Brightening the Future through Brain-Controlled Bionics

By Marine Cpl. Cedric R. Haller II

Ever since the first war ever recorded by human beings, paralyzation and amputation of extremities has been a common occurrence. The answer to this problem was usually found in the form of prosthetics or artificial limbs. The oldest documented prosthetic can be traced back to somewhere between 950 and 710 B.C. It was in the form of an artificial toe fashioned from wood and leather. Today, robotic prosthetic limbs are becoming increasingly common, and prosthetics technology continues to advance.

The University of Pittsburgh and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Revolutionizing Prosthetics program, has developed a technology that allows someone to experience the sensation of touch directly in the brain through a neural interface system connected to a robotic arm.

Just imagine; an amputee being able to feel her spouse’s hands or perhaps even a quadriplegic being able to pet and feel the softness of his dog’s coat. Take Nathan Copeland, for example, who has had quadriplegia from the chest down since 2004.

Ten years after his accident he agreed to undergo surgery to have four microelectrode arrays placed in his brain, two in the motor cortex and two in the sensory cortex regions that correspond to feeling in his fingers and palm. The wires ran from the arrays to the robotic arm, which contains sophisticated torque sensors that detect when pressure is applied to its fingers, and converts these physical “sensations” into electrical signals that the wires carry back to the arrays in Nathan’s brain to provide precise patterns of stimulation to his sensory neurons, according to DARPA.

“DARPA has previously demonstrated direct neural control of a robotic arm, and now we’ve completed the circuit, sending information from a robotic arm back to the brain,” said Justin Sanchez, director of DARPA’s biological technologies office and the program manager for Revolutionizing Prosthetics. “This new capability fundamentally changes the relationship between humans and machines.”

Researchers were able to successfully mimic the sensation of touch in the bionic arm to almost 100 percent accuracy.

“At one point, instead of pressing one finger, the team decided to press two without telling him,” Sanchez said. “He responded in jest asking whether somebody was trying to play a trick on him. That is when we knew that the feelings he was perceiving through the robotic hand were near-natural.”

The things the human mind is capable of are absolutely astonishing, to say the least. This technology has the potential to change the life of every single person whose life has been affected by amputation or paralyzation. Who knows just how far it will go?

Follow the Department of Defense on Facebook and Twitter!

———-

Some details included are courtesy of DARPA.

Disclaimer: The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense of this website or the information, products or services contained therein. For other than authorized activities such as military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DOD website.



from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/2eWBsYa

By Marine Cpl. Cedric R. Haller II

Ever since the first war ever recorded by human beings, paralyzation and amputation of extremities has been a common occurrence. The answer to this problem was usually found in the form of prosthetics or artificial limbs. The oldest documented prosthetic can be traced back to somewhere between 950 and 710 B.C. It was in the form of an artificial toe fashioned from wood and leather. Today, robotic prosthetic limbs are becoming increasingly common, and prosthetics technology continues to advance.

The University of Pittsburgh and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Revolutionizing Prosthetics program, has developed a technology that allows someone to experience the sensation of touch directly in the brain through a neural interface system connected to a robotic arm.

Just imagine; an amputee being able to feel her spouse’s hands or perhaps even a quadriplegic being able to pet and feel the softness of his dog’s coat. Take Nathan Copeland, for example, who has had quadriplegia from the chest down since 2004.

Ten years after his accident he agreed to undergo surgery to have four microelectrode arrays placed in his brain, two in the motor cortex and two in the sensory cortex regions that correspond to feeling in his fingers and palm. The wires ran from the arrays to the robotic arm, which contains sophisticated torque sensors that detect when pressure is applied to its fingers, and converts these physical “sensations” into electrical signals that the wires carry back to the arrays in Nathan’s brain to provide precise patterns of stimulation to his sensory neurons, according to DARPA.

“DARPA has previously demonstrated direct neural control of a robotic arm, and now we’ve completed the circuit, sending information from a robotic arm back to the brain,” said Justin Sanchez, director of DARPA’s biological technologies office and the program manager for Revolutionizing Prosthetics. “This new capability fundamentally changes the relationship between humans and machines.”

Researchers were able to successfully mimic the sensation of touch in the bionic arm to almost 100 percent accuracy.

“At one point, instead of pressing one finger, the team decided to press two without telling him,” Sanchez said. “He responded in jest asking whether somebody was trying to play a trick on him. That is when we knew that the feelings he was perceiving through the robotic hand were near-natural.”

The things the human mind is capable of are absolutely astonishing, to say the least. This technology has the potential to change the life of every single person whose life has been affected by amputation or paralyzation. Who knows just how far it will go?

Follow the Department of Defense on Facebook and Twitter!

———-

Some details included are courtesy of DARPA.

