Q and BA Episode 5: Spin Doctor

[sebastiansz]

@TheBadAstronomer So from Earth we see just one side of our Moon. If I would be standing on the Moon surface looking up on Earth I would see just one side of Earth all the time just as I see the Moon from Earth? What continents would I see? If there any photo? Thanks for your reply :)

[caste2510]

I'll CRUSH YOUR PUNY PLANET!!! hahah

[JessicaTG2008]

LOL Give me all your money "... that's a rotator not a revolver!" Oh I guess your right, we'll never mind then. Your the best Phil, thanx!!

[illinoisgrad]

Is economics a science?

[CivilHuman]

Its sure is.

[voidstuff]

a crappy science though... it states many principles as truth that form the base of next principles.

[digitised]

Economics is a science and it is not 'crappy'.

Like all other sciences i trys to explain natural phenomena with models.

Dont be pedantically literal,just accept that the models are abstractions of reality not to be used exclusively.

Economics is trying to simplify and analyse a multitude of interactions, many of which are not quantifiable such as taste.

It is a very challenging science and one of the very highest earning degrees to graduate with.

[voidstuff]

I'm not saying that economics is very easy to study or get a degree. Economy of course tries to explain the multiple needs of people, but it can't predict things with certainty, we often listen: " the dolar probably is going to increase its value ". That is just a guess that relies on past events. Law of gravity can predict how two planets would orbit with the precision you want.

[digitised]

Economics can predict plenty of things with absolute certainty, it has perfectly accepted laws and has identified a number of constants.

Economics cannot predict the future of the dollar in the same way that Gravity cannot predict the outcome of roullete.

You are being quite unfair in that respect since you are not placing the same level of expectations on both sciences.

As you can see physics can be just as useless and blind if you apply a real world demand on it.

[voidstuff]

come on, a roulette is gambling, complete luck... much more variables affect than gravity.

anyway, I don't hate economy. I think many of their LAWS shouldn't be called laws. A law is something that always apllies. In economics this has been pushed off the limits to shape the area to seen more like a serious science such as maths.

In a science you do experimets. In economics you have to wait for historical happenings such as the wall street crash to draw some knowledge.

[voidstuff]

You can't do experiments with individual human behaviour because it is not predictable. Even when you have the event, then how can you draw right conclusions if you do not control all the variables.? No CONCLUSIONS are made. Almost always the economist disagree about what caused some economic event or what model is right for something. That can't be settled, but should remain in queue. In physics for example there are debating theories about gravity waves lets say, but that has not been settled.

[voidstuff]

taken from wiki: "an "invisible hand" that leads all individuals, in pursuit of their own self-interests" ... so how about charity... not everyone are interested only in the money.

Of course, the people then try to shape and make broader the meaning of self interest into general benefits... but economy started very diferently.

[digitised]

Thats Adam Smith's concept. It simply expresses that a greedy person who only cares about making money (legally) will inadvertently create jobs and improve peoples lives by making superior products and paying wages.

Charity is what you do with your disposable income, some people gain great joy/utility from charity and therefore choose to take part in it, others don't, thats just how freedom rolls.

Charity again is explained perfectly in economics, i dont know why you feel theres a gap.

[digitised]

Actually you can determine human decision making have you studied basic things such as indifference curves?

Most models rely on assumptions, like other sciences.

For example physics models assume a surface is frictionless, a slope is perfectly flat, a ball is perfectly round etc

Economists just assume firms want to maximise profit, pay the least, produce the most, sell for the highest etc

Of course there is debate, the real world is far too complex for simple answers.

[Maxdwolf]

Actually, human behaviour is somewhat predictable. Read "Predictably Irrational" for an introduction to the field of behavioural economics.

[digitised]

Sorry but i completely disagree with everything you have just said.

Roullete is all about physics, but no physicist could calculate with certainty what number will come up.

Whats wrong with say the law of demand?

Demand is ALWAYS a negative slope, as price increases demand decreases, thats a solid law.

