­ades. In my head I can fully under­stand it as a quant­it­ive argu­ment. Dark skies = more stars. That might not be enough for a power­ful emotive argu­ment. Ima­gine you live some­where where the night sky is rub­bish. Redu­cing light pol­lu­tion isn’t such a big deal. It just means more rub­bish look­ing stars. I also won­der if heavy light pol­lu­tion, which is worst nearest the hori­zon, helps dis­tance people from the Cos­mos. Ban­ish­ing the vis­ible stars to the highest parts of the sky emphas­ise the sep­ar­a­tion between earthly life and the rest of the uni­verse. A dark sky shows that where you are is the place where the Earth meets the Sky. Below you soil, above only the unima­gin­able heights to the edge of the uni­verse, and you smack in the middle.

That feels dif­fer­ent and it’s some­thing you can’t repro­duce in a planetarium.

Photo: Orion by Eduardo Mar­iño. Licenced under a Cre­at­ive Com­mons BY-NC-SA licence.


As a coda, I remem­ber read­ing about the after­math of Hur­ricane Andrew in Astro­nomy magazine. After the power had been cut the night sky was exposed. People phoned up local uni­ver­sit­ies, plan­et­aria and obser­vat­or­ies to ask what the lights in the sky were. At the time I lived in the coun­try, so I found the idea that people could be puzzled by stars hil­ari­ous. Hav­ing lived in a city now, and know­ing that many people have never lived any­where else I have a lot more empathy. Ima­gine liv­ing through a hur­ricane and then, for the first time in your life, the uni­verse arrives on your door­step. No won­der you’d want to phone someone to check it’s normal.

Standard
The Pericles Commission Cover
Life, The Past

The Pericles Commission by Gary Corby

The Pericles Commission CoverI finally got around to get­ting The Pericles Com­mis­sion by Gary Corby this week. is it any good? If the sus­pense is too much for you, Gary’s a nice bloke, so if it were rub­bish I wouldn’t men­tion I’ve read it. The reason I left off buy­ing it for so long was that I was wait­ing for the paper­back. In the end the Kindle price dropped to the paper­back, so I got that ver­sion. I’ll also be buy­ing the sequel The Ionia Sanc­tion, pos­sibly not till the price drops with the paper­back for that too, but then again it might be a Christ­mas treat instead.

The book is based on a real event. Ephi­altes estab­lished the Athenian demo­cracy (if you ignore Cleis­thenes), and then was killed a few days after by xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (I just real­ised, this would be a big spoiler). This, as Gary Corby points out in his author’s note, is in a few lines of the Con­sti­tu­tion of the Atheni­ans — which we’ll say was writ­ten by Aris­totle because a dis­cus­sion of the author­ship would be tedi­ous, incon­clus­ive and utterly irrel­ev­ant to the point.

The book opens quickly.

A dead man fell from the sky, land­ing at my feet with a thud. I stopped and stood there like a fool, aston­ished to see him lying where I was about to step. He lay face­down in the dirt, arms spread wide, with an arrow pro­trud­ing out his back. He’d been shot through the heart.

It was obvi­ous he was dead, but I knelt down and touched him any­way, per­haps because I needed to assure myself that he was real. The body was warm to my touch. The blood that stained my fin­ger­tips, from where I had touched his wound, was slip­pery and wet but already begin­ning to dry in the heat, and the small cloud of dust his fall had raised made my nose itch as it settled.

It doesn’t nor­mally rain corpses, so where had this one come from? I looked up. There was a ledge above me, and another to the left. The one dir­ectly above was the Rock of the Areo­pagus, home to the coun­cil cham­bers of our elder states­men. The other to the left, but much farther away, was the Acro­polis. There was no doubt about it; this man had fallen from the polit­ical heights.

Con­tinue read­ing

Standard
Book in the snow
Life, Science

Applied Cold Reading

Book in the snow

The best photo I’ve seen of cold read­ing by SPDP at Flickr.

I took a week­end off to attend a course in Lon­don on Applied Cold Read­ing. The course was given by Ian Row­land, who might be famil­iar to some read­ers as ‘Ian who from where?’, for every­one else he’s the author of The Full Facts Book of Cold Read­ing.

The Full Facts Book is mainly about Cold Read­ing in a psychic con­text. There are lots of people who can tell you how cold read­ing works in a psychic con­text. It relies on Barnum state­ments, state­ments that feel per­sonal but they’re true for every­one. I don’t find that a sat­is­fy­ing explan­a­tion. I get the impres­sion that the Barnum effect works best on gull­ible people. I know a few people who take psych­ics ser­i­ously and they’re all far less gull­ible than me. Another reason it’s a poor explan­a­tion is that there aren’t many people with a father called Brian, with dark hair, who’s miss­ing fin­gers from his left hand.
Con­tinue read­ing

Standard
Reaching for the stars in Lascaux Cave
Featured, Science, The Past

The earliest astronomers?

