Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 213 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
11/20/19 02:22 AM
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 4
True 1
Page 15 of 16 < 1 2 ... 13 14 15 16 >
Topic Options
#39991 - 09/07/11 09:06 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Max Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/07
Posts: 93
It isn't that complicated. Bill. First off, let me assure that I did not quote anything out of context. I quoted the salient point of the article and posted the link for everyone to read. Second, I never claimed that NASA was faking anything. I thought I was clear, but I'll try again, just for you.

I am simply asking why a NASA scientist would claim that a NASA photo is fake. Again, it is not MY claim...It is a NASA claim. It is my question.

Ad hom is fine, but at least try to squeeze in an answer.

I am asking why NASA would support a website to discredit a NASA photo.

I read the article, without your spin, Bill. He describes the NASA photo perfectly and claims it isn't even a clever fake.

I am aware of how the photo was made. The NASA website in the second link explains everything. I wouldn't care if it was a picture of a monkey. The fact is...A NASA scientist is claiming that a NASA photo is fake.

I would also like to know...(again, this is a question)...How NASA has an image of a 140 year old supernova remnant that is 25,000 light years away? X-ray, radio, and infrared are faster than the speed of light? Our perception? Making it 25,140 years old?

Thanks

Edit.
Wouldn't it have been better to explain what the 2008 picture really was instead of claiming that it was a bad fake being circulated by CT's?


Edited by Max (09/07/11 09:17 PM)

Top
.
#39994 - 09/07/11 09:25 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Max]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Your response it to me, but you are addressing Bill, so I'm not sure whether you were actually addressing me. I don't recall saying or even hinting that you misrepresented anything in that post. I'm pretty sure I understood your original post clearly, as well as both NASA responses.

I don't think I spun anything. I made what I think are reasonable inferences. I think if someone really would like an explanation that they would contact the critic and the lab that produced the photo to ask them if there is a miscommunication (or to determine if there was something going on that was missed).

You asked:
"How NASA has an image of a 140 year old supernova remnant that is 25,000 light years away? X-ray, radio, and infrared are faster than the speed of light?"

We infer the supernova occurred approximately 25,140 years ago. That is, the image does not represent the instant that the star went supernova, but 140 years after the fact.

"Wouldn't it have been better to explain what the 2008 picture really was instead of claiming that it was a bad fake being circulated by CT's?"
Assuming he was talking about that photo (and I think he was), then, yes. OTOH, it seems reasonable to me that he did not realize this was a legit NASA image - and he might have been responding to claims that incorrectly identified it as a photo. Of course, the easiest way to find out is to contact him. (I frequently contact experts, if I'm sufficiently interested - though I'm not in this case.)

Top
#39995 - 09/07/11 09:37 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Max Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/07
Posts: 93
Yes, I was addressing Bill. My bad.

So, he is just uninformed and not qualified to be speaking on this topic? I'll have to accept that. That's a shame. It is "Ask an Astrobiologist" at NASA for crying out loud! :-)

Top
#39996 - 09/07/11 09:50 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Max]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
It's not clear to me that he is either uninformed or unqualified. If the image were presented in some other forum as being something other than what it was (a photo, for example, rather than a composite image), then his response makes sense. Of course, we can't know that for sure without asking him.

Everyone makes mistakes, including extremely competent people. (I'm also not saying he is extremely competent as I've never read any other of his posts and astrobiology is not my field anyway.)

As I remarked previously, all such images are in a sense fakes, even though they are legitimate and not fraudulent.

Top
#39997 - 09/07/11 10:24 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Max Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/07
Posts: 93
Well, it is clear to me. The purpose of that article is to discredit a photo of G1.9 while commenting on G1.9. It should be noted that his comments are his uninformed opinion and no research has been done. Along with a NASA disclaimer that it is his opinion and not supported by anyone at NASA. Quality control.

I found this by accident. On March 8, 2011, the magnetosphere was absent of almost all magnetic reconnections and the earth seemed to be too polarized. Looking for an answer only took me to Eleinin, Nibiru, Planet X...G1.9 is real, so I focused on that, only to find the denial page.

Top
#39998 - 09/07/11 10:46 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Max]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: NASA Link
You have encountered one of the crazy lies currently circulating on the Internet. To answer your question directly about G1.9+03, it is a supernova remnant (that is, an expanding gas cloud from a supernova explosion) about 25,000 light years away that was discovered in 1984. It has recently been determined using data from the Chandra x-ray telescope to be the youngest-known supernova in our Milky Way Galaxy. For details see Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_remnant_G1.9%2B0.3. However, if you don't search Wikipedia but instead just google "G1.9+03" you immediately encounter an extraordinary collection of claims about this object. For example, "Disclose.tv, truth revealed" states that it is a "confirmed binary red dwarf star" in our own solar system with "planets or large satellites encircling it". They then show an absurd picture that has been bouncing around the Internet for several years as a photo of "Nibiru". This picture of a blue ball surrounded by orange flames is obviously not of any astronomical object. It is not even a clever fake.

As far as I can see the NASA spokesperson is replying to a lot of questions about a CT subject that does not in reality have any thing to do with G1.9+03, but has ripped off NASA images to enhance what they are saying. If this is an actual NASA image then possibly the spokesperson was not fully informed. Possibly he was really getting tired of having to answer a lot of dumb questions based on CT frauds.

Max, If I misunderstood what you were trying to say I apologize, but if you don't want to be mistaken for a CT then be careful how you state your position.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39999 - 09/07/11 11:26 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Max]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
You seem to have missed the point - that was not a photo. If he were responding to an article that called this a photo, he was right. If the objects of his ire had wanted to be taken seriously, they ought to have supplied an actual citation (or at least a proper, working link to the actual source).