Disclaimer: The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense of this website or the information, products or services contained therein. For other than authorized activities such as military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DOD website.



from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/2eWBsYa

6.6-magnitude earthquake rocks Italy

October 30, 2016 earthquake in Italy via USGS

October 30, 2016 earthquake in Italy via USGS

The U.S. Geological Survey is reporting a 6.6 magnitude earthquake in central Italy this morning (October 30, 2016). There are no deaths or serious injuries reported so far, but several people had to be pulled from rubble. And several buildings have been destroyed, including the Basilica of St. Benedict at the Monastery of St. Benedict in Norcia, Italy. At this writing, there are 11 casualties reported, with aftershocks occurring about every 20 minutes, according to CNN.

Today’s quake comes nearly two months after a major earthquake in Italy on August 24, 2016. The earlier quake killed almost 300 people and destroyed several towns.

See satellite images of the aftermath of the August 24 earthquake

Casualties from the October 30 quake were much lighter, possibly because the Italian government had earlier evacuated people to shelters, following a series or foreshocks (tremors) several days ago. CNN said:

Many residents in the region had already evacuated to emergency camps and hotel rooms paid for by the government after the tremors just days ago, and schools had shut down in anticipation of powerful aftershocks.

The monks of Norcia issued a statement saying:

The monks are all safe, but our hearts go immediately to those affected, and the priests of the monastery are searching for any who may need the Last Rites.

USGS said:

The October 30, 2016 M 6.6 earthquake north of Norcia, Italy, occurred as the result of shallow normal faulting on a NW-SE oriented fault in the Central Apennines.

Meanwhile, in Rome – about 100 miles away (170 km) – people also felt the October 30 earthquake. Steph Kirchgaessner (@skirchy on Twitter) is The Guardian’s Rome correspondent. Here are some of her tweets from this morning.

Get live news on the Italy earthquake from the Guardian

Here is CNN’s page on the Italy earthquake

Here is the BBC’s report on the Italy earthquake

Bottom line: A 6.6-magnitude earthquake – strongest earthquake in Italy in 36 years – struck central Italy on October 30, 2016.



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2e0Y1Xi
October 30, 2016 earthquake in Italy via USGS

October 30, 2016 earthquake in Italy via USGS

The U.S. Geological Survey is reporting a 6.6 magnitude earthquake in central Italy this morning (October 30, 2016). There are no deaths or serious injuries reported so far, but several people had to be pulled from rubble. And several buildings have been destroyed, including the Basilica of St. Benedict at the Monastery of St. Benedict in Norcia, Italy. At this writing, there are 11 casualties reported, with aftershocks occurring about every 20 minutes, according to CNN.

Today’s quake comes nearly two months after a major earthquake in Italy on August 24, 2016. The earlier quake killed almost 300 people and destroyed several towns.

See satellite images of the aftermath of the August 24 earthquake

Casualties from the October 30 quake were much lighter, possibly because the Italian government had earlier evacuated people to shelters, following a series or foreshocks (tremors) several days ago. CNN said:

Many residents in the region had already evacuated to emergency camps and hotel rooms paid for by the government after the tremors just days ago, and schools had shut down in anticipation of powerful aftershocks.

The monks of Norcia issued a statement saying:

The monks are all safe, but our hearts go immediately to those affected, and the priests of the monastery are searching for any who may need the Last Rites.

USGS said:

The October 30, 2016 M 6.6 earthquake north of Norcia, Italy, occurred as the result of shallow normal faulting on a NW-SE oriented fault in the Central Apennines.

Meanwhile, in Rome – about 100 miles away (170 km) – people also felt the October 30 earthquake. Steph Kirchgaessner (@skirchy on Twitter) is The Guardian’s Rome correspondent. Here are some of her tweets from this morning.

Get live news on the Italy earthquake from the Guardian

Here is CNN’s page on the Italy earthquake

Here is the BBC’s report on the Italy earthquake

Bottom line: A 6.6-magnitude earthquake – strongest earthquake in Italy in 36 years – struck central Italy on October 30, 2016.



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2e0Y1Xi

2016’s longest lunar month starts today

Simulated view of the cycle of the moon's phases from new moon to new moon. This cycle is known as the lunar month. From the years 1760 to 2200, the longest lunar month was 29 days 19 hours and 58 minutes and the shortest 29 days 6 hours and 34 minutes.

Simulated view of the moon’s phases.

What is a lunar month? It’s just the duration between successive new moons. Also called a lunation or synodic month, it has a mean period of 29.53059 days (29 days 12 hours and 44 minutes). That’s the mean, but the the actual length varies throughout the year. The lunar month beginning today – October 30, 2016 – is the longest lunar month of 2016. It lasts for 29 days 18 hours and 40 minutes, until November 30.

That’s 5 hours and 56 minutes longer than the mean.

And it’s 11 hours and 20 minutes longer than 2016’s shortest lunar month, which happened between the new moons of May 6 and June 5.

Follow the links below to learn more:

Lengths of the lunar months in 2016

Why are lunar months different lengths?

When are the longest and shortest lunar months of 21st century?