Ecomonics is at least 50-60% maths and geometry unless you are studying a fluffy course, you cannot argue with maths im afraid.

[nathan4288]

based on what I learned in my astronomy class we see the same side of the moon because the half we see is heavier than the heavily cratered backside. Because the side we see is heavier, earth has a stronger gravitational pull on this heavier side. This is atleast what my astronomy professor teaches and the book states as well.

[synth3s1s]

i know a joke from the 50s that goes something like: the Russians got to the Moon first, and painted it red; the Americans came second and wrote "Coca Cola" all over it.

i know it's off-topic, but i couldn't help myself. btw great video ;-)

[LovelyYTRocks]

People sent you hate mail because you say the moon rotates?

[asktheastronomer]

since phil isn't doing these anymore contact ask the astronomer !!

type into google without the spaces between words and dots ..

asktheastronomer . blogspot . com

[leporidus]

Oh, what a great tip of the iceberg, a beautiful pandora's box! I once was attending a lecture in my local planetarium (<b>support your local educational institutions, folks!</b>) about the Earth-Moon synchronous-rotation-, tides'n'gravity-, growing-distance-madness, it's staggering! Also take a look at the essay Phil mentioned; it's on his site under bad/misc/tides.html, I think. There's a thread about this vid (with cylindrical humans), too. (:

[leporidus]

Oops, the cylindrical-human model was discussed in the comments of "Q & BA Episode 4: The Gravity of the Situation" on badastronomy.dom -- worth reading nevertheless.

[AwesomeMullet69]

BA, you rock! Don't stop posting...EVER!!!

[chaosmutt]

i second that motion

[TheBadAstronomer]

Maybe. But he's more likely to sue me than Coulter, so probably not.

[EvilWeevil]

But saying "Sibrel Sucks" would be fair comment and not libelous lol.

[TheBadAstronomer]

The rules on the forum maintain rational discourse. Rules for other venues may differ. On my blog I tend to stick with that rule. I'm not generally a big fan of attacking the person.

However, it's clear that Coulter exists to get a reaction. She says things that are hateful and designed with malice aforethought. In my mind, that makes her a bad person, and it doesn't help to treat her with kid gloves. I don't tolerate intolerance. Ironic, but there you go.

[svector]

If a perceived level of hatred is the only criteria, that means a LOT of people are fair game.

Bart Sibrel seems hateful to me when he harasses astronauts and calls them liars and cowards. Can we expect a "1-800-SIBRELSUX" banner in your next vid?

;-)

[Icabobster]

by the by, I loved the slam at Ann Coulter

[Icabobster]

Is that a book about the moon beside your bed? Way to theme your set design!

[TheBadAstronomer]

Because this isn't the forum, it's my video.

[svector]

I see. Different venue, different rules of engagement.

I just assumed the creator of an established set of behavioral guidelines would tend to adhere to those same guidelines even outside the confines of his own domain. Perhaps it was an error for me to assume that.

Still, ad homs don't seem to be your usual weapon of choice. You must really hate her huh?

(I'm fairly certain she believes Apollo was real, btw)

[ferncansino]

So Coulter can call John Edwards a faggot but when he puts up a fictional e-mail saying shes a jerkwad we gotta stop, he's gone crazy!

[svector]

Another great demo, but why the slam at Ann Coulter?

I thought "invective was invective", regardless of the target.

?

[trylonperisphere]

It's "Galactus," not "Galacticus"

--TP from Bad Comics References dot com

[EvilWeevil]

Great explanation. I had a discussion about this very subject with a friend of mine while we were watching the Lunar Eclipse which eventually led on to WHY the moon rotates so only one side is visible but our heads hurt after that.

[DavidKabuki]

Thanks for the great video.

[drutter]

Right on, another good one! I wish there were 20 or 30 of these things to watch. It'd be almost as good as getting the DVD set of Cosmos in the mail. *checks calendar*  Oooh, only a week or so and that'll happen to me! :p

[Icabobster]

Once again, I am amazed by your quick wit, and the dexterity of your fingers. :D Keep on truckin.