Planetary rings are flat, disc-shaped rings of dust and other small particles in orbit around a planet.  The most well-known planetary rings are those around Saturn, but Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune also have rings.

NASA Voyager 2 - Rings of Uranus

There are three known ways that planetary rings are formed:  First, it is believed to be left-over matter from the original protoplanetary planetary disc which couldn’t coalesce into moons; from the debris of a moon that was destroyed by an impact; or the debris from a moon that was (or is in the process of being) disrupted by the tidal stresses of its parent planet.

NASA/JPL Cornell University - Jupiter's rings

As we know from Saturn’s rings, many contain shepherd moons and tiny moonlets which contribute to the stable composition of the rings.  While rings are believed to be a fairly short-term phenomenon, Saturn’s rings are believed to be quite ancient.

NASA/ESA Hubble - The star of the show, Saturn in natural colors

While Saturn’s rings have been known since the 1600′s, the rings around Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are modern discoveries.  Scientists will be watching New Horizons on its pass of Pluto for the presence of a ring system.  None of the inner planets are known to have a ring system.  It is believed that the force of the solar wind makes it impossible for a ring system to form that close to the Sun.  While there may have been debris in orbit around the inner planets, the force of the solar wind pushed the particles away.

NASA/JPL Cassini - Saturn ring mosaic... the enlargement on this one is incredible

Saturn’s rings have awed and delighted us for centuries.  The beauty and mystery of the rings have kept us looking up, and because of the rings Saturn is often times described as the most beautiful planet in the solar system.  The rings around Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune have increased our awe of these giants, too.

Studying planetary rings has given us a deeper understanding of the development of our solar system.  However they are formed, they are a wondrous sight.  Mysterious, beautiful, and magnificent; an awesome spectacle that continues to delight.

NASA/JPL CalTech

This is from NASA, ain’t it great?

This oddly colorful nebula is the supernova remnant IC 443 as seen by NASA’s Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE. Also known as the Jellyfish Nebula, IC 443 is particularly interesting because it provides a look into how stellar explosions interact with their environment.

Like other living creatures, stars have a life cycle — they are born, mature and eventually die. The manner in which stars die depends on their mass. Stars with mass similar to the sun typically become planetary nebulae at the end of their lives, whereas stars with many times the sun’s mass explode as supernovae. IC 443 is the remains of a star that went supernova between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago. The blast from the supernova sent out shock waves that traveled through space, sweeping up and heating the surrounding gas and dust in the interstellar medium, and creating the supernova remnant seen in this image.

What is unusual about the IC 443 is that its shell-like form has two halves that have different radii, structures and emissions. The larger northeastern shell, seen here as the violet-colored semi-circle on the top left of the supernova remnant, is composed of sheet-like filaments that are emitting light from iron, neon, silicon and oxygen gas atoms, in addition to dust particles, all heated by the blast from the supernova. The smaller southern shell, seen here in a bright cyan color on the bottom half of the image, is constructed of denser clumps and knots primarily emitting light from hydrogen gas and heated dust. These clumps are part of a molecular cloud, which can be seen in this image as the greenish cloud cutting across IC 443 from the northwest to southeast. The color differences seen in this image represent different wavelengths of infrared emission.

The differences in color are also the result of differences in the energies of the shock waves hitting the interstellar medium. The northeastern shell was probably created by a fast shock wave (223,700 miles per hour), whereas the southern shell was probably created by a slow shock wave (67,100 miles per hour).

I know you’ve probably all seen this, but I stumbled across it the other day, and it captured me once again.  It does us all good to stop and reflect a moment on how vast this universe truly is.  I think the images are lovely.  Enjoy.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I hear that a lot.  Now, I’m not going to climb up on a soap-box here, but let’s get one thing straight; Pluto was NOT named for the Disney character, the Disney character was named after the planet Pluto.

NASA/ESA Hubble, highest current resolution of Pluto

Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh on February 18, 1930, and announced March 13, 1930 (you know this, right?).  Its name was announced May 1, 1930.  Pluto the Pup was “Rover” until May 8, 1931, when the name was used in a cartoon called The Moose Hunt. That was the first time the name “Pluto” appeared for the cartoon animal.  The planet is actually named for the Roman god of the underworld, which also explains the names of its moons.

