Q and BA Episode 5: Spin Doctor

Let's take the Moon out for a spin. Oh wait... too late. It's *already* spinning.

Show notes are on my blog: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/03/04/q-ba-episode-5-spin-doctor/

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• astronomy
• astronomer
• phil
• plait
• moon
• spin
• phases
• qandba

[TheBadAstronomer]

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

[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.

[TheBadAstronomer]

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

[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!!

[caste2510]

I'll CRUSH YOUR PUNY PLANET!!! hahah

[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 :)

[Maxdwolf]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.