This post was chosen as an Editor's Selection for ResearchBlogging.orgThe short ver­sion of this post is that Astro­nomy in the Upper Palaeo­lithic? by Hay­den & Vil­len­euve is a great paper. If you’re inter­ested in astro­nomy in hunter-gatherer soci­et­ies you should read it. I’m going to dis­agree with some parts of the paper below, but if Hay­den & Vil­len­euve are wrong about some things, then it’s for inter­est­ing reas­ons. And it’s by no means cer­tain that I’m right to dis­agree about the things that I do.

Reaching for the stars in Lascaux Cave

Reach­ing for the stars in Las­caux Cave. Photo (cc) tourisme_vezere.

The archae­ology of astro­nomy is con­ten­tious at the best of times, but the Palaeo­lithic is a par­tic­u­larly dif­fi­cult period to study, because the remains are so frag­ment­ary and few in num­ber. So to put this in con­text we need to know when the Upper Palaeo­lithic is.

You’re prob­ably famil­iar with the Three Age Sys­tem, Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages. In this sys­tem in Europe the Stone Age ends roughly between 4000 and 2500 BCE depend­ing on where you are and exactly where you want to draw the line. Everything before this is a long time period so you can split it up fur­ther. The Neo­lithic is a period when people settle down and become farm­ers, it starts between 8000 and 4000 BCE in Europe depend­ing on where you are. The south-east of Europe adopts farm­ing much sooner than the people in the north-west. The Palaeo­lithic, if you ignore all sorts of sub­tleties is the period before that. To nar­row down things fur­ther the Palaeo­lithic is sub-divided into three sec­tions, Lower, Middle and Upper. Again, roughly speak­ing, the Lower Palaeo­lithic is the time of early humans, the Middle is the time of Neander­thals roughly 300,000 BCE to 35,000 BCE, and the Upper Palaeo­lithic is the period after that with Homo Sapiens.

This gives the astro­nom­ical read­ers a rough idea of when we’re talk­ing about. Archae­olo­gical read­ers could very eas­ily pick holes in more or less everything I’ve said about the dates. One import­ant reason we’ll get to later is that when we use terms like Bronze Age or Palaeo­lithic, we’re not dir­ectly talk­ing about a spe­cific time, we’re talk­ing about the tech­no­logy we find that’s asso­ci­ated with a spe­cific time. So some ‘peri­ods’ make no sense out­side of Europe. If you live some­where where Obsidian was much easier to get than Bronze, then it’s pos­sible local people never bothered with a Bronze Age.

Hay­den & Vil­len­euve real­ise that evid­ence from the Upper Palaeo­lithic is scant, but they also recog­nise that the Upper Palaeo­lithic is not just a time, but it’s tied to a place. What they’re inter­ested in is whether or not eth­no­graph­ies of mod­ern hunter-gatherer soci­et­ies can give us inform­a­tion about pos­sible uses for astro­nomy. You can’t simply say that mod­ern hunter-gatherers from now were exactly like hunter-gatherers twenty thou­sand years ago, but you can see if tack­ling astro­nom­ical prob­lems pro­duces debris sim­ilar to what archae­olo­gists find. You can also see if there are com­mon fea­tures in astro­nomy around the world from hunter-gatherers. If you can see hunter-gatherer astro­nomy in action then you have clues why hunter-gatherers used astro­nomy in the past and that can pro­duce work a lot more inter­est­ing than “there’s marks on this bone, people could be count­ing moon phases.“
Con­tinue read­ing

Standard
A Viking Ship. Not the one you might expect, but wait and see.
Science, The Past

Blinded by the Viking Sunstones

So, there’s these sun­stones that some people think Vik­ings could have used to nav­ig­ate to Amer­ica. It’s pos­sible though the evid­ence is weak.

A Vik­ing Ship. Not the one you might expect, but wait and see. Photo by Eoghan O’Lionnain

A few months back there was a paper where the phys­ics was sound but the his­tor­ical con­text was lack­ing. Today the news is a new paper, A depol­ar­izer as a pos­sible pre­cise sun­stone for Vik­ing nav­ig­a­tion by polar­ized sky­light. My prob­lem with the earlier paper was that while the phys­ics made sense, there was no real attempt at his­tor­ical con­text. This paper is different.

The test crys­tal from Ropars et al. 2011.

The Alder­ney Stone, from Ropars et al. 2011.

A depol­ar­izer as a pos­sible pre­cise sun­stone for Vik­ing nav­ig­a­tion by polar­ized sky­light is not a paper about Vik­ing nav­ig­a­tion at all. It’s about tests on a sun­stone found on an Eliza­bethan ship by Alder­ney. Update 15 Nov 2001. It’s about tests on a piece of Icelandic spar that the authors have used as a sub­sti­tute for the Alder­ney stone. The paper doesn’t describe the meth­ods used to ensure the sub­sti­tute was a good proxy for the ori­ginal. I’ve included the images of the ori­ginal and the test stone. I can see some super­fi­cial dif­fer­ences and more dis­cus­sion of how the test stone was pre­pared could have been help­ful. The phys­ics is lovely and makes sense, but this paper on Tudor nav­ig­a­tion doesn’t cite any research on Tudor navigation.