I don’t want to get fussy here, but while I’m on the subject of Pluto, it wasn’t demoted to a dwarf planet because of its size.  It was assigned the status because it hadn’t cleared its orbital path.  The three criteria which must be met for an object to be categorized as a “planet” are:

1. The object must be in orbit around the Sun.
2. The object must be massive enough to be a sphere by its own gravitational force. More specifically, its own gravity should pull it into a shape of hydrostatic equilibrium. 
   
3. It must have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.

Pluto is certainly in orbit around the Sun; it has a fascinating orbit, and it’s definitely round.  The problem was that there was too much clutter, or debris, within its orbital path.  The thinking is that a planet would have accreted all the bits and pieces.  Of course, we may be watching the process of accretion with Pluto, which we’ll only know over time.

Of course, there’s a HUGE argument about that whole “clearing the orbital path” issue, considering how many asteroids are in Jupiter’s orbit… and Saturn’s orbit…

NASA/ESA Hubble, the Pluto system

Something else that’s cool about Pluto is that it could actually be a binary system with Charon, with Nix and Hydra it’s only moons.  I’m hoping to see some studies relating to that as New Horizons approaches.

One urban legend about Pluto that is absolutely true is that a small portion of Clyde Tombaugh’s ashes are aboard the New Horizons spaceship.

Now, everybody repeat after me:  Pluto was NOT named after the dog, the dog was named after Pluto.  Pluto was NOT named after the dog, the dog was named after Pluto.  Pluto was NOT…

From NASA TV, here’s a short movie about STEREO I thought was interesting.  I should probably put STEREO on my list for a future blog post.

Interested?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Other news: For those of you who thought you were hearing a bit much out of me lately, you were right.  Tom was out of commission for a while, but he’ll be back soon — fine and frisky as ever.

GO TOM – the original Energizer Bunny!

Hubble's look at Abell 1689, just WOW! A larger version is linked below. Credit: : NASA, ESA, D. Coe (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, and Space Telescope Science Institute), N. Benitez (Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia, Spain), T. Broadhurst (University of the Basque Country, Spain), and H. Ford (Johns Hopkins University)

This is an amazing Hubble dark matter map in Abell 1689.  Yes dark matter IS invisible it can be inferred as you will read below.  Still the image is really something, do yourself a favor, grab a cup of coffee or your favorite beverage and spend a few minutes looking at a larger version (~366k), you will see numerous galaxies and evidence of gravitational lensing.

Here’s the short version from Hubblesite:

Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope received a boost from a cosmic magnifying glass to construct one of the sharpest maps of dark matter in the universe. They used Hubble’s Advanced Camera for Surveys to chart the invisible matter in the massive galaxy cluster Abell 1689, located 2.2 billion light-years away. The cluster contains about 1,000 galaxies and trillions of stars. Dark matter is an invisible form of matter that accounts for most of the universe’s mass. Hubble cannot see the dark matter directly. Astronomers inferred its location by analyzing the effect of gravitational lensing, where light from galaxies behind Abell 1689 is distorted by intervening matter within the cluster.

Researchers used the observed positions of 135 lensed images of 42 background galaxies to calculate the location and amount of dark matter in the cluster. They superimposed a map of these inferred dark matter concentrations, tinted blue, on a Hubble image of the cluster. The new dark matter observations may yield new insights into the role of dark energy in the universe’s early formative years.

Go over to Hubblesite for the full story AND a zoomable version of the image. Good stuff.

Take a look at this time-lapse video by Dustin Farrell:

Click here to view the embedded video.

It is a compilation of his own work, mostly taken in and around his home state of Arizona.  Each clip was a RAW image sequence (5616 X 3744) which he then rendered out as a 1080P 23.976fps Quick Time movie.

Dustin has some of his stills featured on his website, and they are breathtaking.  I especially like this one:

Image by Dustin Farrell, all rights reserved

Astrophotography is not an easy skill to master, by any means, and these stand out even in that rarefied atmosphere.  If you have a free minute, do browse Dustin’s website.

As always, if you have a question for Dustin, post it to the comments and I’ll forward them to him.

Thanks for sharing, Dustin!

