PDA

View Full Version : BA Where You'd Least Expect



Russ
2002-Mar-05, 01:00 PM
The April 2002 issue of "Astronomy Magazine". In the "Event Horizon" section on page 26, first item has the title "Astronomers Consider Dark-Side Move" I quote the text: "In search of some well-needed peace and quiet, radio astronomers are starting to seriously consider packing up and taking their business elsewhere--to the dark side of the moon (sic). ...."

I guess they failed to consider that at New Moon, the dark side faces Earth and would, therefore, get all of the radio noise they are trying to escape. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif Yad tink day'd no betta! Phil needs to use his "Perfessership" ta go larn 'em up gud 'bout sich thangs.

CJSF
2002-Mar-05, 01:24 PM
Yeah, but for a good chunk of time, there would be no noise.

CJSF

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-05, 01:37 PM
I know that the usage has caused confusion in some young impressionable minds, but I still would like to point out that various English words have more than one--and sometimes contradictory--meanings. In this case, my Amer. Herit. Dict. lists the following as definitions for the word dark: 8. Concealed or secret; mysterious: “the dark mysteries of Africa and the fabled wonders of the East” (W. Bruce Lincoln). 9. Lacking enlightenment, knowledge, or culture: a dark age in the history of education.

In those senses, the use of the phrase "dark side of the moon" is justified--we just have to be careful that it is not transferred to a meaning where it implies that there is one side of the moon that is always in shadow. That would be clearly wrong. On the other hand, we now know a lot about the back side of the moon (is "back side of the moon" also wrong?--so geocentric), just not many of the details.

Russ
2002-Mar-05, 01:43 PM
On 2002-03-05 08:24, Christopher Ferro wrote:
Yeah, but for a good chunk of time, there would be no noise.
CJSF


I'm not sure if you're joking with me or if you are serious?? On the off chance that you're serious, this blurb says they are planning to put a/some scope(s) on the dark side of the Moon. Meaning, of course, the part of the Moon that is dark when we see it as full. My point (joke) is that the dark side is the side we "see" at New Moon, so putting scope(s) there would be worthless.

What they should have said is the FAR side of the Moon, which would always be in the "radio shadow" of the Moon. I hope I'm not insulting your intelligence. My appologies if I am.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-05, 03:04 PM
First, I'm not a professor. I get that a lot, but I am a staff member; I don't teach.

Second, I also get a lot of email arguing about the meaning of dark side. When people say "dark side of the Moon", they mean literally the side with no light. Sure, dark can also mean unexplored, but in this case the mistake is clear.

I'll check that issue of Astronomy out, and rag the editors about it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Russ
2002-Mar-05, 03:54 PM
On 2002-03-05 10:04, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
First, I'm not a professor. I get that a lot, but I am a staff member; I don't teach.

Dear Mr. Professor Bad Astronomer Sir: Yes you do teach. It may not be to rows of ugly kids with pointed heads but you DO teach. So there /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif (please note signature)


Second, I also get a lot of email arguing about the meaning of dark side. When people say "dark side of the Moon", they mean literally the side with no light. Sure, dark can also mean unexplored, but in this case the mistake is clear.

I knew this was one of your pet peeves. That's why I posted this.


I'll check that issue of Astronomy out, and rag the editors about it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

I hope you get more of a response than I. They politely ignore me when I point out errors. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Roy Batty
2002-Mar-05, 04:17 PM
On 2002-03-05 10:54, Russ wrote:

Dear Mr. Professor Bad Astronomer Sir: Yes you do teach. It may not be to rows of ugly kids with pointed heads but you DO teach. So there /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif (please note signature)


Yep, have to agree with the teaching bit.. & also the not a ugly pointy head bit too (or is it just wishful thinking /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ) /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

CJSF
2002-Mar-05, 05:43 PM
I'm not sure if you're joking with me or if you are serious?? On the off chance that you're serious, this blurb says they are planning to put a/some scope(s) on the dark side of the Moon. Meaning, of course, the part of the Moon that is dark when we see it as full. My point (joke) is that the dark side is the side we "see" at New Moon, so putting scope(s) there would be worthless.

What they should have said is the FAR side of the Moon, which would always be in the "radio shadow" of the Moon. I hope I'm not insulting your intelligence. My appologies if I am.



No, what I meant was, that if a radio observatory was put on the side of the Moon that faces away from Earth, then at least for a good chunk of time, there would be little or no radio noise from the Sun or Earth to contend with. Sure, for some of the time the Sun would make raido astronomy useless, but then after several days, that would change.

So as long as the observatory is in darkness and not pointed too close to Earth, you have great radio astronomy conditions, right?

And yes, you did insult my intelligence, but apology accepted.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

CJSF

Kaptain K
2002-Mar-05, 05:47 PM
1) BA, I have to agree with the others. You DO teach. You have one of the most educational sites one the web!

2) I have noticed a decline in the scientific clarity of "Astronomy" lately (the last year or so).

3) FWIW In the radio band, the far side of the moon IS the dark side, since the Earth is (by far) the brightest radio object in the lunar sky.

Donnie B.
2002-Mar-05, 05:52 PM
Actually, the sun does not make radio astronomy impossible. A great deal of work is done using radiotelescopes in the daytime, right here on Earth.

You might get a bit of static if you aimed the scope right at the sun, but not much... old Sol doesn't radiate a lot of RF. If it did, we'd have eyes that could tune in the local Classic Rock station.

So the back side of the moon is radio-quiet all month long.

Russ
2002-Mar-05, 06:06 PM
Now that we have all agreed to bestow professorship on Phil, should we start calling him Professor Bad? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Kaptain K
2002-Mar-05, 06:23 PM
I think Doctor Bad is sufficient. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Code Red
2002-Mar-06, 09:52 AM
Dark Side schmarkside...