The argu­ment is this:

  1. If you place some­thing with a small hole in front of the Alder­ney sun­stone two areas of light appear.
  2. By get­ting the areas to the same bright­ness you can work out where the sun is.
  3. That might have been use­ful in Eliza­bethan times because can­nons can deflect mag­netic compasses.
  4. But we’ve not checked any his­tor­ical records to see how Tudor sail­ors coped with that, nor if our made-up hole thing has any his­tor­ical evid­ence for it
  5. Because sun­stones means Vik­ings! VIKINGS I TELL YOU!

Now, if you’re inter­ested in the optics of cal­cite, this is a good paper — but why would you be inter­ested in the optics of cal­cite? The only obvi­ous reason I can think of is his­tor­ical. And a paper that tackles a his­tor­ical prob­lem by pretty much ignor­ing the his­tor­ical period your arte­fact comes from seems to me to be eccentric.

Any­way, if you were sail­ing in north­ern lat­it­udes and you couldn’t see the sun due to mist, but the light was bright enough for polar­isa­tion to be detect­able, then you could use this device to loc­ate the dir­ec­tion of the sun. The sun­stones would have to be bet­ter polar­isers than the fil­ters I use for my cam­era, because I can’t detect any notice­able polar­isa­tion in the over­cast sky today. Once you have a dir­ec­tion, with no time or alti­tude for the obser­va­tion, what are you going to do with that?

The cov­er­age I’ve seen at the Guard­ian and at the BBC, is cred­ited to two good sci­ence journ­al­ists, yet neither has con­tac­ted a Tudor or Vik­ing his­tor­ian for their opin­ion. This baffles me.

Update 3rd Nov 2011: Wired / Sci­en­ceNow do report that no sun­stone has been found with a Vik­ing ship­wreck or set­tle­ment. They also have an inde­pend­ent expert com­ment­ing on the pos­sib­il­it­ies of Tudor nav­ig­a­tion. Unfor­tu­nately it’s a bio­lo­gist on the dif­fi­culty of sight­ing from a Vik­ing ship.

Is there some­thing clever about the paper I’ve overlooked?

Photo: Vik­ing Line by Eoghan O’Lionnain. Licenced under a Cre­at­ive Com­mons BY-SA licence.

Standard
Zoltan, mechanical fortune teller
Life, Politics

Barnum and Bunkum

I’ve been think­ing over the Pro­ject Barnum debate, as seen on Jour­demayne’s blog. It’s a good example of how two intel­li­gent people sin­cerely try­ing to work out what is best can dis­agree. Fol­low­ing alleg­a­tions against Sally Mor­gan, should psychic events be banned from theatres? Jour­demayne argues no and Michael Mar­shall says yes.

Zoltan, mechanical fortune teller

Zoltan, a fortune-teller who prob­ably won’t sue for libel.

I agree with Jour­demayne, but not with how she gets there. Con­tinue read­ing

Standard
Introduction to Monstering
Digital Academia, Politics

Teaching Apples and Oranges

Introduction to Monstering

There’s an inter­est­ing story on the BBC News web­site: Teach­ing ‘bet­ter at school than uni­ver­sity’ — survey

When asked to com­pare teach­ing at school and uni­ver­sity, less than one-in-five privately edu­cated pupils favoured their uni­ver­sity tutor­ing. Almost two-thirds declared that the teach­ing they had at school had been better.

The res­ults are not a sur­prise. I took A-levels (pre-university exams) twice. The first time I was taught maths, chem­istry and phys­ics and I learned about chem­istry and physics.

The second time was a few years later for Eco­nom­ics and Law even­ing classes. Here I was taught what I needed to know to pass the exams. In the case of Law, there were always four ques­tions in Paper II, Hom­icide, Tort, Con­tract and Con­sti­tu­tional law. You needed to answer two of four, so the even­ing class only covered Hom­icide and Tort. I do not have a roun­ded legal edu­ca­tion, but the col­lege was not graded on my edu­ca­tion it was graded on the res­ults I got. Behind trained for the exam was a huge suc­cess and I scored more UCAS points on my one year even­ing class courses than in my two year stand­ard courses.

Every year for over twenty years the num­ber and qual­ity of A-level passes has gone up. The argu­ments are usu­ally over whether or not the exams are get­ting easier, or the pupils bet­ter. What is less often noted is that schools are graded and com­pared against their neigh­bours on their pass rate. Unsur­pris­ingly they’ve become more and more ruth­less about train pupils to pass an exam because that’s what mat­ters, not whether or not they under­stand why they’re doing what they’re doing.
Con­tinue read­ing

Standard