Click here to view the embedded video.

What the heck?  Apparently a missile launch off the California coast yesterday.

At the moment everybody is saying:

I SEE NOTHING, I HEAR NOTHING, I KNOW NOTHING.

Moons of Jupiter. Click for larger. Credit: findtarget.com

It is said that on a January night in the year 1610 Galileo turned his telescope towards Jupiter and he saw “three fixed stars, totally invisible by their smallness”.  Thoroughly intrigued subsequent observations on different nights showed the “fixed stars” indeed moved, sometimes even disappearing.  He discovered a fourth moon a week after the initial observation.

How could this be?  Well of course he came to the conclusion they were orbiting Jupiter.  He published his observations in pretty short order, in March 1610 in a paper titled Sidereus Nuncius or Starry Messenger.  The observations were confirmed in 1611 at the observatory of Christopher Clavius.

Galileo may have received a hero’s welcome in Rome and had fame in much of Europe the thought of him turning the comfort of Aristotelian Cosmology on it’s ear did nothing for his standing with the church and it wasn’t too many years later his troubles began.

Instead of plowing ahead with his troubles let’s get back to his telescope.  The telescope was invented in 1608 by Dutch spectacle makers, supposedly the inventor was Hans Lipperhey but nobody can prove it.  In early 1609 you could buy one in Paris and by August of that year they made their way to Italy.  Galileo couldn’t get his hands on one but being the resourceful fellow and after he overcame some technical problems, he put his knowledge about lens making to work and he just made his own.

So what does this have to do with anything?  What Galileo could see with that 20 power telescope you can see with a pair of binoculars and I would like to suggest you take a look at Jupiter over the coming nights and look at Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto and note how they move.  Jupiter is super easy to find, just look south (almost due south at 8 pm your local time) it’s the brightest thing out there.  Oh sure if you make a sketch you can even figure out which moon is which quite easily on a number of sites, one of my favorites is at  Western Washington University – simple and clean.

Also while you are at it, okay, a little later in the night or early morning look for comet Hartley 2, it’s a great time because there is no moon.   Basically wait until you can see Orion, then look along a line from Orion’s belt and draw a line from Gemini, the comet will be in that area.  Here’s a little chart to help you.

The subject of Saturday’s riddle, Hind’s Crimson Star (R Leporis) is a Mira variable carbon star in the constellation Lepus.  Described in 1845 by astronomer J.R. Hind, R Lep is often cited as being one of the most beautiful of the ruby-esque carbon stars.

The constellation Lepus - by Torsten Bronger

With an apparent magnitude variance of +5.5 to +11.7 in an approximate 430 day cycle, R Lep appears the most crimson during the time its magnitude is dimmest.  This is probably due to variations in the amount of carbon in the star’s outer atmosphere.  The more carbon present, the more blue light is filtered from the visible light spectrum.

R Leporis, image by Adam Block/NOAO/AURA/NSF

Described as a “drop of blood on a black field”, a “glowing red coal”, and a ruby (of course), R Lep is said to eclipse even the ruddy Betelgeuse and Antares.  Easily visible with binoculars or a small telescope, this beauty is a sight worth the search.  Lepus (the “Hare”) is located south of Orion, and is best seen mid-January.  You’ll have the added bonus of viewing T Leporis and M79.

Lepus - R Leporis is in the center, Mu Leporis is in the lower left

Let me know what you think of it when you find it.

First a short video on the EPOXI/Hartley 2 flyby:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And then a little more about the shuttle delay and yet more on the comet flyby:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Hopefully the coming week won’t have me running around like the poor proverbial chicken “com a sua cabeça cortada” .

