| |
Main
Date: 22 Aug 2006 18:00:29
From:
Subject: 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?!
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 19:47:37
From:
Subject: Re: 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Do magazines sometimes print very out-of-date/ untrue articles?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?
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 04:24:20
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Now what's wrong here?
|
Anything is possible, but it would be an extremely rare occurrence in a
scientific journal.
RJ
<wiiwiillwiin@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156301257.312848.271390@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.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 Do magazines sometimes print very out-of-date/ untrue articles?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?
>
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 13:58:33
From: Bob Schmall
Subject: Re: Now what's wrong here?
|
wiiwiillwiin@gmail.com wrote:
> 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 Do magazines sometimes print very out-of-date/ untrue articles?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?
>
Articles in nearly all science journals are juried, i.e., they are
approved by a panel of the author's peers who remain anonymous. No
respectable science journal would knowingly print untrue articles. And
"theory" does not equal "untrue."
Bob
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 22:02:35
From: Joe S.
Subject: Re: Now what's wrong here?
|
<wiiwiillwiin@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156294829.107964.307860@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.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_preview_021108.html
http://skytonight.com/observing/objects/planets/3307776.html?page=1&c=y
http://www.palmbeachastro.org/exotic/mars03.htm
http://www.bbsradio.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.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.
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 02:06:01
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Now what's wrong here?
|
wiiwiillwiin@gmail.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 and it would be the size of a full
> moon.
See: http://www.google.com/search?q=Mars+Hoax
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 09:54:13
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: Now what's wrong here?
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com >
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: Now what's wrong here?
> wiiwiillwiin@gmail.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 and it would be the size of a full
>> moon.
>
>
> See: http://www.google.com/search?q=Mars+Hoax
The only problem here is that the first hit is a science.nasa.gov
article from July 2005! For careless readers, like those circulating
the 2003 article, now think Mars will be spectacular on ober 30.
Rick Evans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lat +42° 11' 07"
Lon -71° 04' 35"
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chempensoftware.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://mysite.verizon.net/hiltonevans33050/astroimaging/astroimaging.htm
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 13:58:58
From: Llanzlan Klazmon
Subject: Re: Now what's wrong here?
|
wiiwiillwiin@gmail.com wrote in news:1156294829.107964.307860
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.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?!
Without a cite of the actual "journal" there is no way to know. Once you
find out what the actual journal was, then an angry letter to the editor
would be in order.
Klazmon.
>
>
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 01:39:30
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: 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
<wiiwiillwiin@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156294829.107964.307860@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.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?!
>
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 21:54:40
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: 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
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 18:04:08
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Now what's wrong here?
|
wiiwiillw...@gmail.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.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 18:10:29
From: Jan Owen
Subject: Re: Now what's wrong here?
|
"RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156295048.280995.150560@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> wiiwiillw...@gmail.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...
{;^)
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 08:34:51
From: laura halliday
Subject: Re: Now what's wrong here?
|
wiiwiillwiin@gmail.com wrote:
> 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?
The most important thing is to stop using the National Enquirer
as your source for science news.
Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..."
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 08:14:10
From: Howard Lester
Subject: Re: Now what's wrong here?
|
<wiiwiillwiin@gmail.com > wrote
> My little brother's science teacher said that on August 27 Mars would
> be the closest it was in 6000 years
That's impossible. Why, Earth itself was created just 5000 years ago!!
;-)
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 03:56:03
From: richard schumacher
Subject: Re: Now what's wrong here?
|
Googling
mars close 25 august
reveals an explanation at the following site:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_mars_encounter.htm
The info there is correct. Notice how deleting the text "will attain a
magnitude of -2.9 and will appear 25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest
75-power magnification Mars will" from the email quoted there changes
the meaning completely.
The description "dominate the night sky" used in the article means that
Mars was still only a speck in the sky, although brighter than usual and
brighter than most stars.
|
|