Lengths of the lunar months in 2016


Successive new moons Length of lunar month
January 10 to February 8 29 days 13 hours 08 min
February 8 to March 9 29 days 11 hours 16 min
March 9 to April 7 29 days 09 hours 29 min
April 7 to May 6 29 days 08 hours 06 minutes
May 6 to June 5 29 days 07 hours 30 min
June 5 to July 4 29 days 08 hours 01 min
July 4 to August 2 29 days 9 hours 44 min
August 2 to September 1 29 days 12 hours 19 min
September 1 to October 1 29 days 15 hours 08 min
October 1 to October 30 29 days 17 hours 27 minutes
October 30 to November 29 29 days 18 hours 40 min
November 29 to December 29 29 days 18 hours 35 min

Sources: Astropixels.com and TimeandDate.com

One lunar month is the period of time from new moon to new moon. As viewed from the north side of The Earth's and moon's orbital planes, the Earth goes counterclockwise around the sun and the moon goes counterclockwise around Earth. Image credit: Wikipedia

One lunar month is the period of time from new moon to new moon. As viewed from the north side of The Earth’s and moon’s orbital planes, the Earth goes counterclockwise around the sun and the moon goes counterclockwise around Earth. Image via Wikipedia

Why are the lunar months different lengths? In a nutshell, the longest lunar month of the year occurs when the successive new moons coincide closely with lunar apogee – the moon’s farthest point from Earth in its orbit. The lunar month beginning October 30, 2016 starts at 1738 UTC, with the instant of new moon (when the moon is most nearly between the Earth and sun for this month). Apogee is just over a day later, on October 31 at about 19 UTC. Translate UTC to your time zone here.

In contrast, the year’s shortest lunar month takes place when the successive new moons fall appreciably close to lunar perigee – the moon’s closest point to Earth in its orbit.

On the average, the lunar month (new moon to new moon) is about 2.22 days longer than the sidereal month (one complete revolution of the moon relative to the background stars). However, if the moon is near apogee at the end of one sidereal month, the moon travels more slowly than average in its orbit. Therefore, the period of time between the end of the sidereal month and the end of the lunar month is longer than average.

The opposite is the case when the moon is near perigee. The moon travels more swiftly in its orbit at perigee, in which case the time period between the end of the sidereal month and the end of the lunar month is less than average.

Dates for the 14 apogees and 13 perigees in 2016

Believe it or not, the year’s longest and shortest lunar months don’t showcase ultimate extremes. In fact, the few years ahead (2017 and 2018) will stage shorter and longer lunar months that vary even more greatly from each other and the mean than those of 2016.

The most extreme longest lunar months happen when successive new moons occur near lunar apogee – and in addition, when Earth is near perihelion (its closest point to the sun). Because Earth is always closest to the sun in early January, the very longest lunar months take place in between December and January new moons.

On the other hand, extremely short lunar months happen when successive new moons fall near lunar perigee – and in addition, the Earth is near aphelion (Earth’s farthest point from the sun in its orbit). Because Earth is always at aphelion in early July, the very shortest lunar months take place in between June and July new moons.

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

The moon's orbit around Earth is not a perfect circle. But it is very nearly circular, as the above diagram shows. Diagram by Brian Koberlein.

The variation in the length of lunar months happens because the moon’s orbit around Earth is not a perfect circle. However, it is very nearly circular, as the above diagram shows. Diagram by Brian Koberlein.

When are the longest and shortest lunar months of 21st century? The longest lunar month of the 21st century (2001 to 2100) occurs in between the December 2017 and January 2018 new moons. With a length of 29 days 19 hours and 47 minutes, this particular lunar month exceeds the mean by a whopping 7 hours and 3 minutes.

The century’s shortest lunar month takes place in between the new moons of June and July 2053, a period of 29 days 6 hours and 35 minutes. That’s 6 hours and 9 minutes shorter than the mean.

Incidentally, exceptionally long or short lunar months repeat in cycles of 9 years.

Each year, the shortest and longest lunar months come later in the year. For instance, in 2017, the shortest lunar month happens in between the May 25 and June 24 new moons; and the longest one in between the December 18, 2017 and January 17, 2018 new moons. Click here for a complete listing for the length of each lunar month in the 21st century.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

Phases of the moon, posted to EarthSky Facebook by our friend Jacob Baker.

Phases of the moon, posted to EarthSky Facebook by our friend Jacob Baker.

Bottom line: October 30, 2016 marks the start of the longest lunar month of 2016. It lasts for 29 days 18 hours and 40 minutes. That’s 5 hours and 56 minutes longer than the mean. And it’s 11 hours and 20 minutes longer than 2016’s shortest lunar month, which spanned a period between early May and early June.



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2e0Ukka
Simulated view of the cycle of the moon's phases from new moon to new moon. This cycle is known as the lunar month. From the years 1760 to 2200, the longest lunar month was 29 days 19 hours and 58 minutes and the shortest 29 days 6 hours and 34 minutes.

Simulated view of the moon’s phases.