“INTRODUCTION: Although men appear to be more interested in sexual stimuli than women, this difference is not completely understood. Eye-tracking technology has been used to investigate visual attention to still sexual images; however, it has not been applied to moving sexual images. AIM: To investigate whether sex difference exists in visual attention to sexual videos. METHODS: Eleven male and 11 female healthy volunteers were studied by our new methodology. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The subjects viewed two sexual videos (one depicting sexual intercourse and one not) in which several regions were designated for eye-gaze analysis in each frame. Visual attention was measured across each designated region according to gaze duration. Sex differences, the region attracting the most attention, and visually favored sex were evaluated. RESULTS: In the nonintercourse clip, gaze time for the face and body of the actress was significantly shorter among women than among men. Gaze time for the face and body of the actor and nonhuman regions was significantly longer for women than men. The region attracting the most attention was the face of the actress for both men and women. Men viewed the opposite sex for a significantly longer period than did women, and women viewed their own sex for a significantly longer period than did men. However, gaze times for the clip showing intercourse were not significantly different between sexes. CONCLUSIONS: A sex difference existed in visual attention to a sexual video without heterosexual intercourse; men viewed the opposite sex for longer periods than did women, and women viewed the same sex for longer periods than did men. There was no statistically significant sex difference in viewing patterns in a sexual video showing heterosexual intercourse, and we speculate that men and women may have similar visual attention patterns if the sexual stimuli are sufficiently explicit.”

Photo: flickr/dutchlad

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: What kind of erotic film clips should we use in female sex research? An exploratory study.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Salvia divinorum: the pot of the future (at least according to YouTube).
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Sex differences in Nintendo Wii performance as expected from hunter-gatherer selection

WTF is NCBI ROFL? Read our FAQ!

Sister Discover Blog 80beats reports:

Fossilized dinosaur embryos, found still in their eggshells, have claimed the title of the oldest vertebrate embryos ever seen–they were fossilized in the early Jurassic Period, around 190 million years ago, researchers say. The embryos are from the species Massospondylus, a prosauropod, the family of dinosaurs which gave rise to iconic sauropods like the Brachiosaurus.

Of course, just because we found the well-preserved bones of a dinosaur embryo doesn’t mean we can bring the thing back to life with a snap of the fingers (or even with a crack scientific team “sparing no expense”). But remember that most scientists were very skeptical that any viable tissue could be found in dinosaur bones until Mary Schweitzer did just that—and faced a lot of misguided attacks before her results were confirmed.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the discovery was the fact that these dinosaur babies are in some important ways baby-like: big heads, no teeth, get around on four legs instead of two (as did Massospondylus adults). The researchers suspect that these little ones therefore probably couldn’t survive on their own, and must have depended on their parents—the oldest ever example of parental care. And if that’s the case, it sort of makes sense that they’d appeal to our weakness for things baby-like, even if they’re not of our species.

So if and when we do bring Massospondylus back from the mass grave of extinction, we better be ready to raise the kids well. Any ideas on how to parent a prosauropod?

Been a while since I did some bonus kat photos, so here it goes….

Climate change is causing areas of the world to heat and cool, and it seems a controversial new climate change film is doing the same to reviewers.

The film is titled Cool It and was based on a book of the same name by Danish writer Bjørn Lomborg, a contrarian who delights in questioning the gravity of our planet’s environmental problems. The movie was directed by Ondi Timoner, an award-winning documentarian.

Lomborg has raised the hackles of environmental activists since he published The Skeptical Environmentalist a decade ago. Since then he has drawn closer to environmentalists on some issues–for example, he now maintains that global warming should be one of the world’s “chief concerns.” But in the new documentary, Lomborg still argues that money spent on trying to limit carbon output would be better spent on investment in green technologies and geoengineering. The film is currently enjoying a limited release across the United States.

New York Times Dot Earth blogger Andrew Revkin compares Lomborg’s Cool It to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth:

Does the film succeed? “Cool It” is eminently watchable — which is no surprise given Timoner’s involvement. Lomborg, as always, is charming and persuasive, frequently shown riding his bicycle through Copenhagen’s busy streets — in what has to be seen as a dig at Gore, who in his film is often seen racing through airports.

But it suffers from the same simplification syndrome that weakened “An Inconvenient Truth.”… In “Cool It,” Lomborg breezily ticks down a laundry list of high-tech ways to engineer the atmosphere, for example, but punts on the tougher questions related to such planet-scale enterprises — such as the inevitable diplomatic dispute over who sets the planetary thermostat and how blocking the sun does nothing to stem the buildup of carbon dioxide, much of which will stay in the atmosphere for many centuries. [The New York Times]

In the opinion of Wired’s Hugh Hart, Lomborg is a “charismatic tour guide” who ultimately fails to convince.

