1.43
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
As per the title, the full video by Anton Petrov is here https://youtu.be/MzLe0Zk31_U?si=vsqwMf321OMQWHnD. TLDW, insects are not even attracted to lights, their mechanical responses to light are forcing them to endlessly circle around light sources. In other words, its torture. Might strengthen the bridge between dark sky advocates and mainstream animal rights/environmental activists. And get more push to governments to reduce light pollution. Any thoughts? |
0.90
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Speaking of light pollution and... bright pointlike artificial coastal lightsources which send horizontal rotating beams of white light over sea surfaces (lighthouses). Are those pointlike lights, from lighthouses, observable from the International Space Station? (appearing like pulsating "stars" at Earth's nocturnal curved horizon). Further thinking... because the white beams of lighthouses shine horizontally, they "cross" a considerable part of Earth's lower and upper atmospheric layers, which means: their starlike appearances, observable from the I.S.S., must look deep orange or red, just like the rising or setting sun. |
2.41
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Joon Ren: I stopped watching his channel. It’s mostly sensationalist garbage and garbage “science” |
|
1.43
#...
·
|
|---|
Sean Mc: Yea I guess one of the problems is that he tends to presents developments in the experimenting stage as facts. Some of them go through, others don't. He does follow ups, so we'll see whether this particular one sticks. It will be interesting though, to imagine what the implications will be if this turns out to be true. Will animal activists start to push? Will government agencies start to implement measures to reduce light for insects and in the process help astronomy/astrophotography? Or maybe nothing will be done in which case narrowband it is haha |
3.81
#...
·
|
|---|
| It's an interesting theory for sure. Bird habitats have been shown with statistical evidence to be affected with LP. It could be reasonable to theorize that insects share some level of draw to warmer/brighter lights. It just seems like something really difficult to prove in a statistical study that measures it. |
7.61
#...
·
|
|---|
Sean Mc: To be fair, Anton's videos are all based on scientific papers. He rarely presents their findings, or any new theories, as 'facts', and follows up when new research either furthers, or counters, what he covered before. And sure, he chooses papers to report on that will attract viewers, so ones that are more "groundbreaking" and/or controversial, and therefore also likely less established ('Capse.jl: efficient and auto-differentiable CMB power spectra emulation' didn't make the cut......), but there's a fair amount of overlap in his material with that of blogs by professional astronomers/cosmologists and how he presents it isn't dissimilar. With JWST, and other advances, any astronomical reporting likely has a short shelf-life given the pace of discovery right now. Kind of like AP...... : ) Not to mention that with one foot in the largest scales there are, and the other in the quantum, with no resolution yet between, cosmology and astrophysics are always on shaky ground..... BTW, according to the insects and artificial lights paper Anton covered, they aren't *attracted* to the light, instead they are genetically programed to keep their backs to the light (sun/moon), so when they randomly encounter an artificial light, they then circle it perpetually as they continually re-orient themselves and only leave their orbit when kicked out by some outside factor (gust of wind, say). Sadly, even if the paper is correct, given the sales of bug-zappers, it seems unlikely the torture of insects is going to promote widespread condemnation of artificial lighting..... Cheers, Scott |
|
2.41
#...
·
|
|---|
|
The point is that “scientific papers” are increasingly BS. I understand that there’s always been bias and false reporting and data manipulation. It’s that the claims are beyond plausible now. if an insect was programmed to keep their back to a light source, it would fly directly away, not in an orbit. |
|
7.61
#...
·
|
|---|
|
It's called "dorsal light response" and if you don't trust Anton to present possible new theories, than maybe Scientific American?...... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-insects-are-attracted-to-light-at-night/#:~:text=Now%20research%20published%20this%20week,to%20confusedly%20fly%20in%20circles Cheers, Scott |
|
2.41
#...
·
|
|---|
| You missed the point. I don’t blindly trust what anyone spouts. I said that MOST “scientific papers” are manipulated BS these days. |
|
7.61
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I don't trust anything at face value either, now more than ever, so I have to ask, what science/research supports your claim that more than 50% of scientific papers are poorly, if not deceptively, researched or presented? Cheers, Scott |
|
2.41
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I’m not quoting “science/research” to tell me that. I read the journals. Never mind the fact that so much is published these days not by doing science, but by cherry picking other peoples data to support the hypothesis. |