What is a lunar month? It’s just the duration between successive new moons. Also called a lunation or synodic month, it has a mean period of 29.53059 days (29 days 12 hours and 44 minutes). That’s the mean, but the the actual length varies throughout the year. The lunar month beginning today – October 30, 2016 – is the longest lunar month of 2016. It lasts for 29 days 18 hours and 40 minutes, until November 30.

That’s 5 hours and 56 minutes longer than the mean.

And it’s 11 hours and 20 minutes longer than 2016’s shortest lunar month, which happened between the new moons of May 6 and June 5.

Follow the links below to learn more:

Lengths of the lunar months in 2016

Why are lunar months different lengths?

When are the longest and shortest lunar months of 21st century?

Lengths of the lunar months in 2016


Successive new moons Length of lunar month
January 10 to February 8 29 days 13 hours 08 min
February 8 to March 9 29 days 11 hours 16 min
March 9 to April 7 29 days 09 hours 29 min
April 7 to May 6 29 days 08 hours 06 minutes
May 6 to June 5 29 days 07 hours 30 min
June 5 to July 4 29 days 08 hours 01 min
July 4 to August 2 29 days 9 hours 44 min
August 2 to September 1 29 days 12 hours 19 min
September 1 to October 1 29 days 15 hours 08 min
October 1 to October 30 29 days 17 hours 27 minutes
October 30 to November 29 29 days 18 hours 40 min
November 29 to December 29 29 days 18 hours 35 min

Sources: Astropixels.com and TimeandDate.com

One lunar month is the period of time from new moon to new moon. As viewed from the north side of The Earth's and moon's orbital planes, the Earth goes counterclockwise around the sun and the moon goes counterclockwise around Earth. Image credit: Wikipedia

One lunar month is the period of time from new moon to new moon. As viewed from the north side of The Earth’s and moon’s orbital planes, the Earth goes counterclockwise around the sun and the moon goes counterclockwise around Earth. Image via Wikipedia

Why are the lunar months different lengths? In a nutshell, the longest lunar month of the year occurs when the successive new moons coincide closely with lunar apogee – the moon’s farthest point from Earth in its orbit. The lunar month beginning October 30, 2016 starts at 1738 UTC, with the instant of new moon (when the moon is most nearly between the Earth and sun for this month). Apogee is just over a day later, on October 31 at about 19 UTC. Translate UTC to your time zone here.

In contrast, the year’s shortest lunar month takes place when the successive new moons fall appreciably close to lunar perigee – the moon’s closest point to Earth in its orbit.

On the average, the lunar month (new moon to new moon) is about 2.22 days longer than the sidereal month (one complete revolution of the moon relative to the background stars). However, if the moon is near apogee at the end of one sidereal month, the moon travels more slowly than average in its orbit. Therefore, the period of time between the end of the sidereal month and the end of the lunar month is longer than average.

The opposite is the case when the moon is near perigee. The moon travels more swiftly in its orbit at perigee, in which case the time period between the end of the sidereal month and the end of the lunar month is less than average.

Dates for the 14 apogees and 13 perigees in 2016

Believe it or not, the year’s longest and shortest lunar months don’t showcase ultimate extremes. In fact, the few years ahead (2017 and 2018) will stage shorter and longer lunar months that vary even more greatly from each other and the mean than those of 2016.

The most extreme longest lunar months happen when successive new moons occur near lunar apogee – and in addition, when Earth is near perihelion (its closest point to the sun). Because Earth is always closest to the sun in early January, the very longest lunar months take place in between December and January new moons.

On the other hand, extremely short lunar months happen when successive new moons fall near lunar perigee – and in addition, the Earth is near aphelion (Earth’s farthest point from the sun in its orbit). Because Earth is always at aphelion in early July, the very shortest lunar months take place in between June and July new moons.

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

The moon's orbit around Earth is not a perfect circle. But it is very nearly circular, as the above diagram shows. Diagram by Brian Koberlein.

The variation in the length of lunar months happens because the moon’s orbit around Earth is not a perfect circle. However, it is very nearly circular, as the above diagram shows. Diagram by Brian Koberlein.

When are the longest and shortest lunar months of 21st century? The longest lunar month of the 21st century (2001 to 2100) occurs in between the December 2017 and January 2018 new moons. With a length of 29 days 19 hours and 47 minutes, this particular lunar month exceeds the mean by a whopping 7 hours and 3 minutes.

The century’s shortest lunar month takes place in between the new moons of June and July 2053, a period of 29 days 6 hours and 35 minutes. That’s 6 hours and 9 minutes shorter than the mean.

Incidentally, exceptionally long or short lunar months repeat in cycles of 9 years.

Each year, the shortest and longest lunar months come later in the year. For instance, in 2017, the shortest lunar month happens in between the May 25 and June 24 new moons; and the longest one in between the December 18, 2017 and January 17, 2018 new moons. Click here for a complete listing for the length of each lunar month in the 21st century.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

Phases of the moon, posted to EarthSky Facebook by our friend Jacob Baker.

