APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Comments and questions about the APOD on the main view screen.
User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2692
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post 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?
I can't find anything more about that, than what I see here, from 1992:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/01/world ... right.html

I see no evidence of remorse or regret in what Pope John Paul II said before the esteemed Pontifical Academy of Sciences, nor do I detect any satire. But I imagine that a comparison between the Roman Catholic Church and the New York Times could form the basis of a wonderful satire.

What made the NYT correction satirical, in my opinion, was the mention of the subsequent confirmation of Newton's findings from the 17th Century, thus lampooning the editorialist from 1920.

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2692
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post by Nitpicker » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:39 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.
My suggestion that the correction is self-satirical in no way detracts from its sincerity. It arguably makes it more sincere. For what it's worth, the style of the correction reminds me of the reviews and editorials in The New Yorker magazine.

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13373
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post by Ann » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:52 am

Thank you all for this thread. It has been very interesting.

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"?
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]
As for the question what our descendants will say about us and our ideas of science a century from now, there can be little doubt that they will laugh at some of our stupid ideas. But when it comes to global warming, I think it is likely that they will wonder more about our failure to change our ways much to counteract it than about our "alarmist theories" about it.

Ann
Last edited by Ann on Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Color Commentator

User avatar
owlice
Guardian of the Codes
Posts: 8406
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:18 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post 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.
This.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2692
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post 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"?
I agree it was stupidity, but even the ether/æther/aether was imagined to be in a vacuum, and was merely the medium for the propagation of EM radiation in a vacuum.

And now, damn it, I have a song stuck in my head:
Either ether, æther, aether! ... in Chile, Chile, Chile, Chile.

(Sorry.)

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18805
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post 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"?
I don't think that that much thought went into it.

People understood the concept of bullets being pushed along by explosive gas pressure from behind.

It was assumed that rockets worked basically along the same principle ... which some sense they do.

However, the back of the gun barrel was suddenly replaced by a pure vacuum which seemed counter intuitive.

It was simply a matter of following an inadequate analog to a faulty conclusion.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2692
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post 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.
The infamous editorial in the NYT on 13-Jan-1920, tantamount to defamation, was unsigned. Typically, such editorials are credited to the editor of the newspaper. At that time, the managing editor of the NYT was Carr Van Anda, who had previously studied astronomy and physics.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carr_Van_Anda

It is hard to imagine that an editorial of that nature would have been written or approved by someone like him, and left uncorrected for more than a few days. So, either Van Anda was a poor scientist, or there was some other behind-the-scenes intrigue, forever lost in the mists of time.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18112
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Contact:

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post 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.
It was simply a matter of editorial stupidity. Fact checking was standard protocol in 1920.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
owlice
Guardian of the Codes
Posts: 8406
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:18 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post 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.
This sounds very plausible to me.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18805
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post 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.
Fact check: Fact checking was standard protocol in 1930 (...after the crash?).
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.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 9180
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA
Contact:

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post by geckzilla » Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:56 pm

Don't make me add male chauvinists to that list. ;)
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18805
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post by neufer » Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:12 pm

geckzilla wrote:
Don't make me add male chauvinists to that list. ;)
I think I'm already accounted for on that list.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2692
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post by Nitpicker » Thu Jan 16, 2014 11:47 pm

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.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18805
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post 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.">>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2692
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post by Nitpicker » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:26 am

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.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18805
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post by neufer » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:56 am

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.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2692
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post 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.
C'mon, it's not brain surgery!

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18112
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Contact:

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post by Chris Peterson » Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:59 am

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).
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2692
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post 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).
Though perhaps not the worst clanger in the history of the NYT, which would not hold its high status if it did not generally produce daily newspapers of high quality. We -- individuals and organisations -- all make mistakes. And sometimes we compound them, by not correcting them in good time. Meanwhile, the world beyond the NYT moved on, and by 1969, Goddard's fine legacy was already secured and still growing, viz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Legacy

User avatar
Cousin Ricky
Science Officer
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 4:08 pm
Location: St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands (+18.3, -64.9)

Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)

Post by Cousin Ricky » Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:57 pm

What immediately struck me about the 1920 editorial was the use of the word “ladled.” If this was how the editorialist was taught science, it’s no wonder he screwed up.

Post Reply