2783: Ruling Out - Revision history

2600:1700:94A0:6BE8:1409:547C:C24F:23CD: /* Explanation */

2025-12-21T06:53:57Z

‎Explanation

2600:1700:94A0:6BE0:8066:23AC:7388:B268: /* Explanation */

2025-12-20T23:03:55Z

‎Explanation

42.book.addict at 17:04, 10 September 2025

2025-09-10T17:04:02Z

92.17.62.87: /* Explanation */ Re-ordering the nested parenthisis, for better grammatic/semantic sense.

2025-09-06T19:19:39Z

‎Explanation: Re-ordering the nested parenthisis, for better grammatic/semantic sense.

Mathmaster: /* Explanation */

2025-09-05T23:38:09Z

‎Explanation

92.23.2.228: /* Explanation */

2025-07-16T23:02:00Z

‎Explanation

Grabadora304 at 16:17, 16 July 2025

2025-07-16T16:17:34Z

141.101.99.73: /* Explanation / Revised for spacing and* further shift the focus of the tag (based upon the prior rationale).

2024-07-13T10:23:39Z

‎Explanation: Revised for spacing *and* further shift the focus of the tag (based upon the prior rationale).

162.158.158.118: /* Explanation */ misplaced citation needed. its original placement calls into question whether or not Cueball is listing 5 obviously impossible objects; this placement calls into question whether or not they are 'obviously impossible'

2024-07-13T07:31:03Z

‎Explanation: misplaced citation needed. its original placement calls into question whether or not Cueball is listing 5 obviously impossible objects; this placement calls into question whether or not they are 'obviously impossible'