Phases of the moon, posted to EarthSky Facebook by our friend Jacob Baker.

Bottom line: October 30, 2016 marks the start of the longest lunar month of 2016. It lasts for 29 days 18 hours and 40 minutes. That’s 5 hours and 56 minutes longer than the mean. And it’s 11 hours and 20 minutes longer than 2016’s shortest lunar month, which spanned a period between early May and early June.



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2e0Ukka

Venus-Saturn conjunction October 30

Tonight – October 30, 2016 – look for dazzling Venus, the brightest of planets, in the sunset direction some 20 to 30 minutes (or less) after sundown. Then, as dusk ebbs toward nighttime, look for the planet Saturn to join up with Venus in the darkening sky. When will Saturn appear? That’ll depend on your location on the globe and your sky conditions. Try looking within an hour after sunset, and, if you don’t see Saturn, try looking again until Venus sets.

At present, these two worlds are only 3o apart – approximately the width of your thumb at an arm length. Their conjunction comes on today’s date (October 30) at about 19 UTC … but don’t think you have to look at that particular time. In fact, for a few days, Venus and Saturn lodge close enough together on the sky’s dome to fit into a single binocular field of view.

So, if you see Venus but not Saturn, aim binoculars at Venus to glimpse nearby Saturn.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

Venus (brightest), Antares (left of Venus) and Saturn as seen on October 26, 2016 by Peter Lowenstein in Mutare, Zimbabwe.

Venus (brightest), Antares (left of Venus) and Saturn as seen on October 26, 2016 by Peter Lowenstein in Mutare, Zimbabwe.

Although Saturn is as bright as the sky’s brightest stars, it pales next to Venus, the third-brightest celestial body after the sun and moon. Venus shines some 65 times more brilliantly than Saturn and 100 times more brilliantly than the star Antares, which is near the two planets on our sky’s dome. From northerly latitudes, it’ll be difficult to spot Antares because this star sits close to the horizon at sundown and sets so soon after sunset.

The Southern Hemisphere has the advantage, because all three celestial beauties – Venus, Saturn and Antares – stay out longer after nightfall than at comparable latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere.

Venus and Saturn (and Mars) are all moving eastward in front of the star background now. But Saturn isn't moving east fast enough to avoid dropping into the sunset glare. It'll soon be gone. More about the October 30 conjunction from Guy Ottewell, who created this chart for his last and best Astronomical Calendar. Used with permission.

Venus and Saturn (and Mars) are all moving eastward in front of the star background now. Saturn isn’t moving east fast enough to avoid dropping into the sunset glare. It’ll soon be gone. Chart by Guy Ottewell. Used with permission. There’s still time to get his last and best Astronomical Calendar as a collector’s item!

After tonight, Venus will be climbing away from the sunset glare, while Saturn (and Antares) will be falling toward it.

Venus will remain in the evening sky for many months to come, but Saturn will disappear from the evening sky by late November 2016.

By the way … are you unfamiliar with the word conjunction? It just means that – on October 30 – Saturn and Venus have the same right ascension on an imaginary grid on our sky’s dome.

Right ascension, to astronomers, is like longitude to geographers.

Diagram of a star's right ascension and declination as seen from outside the celestial sphere. Image via Wikimedia Commons.

Diagram of a star’s right ascension and declination as seen from outside the celestial sphere. Image via Wikimedia Commons.

Bottom line: While the time is at hand, see the close pairing of Venus and Saturn as darkness falls in late October 2016. Their conjunction comes on October 30.

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2d43u4i

Tonight – October 30, 2016 – look for dazzling Venus, the brightest of planets, in the sunset direction some 20 to 30 minutes (or less) after sundown. Then, as dusk ebbs toward nighttime, look for the planet Saturn to join up with Venus in the darkening sky. When will Saturn appear? That’ll depend on your location on the globe and your sky conditions. Try looking within an hour after sunset, and, if you don’t see Saturn, try looking again until Venus sets.

At present, these two worlds are only 3o apart – approximately the width of your thumb at an arm length. Their conjunction comes on today’s date (October 30) at about 19 UTC … but don’t think you have to look at that particular time. In fact, for a few days, Venus and Saturn lodge close enough together on the sky’s dome to fit into a single binocular field of view.

So, if you see Venus but not Saturn, aim binoculars at Venus to glimpse nearby Saturn.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

Venus (brightest), Antares (left of Venus) and Saturn as seen on October 26, 2016 by Peter Lowenstein in Mutare, Zimbabwe.

Venus (brightest), Antares (left of Venus) and Saturn as seen on October 26, 2016 by Peter Lowenstein in Mutare, Zimbabwe.

Although Saturn is as bright as the sky’s brightest stars, it pales next to Venus, the third-brightest celestial body after the sun and moon. Venus shines some 65 times more brilliantly than Saturn and 100 times more brilliantly than the star Antares, which is near the two planets on our sky’s dome. From northerly latitudes, it’ll be difficult to spot Antares because this star sits close to the horizon at sundown and sets so soon after sunset.