But when Lomborg — presented much of the time in full lecture mode — takes to the blackboard and scratches out figures numbering in the billions of dollars as estimates for what it would cost to make recommended fixes, one wonders if his largely untested propositions truly carry more weight than the doomsday extrapolations proffered by Gore and company. [Wired]

In contrast, the LA Times’ Betsy Sharkey seems very convinced. She doesn’t question Lomborg’s credibility, and finds the film hopeful and creative:

The range of ideas is eclectic, from the practical simplicity of cooling cities by changing the color of the streets to highly complex systems designed to alter atmospheric conditions. By suggesting there is light at the end of the global warming tunnel, Timoner has made “Cool It” a hopeful film. We just have to know where to look for the switch. [Los Angeles Times]

Michael O’Sullivan with the Washington Post was also swayed by Lomborg’s presentation:

If it’s propaganda, it’s surprisingly effective. With the charismatic, articulate (and, yes, kind of hunky) Lomborg in front of the camera for much of the film — along with a parade of scientists who support his views — “Cool It” makes a convincing case that there are better things we can do than drive a Prius. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, he says; it’s just not going to solve much.

All these critics seem to agree that Cool It is engaging, but none of them really grapple with the ideas presented in the movie. For example, some of the geoengineering schemes that Lomborg advocates could, if adopted on a grand scale, turn down the global thermostat by reducing the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth. But that wouldn’t stop the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere from gradually turning the oceans acidic, a change that could have enormous repercussions.

Watch the trailer below for a better idea of the film’s voice and tone:

Related Content:
80beats: Global Warming Dissenter Bjorn Lomborg (Sort of) Has a Change of Heart
80beats: 2 Trillion Tons of Polar Ice Lost in 5 Years, and Melting Is Accelerating
Discoblog: Chatbot Debates Climate Change Deniers on Twitter so You Don’t Have to
DISCOVER: Reviews: Global Warming, the Great Lifesaver
The Intersection: Okay, Climate Scientists: Time to Fight Smart
The Intersection: Al Gore’s New Book: A Focus on Solutions

Image: IMDB / Cool It

Since its emergence in the early 1980s, the drug isotretinoin—used to treat severe acne and sold under a host of different brand names—has been subject to controversy over whether it increases the incidence of suicide attempts in those who take it. But sorting out whether the drug, the acne itself, or some other factor is driving increased suicide risk is quite difficult.

So for a study out in the British Medical Journal, a team of researchers in Sweden looked at a deluge of data for 5,756 people who took the drug. Their conclusion: Severe acne patients who took isotretinoin had an increased risk for suicide attempts both before and after taking it, so they can’t definitively link isotretinoin to suicide.

The drug, perhaps best known as the pharmaceutical company Roche’s Accutane, has been embraced by dermatologists and their suffering patients, but has also been dogged by controversy for its side effects.

While powerful at clearing acne, the drug has been linked to birth defects if taken during pregnancy and has also been suspected of causing mental side effects, although Roche has vigorously defended personal injury claims in this area. [Reuters]

Anders Sundstrom led the current research, which seems to support the theory that the pharmaceutical isn’t a threat to mental health. Said Sundstrom:

“The underlying condition of acne is a more important factor for suicide attempts. We are not certain the drug adds anything.” [BBC News]

Nevertheless, he says, the study does not rule out the drug as contributing to suicide risk, especially considering the highest rates of attempts came in the six months after patients went off isotretinoin.

“Some of the patients, possibly vulnerable to isotretinoin, who made their first suicide attempt in close relation to treatment, may have done so as a consequence of exposure to the drug,” they write. “However, patients without a positive effect of treatment might have despaired at the prospect of continuing to live with disfiguring acne.” They also cannot rule out, they say, the possibility that patients who expected their life would be transformed after treatment might be distraught when their social life did not improve. [The Guardian]

Those are just guesses; it will take more studies to further tease out the effects of medication versus underlying condition. In the meantime, Dr. Sarah Bailey says:

“Perhaps their most interesting and novel finding is that the risk of suicide is increased after treatment has stopped and therefore it is essential to continue to monitor patients carefully.” [The Telegraph]