172.69.33.191: /* Transcript */ research

2023-10-07T07:19:17Z

‎Transcript: research

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 : There are theories that neutron stars can exhibit {{w|Quake (natural phenomenon)#Starquake|tectonic-like movements}} (as some of the more typical rocky bodies certainly do), but the physics of the 'inside' of a black hole are thought to involve {{w|Black hole#Singularity|strange physics}} incompatible with any form of geology, and cannot be observed anyway – it is believed that the only externally-observable properties of black holes are mass, electric charge, and angular momentum, poetically called the '{{w|no-hair theorem}}'.
-The joke is that you don't actually have to study anything to come to these almost patently obvious conclusions. The objects are contradictory by their very names ("Exoplanets in the solar system") so the fact they ''can't'' exist would be obvious to most laypeople, much less a research in an astronomy-related field. The counter-proposals would need far more effort to even justify them as valid theories, by common understanding, and greater still to try to observe any supporting proof.
+The joke is that you don't actually have to study anything to come to these almost patently obvious conclusions. The objects are contradictory by their very names ("planets that are both inside and not inside the solar system") so the fact they ''can't'' exist would be obvious to anyone who understands the basic definitions, much less a researcher in an astronomy-related field. The counter-proposals would need far more effort to even justify them as valid theories, by common understanding, and greater still to try to observe any supporting proof.
 Some studies are also done to confirm the results of previous studies, to ensure that the conclusions were not mistaken or a fluke. The title text describes a study that was done to confirm the existence of a moon orbiting Earth, even though any sighted person can walk outside and see the Moon, the existence of the Moon has been known for at least as long as humanity has existed, and the fact that it orbits the Earth has been assumed or known for upwards of 3,000 years. The ancient Greeks and Babylonians, for example, thought that the Moon orbited the Earth, though they lacked a detailed physical understanding of the system (they also believed, erroneously, that {{w|Geocentric model|everything else in the universe orbited the Earth too}}). {{w|Anaxagoras}} (c. 500–428 BC) is credited with the correct explanation of lunar eclipses, and reportedly was the first to explain that the Moon shines due to reflected light from the Sun. However, it was not until the work of {{w|Nicolaus Copernicus}} in the 16th century that a detailed and accurate model of the Moon's orbit around the Earth was developed.  Regardless, at this stage, a study to confirm the validity of Copernican orbits would contribute nothing to the scientific process, much less a study confirming the mere existence of the Moon.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 Most science studies are intended to discover new knowledge. In astronomy, the goal is often to find different types of objects in space, or learn how astronomical objects are formed and behave. But often from studying things that exist, we also learn about limits of the kinds of things that ''can'' exist; when this happens, we say that we've "ruled out" the excluded phenomena.
-[[Cueball]] lists five obviously{{Citation needed}} impossible objects.
+[[Cueball]] lists five impossible objects his team has ruled out:
 * "Earthlike stars": A play on "Earth-like planets" which scientists are very interested in finding. The [https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/overview/ Earth] is ([[3063: Planet Definitions|probably]]) not a {{w|star}}, hence stars cannot be Earthlike (even other similarities (such as habitability and liquid water) are extremely hard to achieve, due to high gravity and sometimes very high temperature).
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 : There are theories that neutron stars can exhibit {{w|Quake (natural phenomenon)#Starquake|tectonic-like movements}} (as some of the more typical rocky bodies certainly do), but the physics of the 'inside' of a black hole are thought to involve {{w|Black hole#Singularity|strange physics}} incompatible with any form of geology, and cannot be observed anyway – it is believed that the only externally-observable properties of black holes are mass, electric charge, and angular momentum, poetically called the '{{w|no-hair theorem}}'.
-The joke is that you don't actually have to study anything to come to these almost patently obvious conclusions. The counter-proposals would need far more effort to even justify them as valid theories, by common understanding, and greater still to try to observe any supporting proof.
+The joke is that you don't actually have to study anything to come to these almost patently obvious conclusions. The objects are contradictory by their very names ("Exoplanets in the solar system") so the fact they ''can't'' exist would be obvious to most laypeople, much less a research in an astronomy-related field. The counter-proposals would need far more effort to even justify them as valid theories, by common understanding, and greater still to try to observe any supporting proof.
 Some studies are also done to confirm the results of previous studies, to ensure that the conclusions were not mistaken or a fluke. The title text describes a study that was done to confirm the existence of a moon orbiting Earth, even though any sighted person can walk outside and see the Moon, the existence of the Moon has been known for at least as long as humanity has existed, and the fact that it orbits the Earth has been assumed or known for upwards of 3,000 years. The ancient Greeks and Babylonians, for example, thought that the Moon orbited the Earth, though they lacked a detailed physical understanding of the system (they also believed, erroneously, that {{w|Geocentric model|everything else in the universe orbited the Earth too}}). {{w|Anaxagoras}} (c. 500–428 BC) is credited with the correct explanation of lunar eclipses, and reportedly was the first to explain that the Moon shines due to reflected light from the Sun. However, it was not until the work of {{w|Nicolaus Copernicus}} in the 16th century that a detailed and accurate model of the Moon's orbit around the Earth was developed.  Regardless, at this stage, a study to confirm the validity of Copernican orbits would contribute nothing to the scientific process, much less a study confirming the mere existence of the Moon.

