Jurassic Beaver

According to this article in New Scientist (which is much better than Scientific American), scientists have unearthed the fossil of a large, beaver-like mammal that lived about 164 million years ago. It was thought that mammals were mostly limited to small, shrew like animals until the age of the dinosaurs ended 65 million years ago. Perhaps we have a more complex history than was previously believed. On a slightly related note, the phrase "Jurassic beaver" makes me giggle.

More Salma

Since you've all been so good this week, here's a picture of Salma.

Fun with Orbits

If you like orbits, you'll find this interesting. Astronomers have discovered a solar system in the process of formation. The thing that is different about this one, though, is that the cloud of gas and dust in the inner system is rotating in the opposite direction than the cloud of gas and dust in the outer system. This would lead to some planets orbiting in one direction, and other planets orbiting in the opposite direction.

Quantum Computers

In what sounds like it was ripped right out of a Robert Heinlein novel, scientists have developed a quantum computer that produces an answer without having to be turned on. I can't wait for the movie.

More on Pluto

Nice article here on whether or not Pluto should retain its planetary status. I get the sense that things are not looking good for our favorite Kuiper Belt Object, although we've just discovered it has two new moons.

Salma!

Movie Review

This week's movie review is posted here.

Heavenly Bodies

No, I'm not talking about Salma (although I am thinking about her). There is a great article in Wired about amateur satellite trackers. Using binoculars and orbital mechanics, these guys have tracked and published the orbits of virtually all artificial satellites, including secret military spy satellites. The article details their history and the attempts to track the super-secret NSA stealth satellite known as 'Misty'. It's a must-read and you can see their website at www.heavens-above.com. Check it out.

Turning Against Pluto

Astronomers think they have nailed down the size of the newly discovered planetary object outside the orbit of Pluto, and it looks like it is larger than the ninth planet by about 700km or abouts. This is sure to intensify the debate over whether we add it as a tenth planet. Personally, I say it's not a planet and neither is Pluto.

Despite my engineering training, where instructors mercilessly drilled the nostalgia out of me, I lean toward sentimentality on things like this. I'm the kind of guy who like it when sports teams keep around great atheletes who have passed their prime instead of letting them go in favor of younger, up and coming talent. Perhaps for this reason, I've been a strong supporter of Pluto as the ninth planet. Lately, however, I've started to change my mind. Maybe I'm just tired of the arguments, but if I were in charge, I'd ditch the planet nomenclature altogether. I'd divide everything in the solar system into 5 catagories: Inner Planets, Gas Giants, Kuiper Belt Objects, Oort Cloud Objects, and Whatever the Hell Else We Find Out There. Pluto and 2003 UB313 are Kuiper Belt Objects, and that's what we should call them. Simply calling new found KBOs planets is just going to make things more complicated once we start finding these guys in droves. Are we going to make school kids learn the names of 500 planets? What about calling anything that is spherical due to gravity a planet? Well, then we'd have to make Ceres a planet and it has done nothing so far to deserve that status. No, it's simpler to make a clean break now. I know it would be tough to say goodbye to Pluto, but it'll still be there, orbiting the sun as always. Heck, we'll even drive by in 2015.

More Planets?

Astronomers have published a study of stars in our galaxy that indicates most stars are single, that is, they do not have a companion star. Previously, scientists believed that most of the Milky Way's stars were in fact binary star systems. I seems like this would mean that there may be more planetary systems in the galaxy than would be possible if most of the stars were part of binary systems. I expect that planet formation is less complicated in a single star system. Looks like we may have to modify a few parameters in the Drake Equation.