Related Content:
DISCOVER: Switches That Can Turn Mental Illness On And Off
DISCOVER: Antidepressants Trigger Suicide Impulses in Teens
DISCOVER: Suicide Soothsayer (video)
80beats: Death of Famous Conductor & His Wife Reignites Assisted-Suicide Debate

Image: iStockphoto

1. First, a post from the past: Extremism in defense of precision is no vice.

2. Weird search query of the week: ‘”it’s a jersey thing” gnxp.’

3. Comment of the week, in response to Tariffs, not trade?:

You’re ignoring intergenerational wealth transfer. Grandparents don’t like to see their grandchildren’s parents out of work, or forced to move out of state to find work. They don’t like to see their former workplaces (whether GM or “Main street” shops) “diminished” by competition from cheap imports.

4) How do you feel about the fact that the raison d’etre of many public libraries is becoming their internet service?

5) And finally, your weekly fluff fix: a little different. Check out how cats lap milk from the recent Science paper.

How could the government know about a chemical attack before it wreaks havoc? By smelling it.

But the problem is, to detect an abnormal stench, the government first needs to know the city’s normal aroma, to have an idea of its “chemical profile.” To that effect, DARPA just released a solicitation looking for suggestions on how to best build chemical composition maps of major United States cities. Spencer Ackerman over at Wired’s Danger Room t0ok a look at the solicitation and explained what DARPA is looking for:

The data Darpa wants collected will include “chemical, meteorological and topographical data” from at least 10 “local urban sources,” including “residences, gasoline stations, restaurants and dry cleaning stores that have particular patterns of emissions throughout the day.”

Then, subsequent chemical readings from the area could be compared to the “map” to check for abnormal chemicals in the air. Since many chemicals that can be used in a terrorist attacks are normally found around our cities, it’s difficult to just screen for them without having an idea of their baseline levels, explains Wired:

In theory, chemical attacks can be detected before they happen. Even trace amounts of chemicals give off specific signatures that tools like sorbent tube samplers can register. But in order to figure out if dangerous chemicals are stockpiled somewhere or are floating through the air, the government’s going to have to know the baseline level for those chemicals wafting near your trash receptacle.

DARPA is looking for proposals on how best to collect data while spending less than 30 minutes doing it. They also want to collect information on the two-day fluctuations in chemicals, and take readings at different times of the year, says Wired.

Then they’ll adjust for atmospheric and environmental variables like wind speed, humidity and time of day–when, say, the dry cleaners’ is open to spew perchloroethylene vapor into the air–to account for the impact on chemical potency. They’ll use that data to “predict concentrations down to trace gas concentrations of 10 parts per trillion” across a whole city.

I wonder if they could pick up the maple syrup smell in NYC.

Related content:
80beats: DARPA’s New Sniper Rifle Offers a Perfect Shot Across 12 Football Field
80beats: DARPA’s Kooky $40,000 Scavenger Hunt
80beats: How to Turn a Frog Egg Into a Robot’s Artificial Nose
Discoblog: Beware, Bomb-Makers: This Worm Has Your Number
Discoblog: Genetically Engineered Bugs Can Smell Blue Light

Image: Flickr/Save vs Death

So I got a bazillion emails and tweets about the so-called "missile launch" off of LA the other day. I was on travel and couldn’t really write about this, and by the time I could it was already being shown to be a plane contrail. And I wouldn’t even write about it now, but I have to link to this clip from The Daily Show where they pretty much nail it:

The part about the helicopter pilot is magnifique! That’s a perfect example of skeptical thinking. And Occam’s Razor slices pretty well here; what’s more common in LA, an airplane or a missile launch? It shows the relevance once again of the old skeptical adage: If you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras.

Unless you live in the African grassland. Or near a zoo. Whatever.

And I’ll add that a guy appears to have figured out not only that it was a plane, but what flight it was, which I note simply because I know the comments to this post will soon be filled with conspiracy theorists who will claim this is a coverup for a transdimensional porthole like the one over Norway or Australia that were certainly not rocket boosters even though all the evidence points that way because they just know it and use words that sound sciencey but are actually the blog-comment equivalent of an Ogden Nash poem.

Say.

Tip o’ the tin foil beanie to reddit for that last bit about the plane spotter.