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 : Planets in our solar system (even {{w|Planets beyond Neptune|undiscovered ones}}) are unaffected, as is the {{w|List of exoplanet search projects|search for exoplanets}} around other stars, with conclusive evidence of both.
-* "Habitable-zone quasars": {{w|Quasar}}s in the {{w|habitable zone}}s of stars are only theoretically feasible for relatively small {{w|black hole}}s with active {{w|accretion disk}}s  in a star's habitable zone, visible from the Earth and brighter than the Sun, because of the technical criteria for classifying them in terms of their {{w|apparent magnitude}} relative to that of their galaxy.[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/26] None such have ever been observed.{{fact}} While typical galaxies usually have only one quasar in their center, merging galaxies often have two far apart. Perhaps in 4-5 billion years, when the {{w|Andromeda Galaxy}} merges with our {{w|Milky Way}}, its [https://www.sci.news/astronomy/article00779.html microquasar] might qualify, but that is extremely unlikely.
+* "Habitable-zone quasars": {{w|Quasar}}s in the {{w|habitable zone}}s of stars are only theoretically feasible for relatively small {{w|black hole}}s with active {{w|accretion disk}}s  in a star's habitable zone, visible from the Earth and brighter than the Sun, because of the technical criteria for classifying them in terms of their {{w|apparent magnitude}} relative to that of their galaxy.[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/26] None such have ever been observed. While typical galaxies usually have only one quasar in their center, merging galaxies often have two far apart. Perhaps in 4-5 billion years, when the {{w|Andromeda Galaxy}} merges with our {{w|Milky Way}}, its [https://www.sci.news/astronomy/article00779.html microquasar] might qualify, but that is extremely unlikely.
 :While not certain, habitable zones around some quasars have not been ruled out.[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b2f/meta][https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2364/1/012057/meta]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 [[Cueball]] lists five obviously{{Citation needed}} impossible objects.
-* "Earthlike stars": A play on "Earth-like planets" which scientists are very interested in finding. The [https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/overview/ Earth] is ([[3063: Planet Definitions|probably]]) not a {{w|star}}, hence stars cannot be Earthlike (even other similarities are extremely (such as habitability and liquid water) hard to achieve, due to high gravity and sometimes very high temperature).
+* "Earthlike stars": A play on "Earth-like planets" which scientists are very interested in finding. The [https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/overview/ Earth] is ([[3063: Planet Definitions|probably]]) not a {{w|star}}, hence stars cannot be Earthlike (even other similarities (such as habitability and liquid water) are extremely hard to achieve, due to high gravity and sometimes very high temperature).
 : Searches for both {{w|List of potentially habitable exoplanets|Earth-like planets}} and {{w|Solar analog|Sun-like stars}} go unabated, with various near matches found.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 [[Cueball]] lists five obviously{{Citation needed}} impossible objects.
-* "Earthlike stars": A play on "Earth-like planets" which scientists are very interested in finding. The [https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/overview/ Earth] is ([[3063: Planet Definitions|probably]]) not a {{w|star}}, hence stars cannot be Earthlike.
+* "Earthlike stars": A play on "Earth-like planets" which scientists are very interested in finding. The [https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/overview/ Earth] is ([[3063: Planet Definitions|probably]]) not a {{w|star}}, hence stars cannot be Earthlike (even other similarities are extremely (such as habitability and liquid water) hard to achieve, due to high gravity and sometimes very high temperature).
 : Searches for both {{w|List of potentially habitable exoplanets|Earth-like planets}} and {{w|Solar analog|Sun-like stars}} go unabated, with various near matches found.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 Most science studies are intended to discover new knowledge. In astronomy, the goal is often to find different types of objects in space, or learn how astronomical objects are formed and behave. But often from studying things that exist, we also learn about limits of the kinds of things that ''can'' exist; when this happens, we say that we've "ruled out" the excluded phenomena.
-[[Cueball]] lists five obviously impossible objects.{{Citation needed}}
+[[Cueball]] lists five obviously impossible {{Citation needed}} objects.
 * "Earthlike stars": A play on "Earth-like planets" which scientists are very interested in finding. The [https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/overview/ Earth] is not a {{w|star}}, hence stars cannot be Earthlike.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:19, 7 October 2023
Line 47:		Line 47:
	[[Category:Astronomy]]		[[Category:Astronomy]]
	[[Category:Science]]		[[Category:Science]]
		+	[[Category:Scientific research]]

2783: Ruling Out - Revision history

2600:1700:94A0:6BE8:1409:547C:C24F:23CD: /* Explanation */

2600:1700:94A0:6BE0:8066:23AC:7388:B268: /* Explanation */

42.book.addict at 17:04, 10 September 2025

92.17.62.87: /* Explanation */ Re-ordering the nested parenthisis, for better grammatic/semantic sense.

Mathmaster: /* Explanation */

92.23.2.228: /* Explanation */

Grabadora304 at 16:17, 16 July 2025

141.101.99.73: /* Explanation */ Revised for spacing *and* further shift the focus of the tag (based upon the prior rationale).

162.158.158.118: /* Explanation */ misplaced citation needed. its original placement calls into question whether or not Cueball is listing 5 obviously impossible objects; this placement calls into question whether or not they are 'obviously impossible'

172.69.33.191: /* Transcript */ research

141.101.99.73: /* Explanation / Revised for spacing and* further shift the focus of the tag (based upon the prior rationale).