The Southern Hemisphere has the advantage, because all three celestial beauties – Venus, Saturn and Antares – stay out longer after nightfall than at comparable latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere.

Venus and Saturn (and Mars) are all moving eastward in front of the star background now. But Saturn isn't moving east fast enough to avoid dropping into the sunset glare. It'll soon be gone. More about the October 30 conjunction from Guy Ottewell, who created this chart for his last and best Astronomical Calendar. Used with permission.

Venus and Saturn (and Mars) are all moving eastward in front of the star background now. Saturn isn’t moving east fast enough to avoid dropping into the sunset glare. It’ll soon be gone. Chart by Guy Ottewell. Used with permission. There’s still time to get his last and best Astronomical Calendar as a collector’s item!

After tonight, Venus will be climbing away from the sunset glare, while Saturn (and Antares) will be falling toward it.

Venus will remain in the evening sky for many months to come, but Saturn will disappear from the evening sky by late November 2016.

By the way … are you unfamiliar with the word conjunction? It just means that – on October 30 – Saturn and Venus have the same right ascension on an imaginary grid on our sky’s dome.

Right ascension, to astronomers, is like longitude to geographers.

Diagram of a star's right ascension and declination as seen from outside the celestial sphere. Image via Wikimedia Commons.

Diagram of a star’s right ascension and declination as seen from outside the celestial sphere. Image via Wikimedia Commons.

Bottom line: While the time is at hand, see the close pairing of Venus and Saturn as darkness falls in late October 2016. Their conjunction comes on October 30.

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2d43u4i

Will 2016 see a landslide in the POTUS election? [Greg Laden's Blog]

No.

Many many people, well intended, smart people, keep talking about the rout, the landslide, that will happen. They may be basing this on the new trend started by FiveThirtyEight and picked up by the New York Times and others of deriving a probability statement about the race. But when you see something like “87%” for Clinton in such an estimate, that does not mean that Clinton will get 87% of the votes. It means that it is very likely that Clinton will get 270 or more electoral votes. There is, for example, a zero chance that Clinton will get a single electoral electoral from Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, either Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia or Indiana.

There are versions of this election where the Virgin Mary descends form heaven on a Unicorn and causes Trump to lose in Texas, Georgia, a few other states that he is not going to lose in, and then there are tossup states.

A great outcome for Clinton is winning all the tossups, including New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, North Dakota, Arizona, Nevada, etc. But there is no version of the election in which she wins even one of the 108 electoral votes found among the afore mentioned states.

Now, the total number of electoral votes that Trump can not possibly lose is just over 100. The total number of electoral votes that Clinton can’t possibly lose is just under 200 (including, I think, Washington, Oregon, California, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, DC). Either candidate losing any of those states involves the Virgin Mary on the Unicorn. If you make any map of any kind with those states in place, as specified, per candidate, then nether candidate can win by a true landslide.

And we know what a true landslide is because there have been many of them. A very conservative estimate of Trump’s electoral take would be about 147 votes. The lowest actual estimate I’ve seen is, I think, 153. Very few put him below the 170s, and these all assume that he’ll get more, but with many states left in limbo. In other words, Trump losing badly gives him something like 25% to 30% of the electoral votes.

There have been 56 elections.

10 elections have been won by 90% or more of the electoral vote. The were won by George Washington, James Monroe, FDR, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson. The weakest of those was Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and this is what his map looked like:

screen-shot-2016-10-29-at-8-34-52-pm

28 of the elections were won by 70% or more. The weakest of those was Bill Clinton in 1996. This is what that year looked like:

screen-shot-2016-10-29-at-8-36-27-pm

Hillary Clinton’s electoral map is going to look a lot more like Bill Clinton’s map, and that is not a rout.

There have been many landslides in recent years. Reagan and Nixon as mentioned (Reagan twice), Johnson and Roosevelt as mentioned. Even Wilson, 1912, with just over 80% of the electoral vote looks like a rout on the map:

screen-shot-2016-10-29-at-8-39-18-pm

A major victory for Clinton will be taking all of the major swing states, and one or two of the formerly red states, such as Georgia, South Carolina, any Deep South state, Texas, or Utah. Any one of them. Plus the swing states (esp. Ohio and Florida, both, as well as Pennsylvania). That will feel like a rout, a landslide. But it won’t be.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eQziq9

No.

Many many people, well intended, smart people, keep talking about the rout, the landslide, that will happen. They may be basing this on the new trend started by FiveThirtyEight and picked up by the New York Times and others of deriving a probability statement about the race. But when you see something like “87%” for Clinton in such an estimate, that does not mean that Clinton will get 87% of the votes. It means that it is very likely that Clinton will get 270 or more electoral votes. There is, for example, a zero chance that Clinton will get a single electoral electoral from Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, either Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia or Indiana.

