A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How ignorant ARE journalists (and every Joe Average) about science?(New planet)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 20th 16, 11:31 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default How ignorant ARE journalists (and every Joe Average) about science?(New planet)

Read this and find the flaw:

CNN:

Researchers at the California Institute of Technology have found evidence in the outer solar system of an object that could be a real ninth planet.

Nicknamed Planet Nine, it "has a mass about 10 times that of Earth and orbits about 20 times farther from the sun" than Neptune. That means "it would take this new planet between 10,000 and 20,000 years to make just one full orbit around the sun," according to Caltech.
  #2  
Old January 21st 16, 12:27 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default How ignorant ARE journalists (and every Joe Average) about science? (New planet)

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:31:26 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Read this and find the flaw:

CNN:

Researchers at the California Institute of Technology have found evidence in the outer solar system of an object that could be a real ninth planet.

Nicknamed Planet Nine, it "has a mass about 10 times that of Earth and orbits about 20 times farther from the sun" than Neptune. That means "it would take this new planet between 10,000 and 20,000 years to make just one full orbit around the sun," according to Caltech.


I don't know, what is it you don't like? Except for referring to
orbital distances as average to allow for eccentricity, this is
straight out of the Caltech press release, and seems just fine.
  #3  
Old January 21st 16, 03:35 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default How ignorant ARE journalists (and every Joe Average) aboutscience? (New planet)

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 6:27:14 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:31:26 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Read this and find the flaw:

CNN:

Researchers at the California Institute of Technology have found evidence in the outer solar system of an object that could be a real ninth planet.

Nicknamed Planet Nine, it "has a mass about 10 times that of Earth and orbits about 20 times farther from the sun" than Neptune. That means "it would take this new planet between 10,000 and 20,000 years to make just one full orbit around the sun," according to Caltech.


I don't know, what is it you don't like? Except for referring to
orbital distances as average to allow for eccentricity, this is
straight out of the Caltech press release, and seems just fine.


And you would be right, it was my mistake, I didn't read it clearly and mistook the distance for an Earth-new planet distance and not a Neptune-new planet multiple. The orbital period is about 15,000 years.
  #4  
Old January 21st 16, 10:22 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default How ignorant ARE journalists (and every Joe Average) aboutscience? (New planet)

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 11:27:14 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:31:26 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Read this and find the flaw:

CNN:

Researchers at the California Institute of Technology have found evidence in the outer solar system of an object that could be a real ninth planet.

Nicknamed Planet Nine, it "has a mass about 10 times that of Earth and orbits about 20 times farther from the sun" than Neptune. That means "it would take this new planet between 10,000 and 20,000 years to make just one full orbit around the sun," according to Caltech.


I don't know, what is it you don't like? Except for referring to
orbital distances as average to allow for eccentricity, this is
straight out of the Caltech press release, and seems just fine.


Listen to yourself for goodness sake, an empiricist trying to make himself feel better by trying to diminish the wider population. There is no such thing as the 'average Joe' however there are students and adults who have been blocked from genuine astronomy by academic bluffing and the high end welfare scheme that keeps them irritating everyone else via the media and education system. For instance to drop Pluto as the 9th planet and then reinstate it as a dwarf planet is so dumb by virtue that when is a dwarf human being not a full human being !. I would put a question mark instead of an exclamation mark if the logic wasn't so stupid ad I mean stupid.

There is no way a planet can be defined outside its original observation that these objects wander against the background stars and he reasoning for this wandering. The academic fools tried to isolate the planet as an object and by size and created this mess but the way you dummies think the result was never going to be anything but a mess.

You poor creature exist with a belief of some stature hence there are 'average Joe's' but what I see is a population who has yet to encounter the true value of imaging and graphics made possible by more powerful telescopes, the internet, creative graphics ,sequential imaging and time lapse which condenses long term motions into manageable form.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html

People are not ignorant, they are just unfamiliar with the origins of te astronomical principles which distinguished the observed motion of the planets from the motion of the Sun and the moon. It is a lovely story that requires a new twist when the inner planets enter the picture -

" Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times,
and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. " Copernicus

The real ignorance that set up the recent definition debacle owes its emergence to a spectacularly dumb resolution for the observed wandering motions thereby an attempt to destroy the work of the great original heliocentric astronomers-

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

It is just not in you to find anything wrong with Newton's approach which is outside every astronomical convention be it geocentric or heliocentric . The enjoyable narrative which defines a planet includes all objects including the annual motion of the Sun along with the planets so it was a moving Earth that caused the Sun to cease its motion and set the Earth moving along with the other planets. It is heartbreaking to see so much effort by so many astronomers temporarily destroyed by a wayward bunch of individuals who want an alternative resolution that doesn't work and never did.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EINSTEINIANA AND JOURNALISTS' HONESTY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 July 29th 10 11:46 AM
(rev 2.3) How Journalists MAKE (not you, of course, but others) Leonardo Been Misc 0 October 29th 08 08:03 AM
EINSTEIN JOURNALISTS DEFEND WESTERN SCIENCE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 11 August 7th 08 11:50 PM
Impatient Journalists Elysium Fossa Amateur Astronomy 0 February 28th 04 03:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.