APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
Skip to content
by Cousin Ricky » Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:57 pm
by Nitpicker » Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:02 am
Chris Peterson wrote:neufer wrote:But I must reiterate that the essay's argument is not unreasonable. It's not unreasonable for an uneducated ignoramus. It was extremely unreasonable in the venue it was presented in. A screw up of the highest degree; an embarrassment for the NYT that it has never quite recovered from, as it has never been forgotten (and probably never will).
neufer wrote:But I must reiterate that the essay's argument is not unreasonable.
by Chris Peterson » Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:59 am
by Nitpicker » Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:34 am
neufer wrote:Nitpicker wrote: Yes, that is a non-contiguous quote from the current Wikipedia article that I linked to, earlier on. But what do you think on the matter, neufer? I cannot tell one way or another. I can't imagine anyone else having written the essay. But I must reiterate that the essay's argument is not unreasonable. Explosions in a confined gun barrel are much more efficient in transferring kinetic energy to a projectile than explosions in a rocket motor where the hot gas is confined only by its own inertia; it would be very easy to forget that the rocket motor hot gas is confined at all adjacent to the vacuum of space.
Nitpicker wrote: Yes, that is a non-contiguous quote from the current Wikipedia article that I linked to, earlier on. But what do you think on the matter, neufer? I cannot tell one way or another.
by neufer » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:56 am
by Nitpicker » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:26 am
by neufer » Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:54 am
Nitpicker wrote: Fact checking is and was rare at daily newspapers, especially for opinion pieces. Checking is and was done more for periodicals. Besides, given the sanctimonious tone of the editorialist, he (it must have been a he) would have been so sure of himself as to think there was no need for checking. I do wonder if Van Anda was the author.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carr_Van_Anda wrote: <<Carr Vattal Van Anda (December 2, 1864 – January 29, 1945) was the managing editor of The New York Times under Adolph Ochs, from 1904 to 1932. Van Anda was an academic, studying astronomy and physics at Ohio University, and started in journalism at The Cleveland Herald and Gazette and later The Baltimore Sun before being picked up by Adolph Simon Ochs, who valued intelligent and accurate news reporting. Van Anda gave to political and scientific news coverage the same zeal normally reserved for sports and celebrity. Fluent in hieroglyphics, he secured near-exclusive coverage of the opening of Tutankhamun's tomb by Howard Carter in 1923. He famously corrected a mathematical error in a speech given by Albert Einstein that was to be printed in the Times. He was instrumental in getting a scoop for The Times on the story of the Titanic's sinking in 1912. While other newspapers were printing the White Star Line's ambiguous story about the Titanic having trouble after hitting an iceberg, Van Anda (who had received a bulletin reporting a CQD (now SOS) call from the Titanic) figured that a lack of communication from the ship meant that the worst had happened and printed a headline stating that the Titanic had sunk. As his career progressed, it was said of him that "he is the most illustrious unknown man in America." According to a New Yorker profile piece, V.A. (as he was called) practiced "a fierce anonymity while bestowing fleeting fame on some and withholding it from others.">>
by Nitpicker » Thu Jan 16, 2014 11:47 pm
by neufer » Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:12 pm
geckzilla wrote: Don't make me add male chauvinists to that list.
by geckzilla » Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:56 pm
by neufer » Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:25 pm
Chris Peterson wrote:neufer wrote: It was simply a matter of following an inadequate analog to a faulty conclusion. It was simply a matter of editorial stupidity. Fact checking was standard protocol in 1920.
neufer wrote: It was simply a matter of following an inadequate analog to a faulty conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact_checker#History wrote: <<Fact checking began in the early 20th century: "Any bright girl who really applies herself to the handling of the checking problem can have a very pleasant time with it and fill the week with happy moments and memorable occasions" - Ed Kennedy, Time (1920s). By the 1930s a fact checking department became a symbol of establishment among publications.>>
[b][i][color=#0000FF]owlice[/color][/i][/b] wrote: (Art, that's no 500-lb canary you have there -- that's a duck. A duck!)
http://asterisk.apod.com/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=124138 wrote: Username: geckzilla Location: Fresh Meadows, NY Interests: Kicking the butts of crackpots and spammers around the forum.
by owlice » Thu Jan 16, 2014 8:14 am
neufer wrote: I don't think that that much thought went into it. [snip] It was simply a matter of following an inadequate analog to a faulty conclusion.
by Chris Peterson » Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:16 am
neufer wrote:It was simply a matter of following an inadequate analog to a faulty conclusion.
by Nitpicker » Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:04 am
geckzilla wrote:From reading Goddard's Wikipedia article, this NYT article would seem to have been serious at a time when he was already experiencing a lack of support from academia. There is no indication that the correction and apology, however late it was issued, wasn't sincere.
by neufer » Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:20 am
Ann wrote: As for that utter stupidity published by the New York Times, is it possible that they were still reeling from the realization that there is no "aether" in space, and therefore they thought that there can be no "action and reaction" out there because there is no friction to "start from"?
by Nitpicker » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:07 am
Ann wrote:As for that utter stupidity published by the New York Times, is it possible that they were still reeling from the realization that there is "aether" in space, and therefore they thought that there can be no "action and reaction" out there because there is no friction to "start from"?
by owlice » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:05 am
Nitpicker wrote:With a correction published almost 50 years after the original mistake -- and well after the first rockets in space -- I'd say it is the correction that is satire, self-directed. The best satire is subtle and understated.
by Ann » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:52 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element) wrote: According to ancient and medieval science aether (Greek αἰθήρ aithēr[1]), also spelled æther or ether, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity. In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson-Morley experiment.[2]
by Nitpicker » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:39 am
by Nitpicker » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:32 am
Chris Peterson wrote:Nitpicker wrote:With a correction published almost 50 years after the original mistake -- and well after the first rockets in space -- I'd say it is the correction that is satire, self-directed. The best satire is subtle and understated. So what do you say about the Roman Catholic Church correcting their little boo boo regarding Galileo, some 400 years late, and well into the Space Age? Self-satire?
by geckzilla » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:20 am
by Chris Peterson » Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:38 am
by Nitpicker » Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:05 am
by Chris Peterson » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:19 pm
geckzilla wrote:Was the original editorial item a satire?
by geckzilla » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:08 pm
owlice wrote:With opinion pieces on editorial pages, it's sometimes a little hard to tell whether they are intended as satire or not.
Top