There are versions of this election where the Virgin Mary descends form heaven on a Unicorn and causes Trump to lose in Texas, Georgia, a few other states that he is not going to lose in, and then there are tossup states.

A great outcome for Clinton is winning all the tossups, including New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, North Dakota, Arizona, Nevada, etc. But there is no version of the election in which she wins even one of the 108 electoral votes found among the afore mentioned states.

Now, the total number of electoral votes that Trump can not possibly lose is just over 100. The total number of electoral votes that Clinton can’t possibly lose is just under 200 (including, I think, Washington, Oregon, California, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, DC). Either candidate losing any of those states involves the Virgin Mary on the Unicorn. If you make any map of any kind with those states in place, as specified, per candidate, then nether candidate can win by a true landslide.

And we know what a true landslide is because there have been many of them. A very conservative estimate of Trump’s electoral take would be about 147 votes. The lowest actual estimate I’ve seen is, I think, 153. Very few put him below the 170s, and these all assume that he’ll get more, but with many states left in limbo. In other words, Trump losing badly gives him something like 25% to 30% of the electoral votes.

There have been 56 elections.

10 elections have been won by 90% or more of the electoral vote. The were won by George Washington, James Monroe, FDR, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson. The weakest of those was Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and this is what his map looked like:

screen-shot-2016-10-29-at-8-34-52-pm

28 of the elections were won by 70% or more. The weakest of those was Bill Clinton in 1996. This is what that year looked like:

screen-shot-2016-10-29-at-8-36-27-pm

Hillary Clinton’s electoral map is going to look a lot more like Bill Clinton’s map, and that is not a rout.

There have been many landslides in recent years. Reagan and Nixon as mentioned (Reagan twice), Johnson and Roosevelt as mentioned. Even Wilson, 1912, with just over 80% of the electoral vote looks like a rout on the map:

screen-shot-2016-10-29-at-8-39-18-pm

A major victory for Clinton will be taking all of the major swing states, and one or two of the formerly red states, such as Georgia, South Carolina, any Deep South state, Texas, or Utah. Any one of them. Plus the swing states (esp. Ohio and Florida, both, as well as Pennsylvania). That will feel like a rout, a landslide. But it won’t be.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eQziq9

Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy? [Stoat]

14731101_535255256670799_1911893192673262644_n It seems a shame to be not discussing the greatest political scandal of the age wasting clickbait: Exposed: How top university helped secure £9million of YOUR money by passing off rivals’ research as its own… to bankroll climate change agenda. That is by David Rose, who is an idiot1, in the Daily Fail, which is a stereotypically unreliable source.

You can, of course, discuss it in the usual swamps – and I see ATTP, who has a strong stomach, has. However it seems to have been curiously uninteresting to the folk in White Hats; I wonder why that is? Possibly because it is a stormette in a teacup. Let’s see.

This was drawn to my attention in a comment on Pootinism by Joe Blow, who asked:

Any comments on Nick Stern’s organization defrauding UK taxpayers by claiming to have done research they never did?

http://ift.tt/2eH3bfb

[It would be nice to have a less biased report of the problem; its hard to tell from that. The situation is (I think) that whenever you have a grant renewal you have to push to your funding body evidence of the work you’ve done; so everyone is expected to puff up their paper count. It is often hard to tell whether a given paper was funded by a given grant or not, and it appears that they’ve got rather casual about pushing the line past the blurred point -W]

And I’ve inlined the reply I gave there. I was kinda waiting to see if this story would escape the denialosphere, and it doesn’t look like it has (anyone got any evidence otherwise?); so maybe I’m doing no one any favours by reporting it here.

There’s now a response available. That adds some info but also reinforces my feeling that this is all very much like the question of peer review – or indeed science in general: that outsiders just don’t understand it2.

The publications list in question is here. The paper about which most controversy has swirled is “*Anthoff, D., C. Hepburn and R. S. J. Tol (2009). “Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change.” Ecological Economics 68(3): 836-849.”, with the Fail reporting RT as saying It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant. I’ve never come across anything like it before. It stinks. What the Fail, and RT, appear to have missed is that “*Anthoff” is a very strange name, stranger even that ‘t Hooft. But wait: perhaps there is an explanation for the “*”? Oh, yes, there is: hidden right at the top of the list is

*= Produced under the auspices of CCCEP, but without any ESRC funding

That appears to destroy most of the huffery-puffery. There’s some question about the publication date – 2008 versus 2009 – and ATTP in a comment following Joe Blow’s produces a plausible explanation for the error.

Notes

1. In BEST is fun I call Rose “full of lies” and point you at http://ift.tt/2eYQjj0 for proof. But the bloody thing has moved. To… oh yes: http://ift.tt/2eH7w1T. In a comment on What shall we tell the children? I say “that Montford or Rose is a twat seems neither controversial or interesting”. Will that do?