I think we're being overly pedantic here. The phrase "dark side of the moon" is a colloquialism and is a commonly recognised phrase. Okay it's not accurate, but hey, not a lot is... are we expecting Pink Floyd to rename their album, then?

Anality alert...

Kaptain K
2002-Mar-06, 10:04 AM
"There is no dark side of the Moon ... Matter of fact, it's all dark."
Pink Floyd from "Dark Side of the Moon".

NottyImp
2002-Mar-06, 12:25 PM
It's fascinating the way he describes his various episodes of mental illness; a very odd use of language indeed. Not as good looking as Crowe, though, is he?

Russ
2002-Mar-06, 12:49 PM
On 2002-03-06 04:52, Code Red wrote:
Dark Side schmarkside...

I think we're being overly pedantic here. The phrase "dark side of the moon" is a colloquialism and is a commonly recognised phrase. Okay it's not accurate, but hey, not a lot is... are we expecting Pink Floyd to rename their album, then?

Anality alert...

While we may be Anal about this, IMO sloppiness in thinking and sloppiness in speach is contageous and dangerous. (at least in my business) IMHO one of the reasons there are so many people willing to believe the Moon hoax ** is because of sloppy mental habits. People don't have the mental discipline to reason things through or question something, that on the surface sounds reasonable, that may be groundless. (steps down from soap box & puts on flame proof suit)

_________________
Lighten up! I'm here for the fun of it.

(edit was to correct typos I'm anal about)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Russ on 2002-03-06 07:52 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-06, 01:27 PM
<a name="crowe">

On 2002-03-06 07:25, NottyImp wrote:
It's fascinating the way he describes his various episodes of mental illness; a very odd use of language indeed. Not as good looking as Crowe, though, is he?

Was this a comment about the A Bequtiful Mind (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=674&forum=4&12) thread?

Chuck
2002-Mar-06, 01:40 PM
Wouldn't a deep polar crater be a better site? It would never be exposed to the earth or the sun. Of course, it wouldn't sweep the whole sky like an equatorial far side site.

David Hall
2002-Mar-06, 02:26 PM
I mostly agree with Code Red here. If the phrase is used in a colloquial way, then I see no problem with "dark side". It's only when the topic is directly related to astronomy/the actual moon that it starts to become important, and even then, the important thing the meaning of the phrase still gets through usually.

It's ok to point out the reality occasionally, but it's not something anyone should start a crusade about.

Russ
2002-Mar-06, 05:31 PM
On 2002-03-06 09:26, David Hall wrote:
I mostly agree with Code Red here. If the phrase is used in a colloquial way, then I see no problem with "dark side". It's only when the topic is directly related to astronomy/the actual moon that it starts to become important, and even then, the important thing the meaning of the phrase still gets through usually.

This was in "Astronomy Magazine" and about Radio Astronomers. How much more "...directly related to astronomy..." can you get? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Wally
2002-Mar-11, 11:38 AM
Ya know, when I first read the article, I was like "man, how could Astro. mag make such a blatant error". But then, I started thinking along the lines that Kap. K points out above. . . that perhaps they were referring to "dark" in radio frequency terms rather than light. Kinda doubt it, but heck, gotta give them at least a small chance to save face! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

David Hall
2002-Mar-11, 01:53 PM
I wasn't trying to let Astronomy Magazine off the hook exactly. I was more trying to show my agreement with Code Red than anything else.

I agree it would have been better if Astronomy had taken the time to be more precise, but nobody's perfect after all.

Russ
2002-Mar-11, 09:19 PM
I appologize if I offended you. I just thought it was a funny thing to see in Astronomy Magazine given TBA's opinion of this very phrase. I try to keep a light tone to my typing but frequintly fail. (please note my signature below)



On 2002-03-11 08:53, David Hall wrote:
I wasn't trying to let Astronomy Magazine off the hook exactly. I was more trying to show my agreement with Code Red than anything else.

I agree it would have been better if Astronomy had taken the time to be more precise, but nobody's perfect after all.

David Hall
2002-Mar-12, 12:23 PM
On 2002-03-11 16:19, Russ wrote:
I appologize if I offended you. I just thought it was a funny thing to see in Astronomy Magazine given TBA's opinion of this very phrase. I try to keep a light tone to my typing but frequintly fail. (please note my signature below)


No offense taken at all. You were quite right to point that out on this thread.

After the first viewing of a thread, I often scroll quickly down to the middle and kind of forget what had been said at the top. In truth I kind of lost track of the main topic of this thread and in my zeal to post my opinion, I failed to notice that I was kind of sticking my foot in my mouth.

I do stand by what I said however.

Russ
2002-Mar-13, 03:44 PM
On 2002-03-12 07:23, David Hall wrote:

I do stand by what I said however.



Don't stand, feel free to have a seat and be comfortable. We're pretty casual around here. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

jfribrg
2002-Mar-22, 12:26 PM
The following web link is perhaps related to the Bad Astronomy in the April issue. My question is whether it is cause or effect. http://corporate.kalmbach.com/kalmbach/jobs/jobs_opportunities.asp?action=details&job=46

Jim
2002-Mar-22, 01:37 PM
On 2002-03-22 07:26, jfribrg wrote:
The following web link is perhaps related to the Bad Astronomy in the April issue. My question is whether it is cause or effect.

"Ideal candidates will have a bachelor’s degree in English or journalism and 1 to 2 years’ experience editing, writing, and proofreading. Education or professional experience in astronomy is preferred."

So, you don't have to have a degree or experience in any field that actually relates to the job.

Cause.


_________________
<font color=000099>In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.</font>
Douglas Adams

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2002-03-22 08:39 ]</font>