|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Now what's wrong here?
Ok, this was kinda wierd to me but here it goes...:
My little brother's science teacher said that on August 27 Mars would be the closest it was in 6000 years and it would be the size of a full moon. I was mainly skeptical at first and my initial opinion was confirmed while I was looking throught these forums and found a topic like this. So, I told my brother to tell the teacher that it was merely a rumor and the next day he told me "someone else told him it before I could, but he still said it would be quite close". Now this even further conflicted my brief research. I read that Mars is in fact on the other side of the sun at this time. I could accept this all from maybe a chain mail or spam... but here's the catch: He got this info in a science journal. I have no clue which one but I would think it wouldn't be something like Scientific American or anything like that, it was probably a little kid's journal with the intellogical equivalence of "Highlights" but how could any official journal get information off that much? Is my Scientific American getting articles from anonymous e-mails?! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Now what's wrong here?
wrote: Ok, this was kinda wierd to me but here it goes...: My little brother's science teacher said that on August 27 Mars would be the closest it was in 6000 years Your little brother's school needs to hire a new science teacher--stat. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Now what's wrong here?
"RMOLLISE" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: Ok, this was kinda wierd to me but here it goes...: My little brother's science teacher said that on August 27 Mars would be the closest it was in 6000 years Your little brother's school needs to hire a new science teacher--stat. This could be a hereditary thing, Rod, and may be best jes' lef' ALONE... {;^) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Now what's wrong here?
Do a search on Google, and it will all become clear. Still, the science
teacher should have caught it. RJ wrote in message oups.com... Ok, this was kinda wierd to me but here it goes...: My little brother's science teacher said that on August 27 Mars would be the closest it was in 6000 years and it would be the size of a full moon. I was mainly skeptical at first and my initial opinion was confirmed while I was looking throught these forums and found a topic like this. So, I told my brother to tell the teacher that it was merely a rumor and the next day he told me "someone else told him it before I could, but he still said it would be quite close". Now this even further conflicted my brief research. I read that Mars is in fact on the other side of the sun at this time. I could accept this all from maybe a chain mail or spam... but here's the catch: He got this info in a science journal. I have no clue which one but I would think it wouldn't be something like Scientific American or anything like that, it was probably a little kid's journal with the intellogical equivalence of "Highlights" but how could any official journal get information off that much? Is my Scientific American getting articles from anonymous e-mails?! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Now what's wrong here?
Richard Jarnagin wrote:
Do a search on Google, and it will all become clear. Still, the science teacher should have caught it. Heh...based on your and previous messages, I just went straight to Snopes, and there it was: http://www.snopes.com/science/mars.asp -- St. John Most rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read. -Frank Zappa |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Now what's wrong here?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Now what's wrong here?
wrote in message oups.com... Ok, this was kinda wierd to me but here it goes...: My little brother's science teacher said that on August 27 Mars would be the closest it was in 6000 years and it would be the size of a full moon. I was mainly skeptical at first and my initial opinion was confirmed while I was looking throught these forums and found a topic like this. So, I told my brother to tell the teacher that it was merely a rumor and the next day he told me "someone else told him it before I could, but he still said it would be quite close". Now this even further conflicted my brief research. I read that Mars is in fact on the other side of the sun at this time. I could accept this all from maybe a chain mail or spam... but here's the catch: He got this info in a science journal. I have no clue which one but I would think it wouldn't be something like Scientific American or anything like that, it was probably a little kid's journal with the intellogical equivalence of "Highlights" but how could any official journal get information off that much? Is my Scientific American getting articles from anonymous e-mails?! The science teacher is three years out of date. Mars made its closest approach to Earth in recorded history on 27 AUGUST 2003 -- that's 2003 -- as in 2003 -- three years ago. http://www.space.com/spacewatch/mars...ew_021108.html http://skytonight.com/observing/obje...tml?page=1&c=y http://www.palmbeachastro.org/exotic/mars03.htm http://www.bbsradio.com/cgi-bin/webb....pl?read=10885 God only knows why but for the past several weeks folks have been claiming that Mars will approach Earth on 27 August 2007. Not so. Old news. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Now what's wrong here?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Now what's wrong here?
No, the thing I most wanted to ask is:
Do magazines sometimes print very out-of-date/ untrue articles? And I mean, I know about gossip and stuff but what about stuff like scientific journals? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Now what's wrong here?
Anything is possible, but it would be an extremely rare occurrence in a
scientific journal. RJ wrote in message oups.com... No, the thing I most wanted to ask is: Do magazines sometimes print very out-of-date/ untrue articles? And I mean, I know about gossip and stuff but what about stuff like scientific journals? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I Will Become a TV Evangelist (Was: "Sam Wormley is Wrong...") | Davoud | Amateur Astronomy | 14 | January 31st 05 10:57 PM |
SR time dilation on remote objects ? | Marcel Luttgens | Astronomy Misc | 560 | September 30th 04 12:59 AM |
Conclusions about the North Pole research flat out wrong! | Mad Scientist | Misc | 18 | September 13th 04 06:41 PM |
could Min have it wrong | Fleetie | UK Astronomy | 0 | September 2nd 04 07:07 PM |
The wrong approach | Bill Johnston | Policy | 22 | January 28th 04 03:11 PM |