2. Another excellent example of something that outsiders don’t understand is wikipedia. More generally, I guess outsiders rarely understand anything.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eYSnY5

14731101_535255256670799_1911893192673262644_n It seems a shame to be not discussing the greatest political scandal of the age wasting clickbait: Exposed: How top university helped secure £9million of YOUR money by passing off rivals’ research as its own… to bankroll climate change agenda. That is by David Rose, who is an idiot1, in the Daily Fail, which is a stereotypically unreliable source.

You can, of course, discuss it in the usual swamps – and I see ATTP, who has a strong stomach, has. However it seems to have been curiously uninteresting to the folk in White Hats; I wonder why that is? Possibly because it is a stormette in a teacup. Let’s see.

This was drawn to my attention in a comment on Pootinism by Joe Blow, who asked:

Any comments on Nick Stern’s organization defrauding UK taxpayers by claiming to have done research they never did?

http://ift.tt/2eH3bfb

[It would be nice to have a less biased report of the problem; its hard to tell from that. The situation is (I think) that whenever you have a grant renewal you have to push to your funding body evidence of the work you’ve done; so everyone is expected to puff up their paper count. It is often hard to tell whether a given paper was funded by a given grant or not, and it appears that they’ve got rather casual about pushing the line past the blurred point -W]

And I’ve inlined the reply I gave there. I was kinda waiting to see if this story would escape the denialosphere, and it doesn’t look like it has (anyone got any evidence otherwise?); so maybe I’m doing no one any favours by reporting it here.

There’s now a response available. That adds some info but also reinforces my feeling that this is all very much like the question of peer review – or indeed science in general: that outsiders just don’t understand it2.

The publications list in question is here. The paper about which most controversy has swirled is “*Anthoff, D., C. Hepburn and R. S. J. Tol (2009). “Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change.” Ecological Economics 68(3): 836-849.”, with the Fail reporting RT as saying It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant. I’ve never come across anything like it before. It stinks. What the Fail, and RT, appear to have missed is that “*Anthoff” is a very strange name, stranger even that ‘t Hooft. But wait: perhaps there is an explanation for the “*”? Oh, yes, there is: hidden right at the top of the list is

*= Produced under the auspices of CCCEP, but without any ESRC funding

That appears to destroy most of the huffery-puffery. There’s some question about the publication date – 2008 versus 2009 – and ATTP in a comment following Joe Blow’s produces a plausible explanation for the error.

Notes

1. In BEST is fun I call Rose “full of lies” and point you at http://ift.tt/2eYQjj0 for proof. But the bloody thing has moved. To… oh yes: http://ift.tt/2eH7w1T. In a comment on What shall we tell the children? I say “that Montford or Rose is a twat seems neither controversial or interesting”. Will that do?

2. Another excellent example of something that outsiders don’t understand is wikipedia. More generally, I guess outsiders rarely understand anything.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eYSnY5

James Comey’s Last Day at the FBI: November 9th [Greg Laden's Blog]

You all know what James Comey did. He sent a letter to Congress that will undoubtedly serve to change the vote distribution among the leasing candidates for president enough to possibly change the outcome of the United States election of the President of the United States.

Such an act is treasonous, and had a private citizen, especially a brown one or one with “Hussain” in his name, done something to affect the election to this degree, the FBI would be on that citizen like ugly on an ape. But, James Comey is the head of the FBI, he’s white, male, and a Republican. Also, there is an argument that could be made that he had to send this letter.

The argument that he should of is fallacious. The only reason to have done so is that he, James Comey, can not be seen as having done something more wrong (as opposed to less wrong) in the final analysis of the Clinton Email Tragicomedy. So, it was an utterly selfish act on his part, and does not excuse him. Indeed, it makes what he did worse.

President Obama will be fully justified in relieving Director Comey of his duties. People at his level of government have been asked to resign for less. But, since Comey’s act serves to hurt the Democratic candidate, the one President Obama has been stumping for, he can’t do that before the election.

And that is why November 9th will be James Comey’s last day in public service. Then, he can go and write his book.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2frer0d

You all know what James Comey did. He sent a letter to Congress that will undoubtedly serve to change the vote distribution among the leasing candidates for president enough to possibly change the outcome of the United States election of the President of the United States.

Such an act is treasonous, and had a private citizen, especially a brown one or one with “Hussain” in his name, done something to affect the election to this degree, the FBI would be on that citizen like ugly on an ape. But, James Comey is the head of the FBI, he’s white, male, and a Republican. Also, there is an argument that could be made that he had to send this letter.

The argument that he should of is fallacious. The only reason to have done so is that he, James Comey, can not be seen as having done something more wrong (as opposed to less wrong) in the final analysis of the Clinton Email Tragicomedy. So, it was an utterly selfish act on his part, and does not excuse him. Indeed, it makes what he did worse.

President Obama will be fully justified in relieving Director Comey of his duties. People at his level of government have been asked to resign for less. But, since Comey’s act serves to hurt the Democratic candidate, the one President Obama has been stumping for, he can’t do that before the election.

And that is why November 9th will be James Comey’s last day in public service. Then, he can go and write his book.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2frer0d