It makes sense that organizations like that would have different levels of publication for these sorts of things depending on the sort of peer review they get. Those particular articles may not have any peer-review at all, so it makes sense NASA would have the disclaimer.

Where I work we have multiple levels of publication depending on how much peer-review a product gets. I just wrote an internal paper that had two reviewers (one from in my own division and one from another division). It's a minor paper. For a complete study they might have had a dozen reviewers at each major phase of the project. If something is not reviewed, that is clearly stated and it's noted that's it's not an official publication.

I think it would be a bizarre and debilitated scientific environment in which scientists could not communicate unless they had peer review.

Top
#40000 - 09/08/11 01:25 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Max]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: Max
You missed the point. It is a NASA x-ray image of G1.9. In the next paragraph, a NASA scientist who is talking about G1.9 calls the NASA photo a bad fake. Shouldn't a NASA


OK So the picture's a fake. All NASA employees are gods. Even the ones who use words like "crazy lies". Everything they say must be taken literally.

So now we have a new blue planet in the solar system, and it's on fire. What next? Should we send a probe there?

OK that's not quite what you're saying either, but it's as good as. As Bill said, quoting NASA blogs is a favourite game of conspiracy theorists. I'll repeat - not all NASA employees are gods.



Edited by kallog (09/08/11 01:27 AM)

Top
#40002 - 09/08/11 03:19 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: kallog]
Max Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/07
Posts: 93
Kallog, Neither you nor I believe that NASA scientists are gods, or anything other than uninformed humans so you can save the cutsie replies.

If you want to get technical, then it is a computer generated image. Again, the content of the picture and how it was made isn't important...They way it is presented by that NASA scientist is the problem.

"You have encountered one of the crazy lies currently circulating on the Internet."
Yes, his website.

Top
#40015 - 09/08/11 11:13 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Max]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
What exactly is your point? You said he was trying to discredit that photo or something along those lines.

Are you complaining about the behavior or breadth of knowledge of the writer? I agree it's not a very professionally written article, but that seems a bit unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

Or are you considering him to be an official mouthpiece of NASA? Despite apparently contradictory statements on other NASA pages.

Top
#40018 - 09/08/11 02:39 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: kallog]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Ok, just a general comment on what has been said in this thread about supernova G1.9 etc.

Max posted a comment about a conspiracy theory concerning G1.9. His problem is that he found a NASA site that claimed the picture was an obvious fake. Part of the paper he linked to clearly stated the facts about G1.9. The first thing addressed in the paper was that this was in response to a question about a supposed brown dwarf inside our solar system (60 odd Astronomical Units is within our solar system). The writer points out that it is a lie that has been circulating on the internet, which is quite true. Some people may not believe it is a lie, but that is basically what it is. At the end he says that the attached picture, which is of G1.9, is an obvious fake. Well, it doesn't really look all that real, so I guess if he is used to answering dumb question he might just brush it off that way. In fact it is apparently a picture of G1.9, from the fine folks a Chandra. So Max is making a big deal about the writers error.

One thing that might be noticed about the place the paper was posted is that it is on the Ask an Astrobiologist site. I'm not sure that astrobiologists are necessarily highly conversant with pictures of supernovae, since there is usually not much chance of finding life on one. So the man made a simple mistake due to being out of his area of expertise, and possibly highly frustrated at having to keep answering the same silly questions over and over. I can't see that the result is anything to turn the world upside down over.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#40029 - 09/09/11 02:54 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Bill]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: Bill
fine folks a Chandra. So Max is making a big deal about the writers error.


I totally agree. It's nothing at all.

Top
#40048 - 09/09/11 06:27 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: kallog]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: K
It's nothing at all.


There! and all the time, I thought it was CT. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#40059 - 09/10/11 06:08 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Bill S.]
Max Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/07
Posts: 93
He reminds me of the guy at Costco in the movie Idiocracy. Watch some of his videos. Really, I expect better from NASA. It very well could be a CT, and probably will be until they correct their blunders.

I found this while searching, maybe from a CT site but it is a NASA link and might be what I was looking for...If it is still out there, "whatever it is".

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/19nov_cosmicrays/

If anyone wants to see what the magnetosphere looked like on March 8, here's that link. It's in the movie archives.

http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/home.html

Top
#40069 - 09/10/11 02:20 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Max]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Max
I found this while searching, maybe from a CT site but it is a NASA link and might be what I was looking for

Well Max, what were you looking for? That might be a guide to any help you can get here.

I followed the first link in your post, the one to the high energy electrons. Interesting, but not really informative. They offered several speculations on what might be producing them, some much more speculative than others.

Of course one of the things about science is that you go looking for something, and suddenly something else pops up that you never expected. This sounds like one of those things. It may lead to something exciting at some time in the future.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#40075 - 09/11/11 07:15 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Bill]
Max Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/07
Posts: 93
Absolutely. Just keep an open mind and keep collecting bits. If the search takes you to a CT site, read it and have a good laugh.

The magnetosphere looked really strange for a few days from around the 8th through the 12th. I was interested in seeing if the magnetosphere reacted to the Japan earthquake. I'm going to keep watching this to see if anything develops. It could be a way to detect that a major earthquake is going to happen. But, I doubt it.

Top
#40226 - 09/19/11 03:34 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Max]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Here’s a sort of “CT thought experiment”.

In the latter half of the 1960s a rich consortium, working in a top secret site in a remote part of the world, made a successful lunar launch. They planted their private flag on exactly the spot on which the Americans claim to have landed. The fact that the Americans didn’t report the presence of the flag is, quite obviously, because they didn’t go to the moon.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#40231 - 09/19/11 06:09 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Bill S.]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
The same conspirators that faked the moon landing are still at work. Now they have faked pictures from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter that show the stuff that was left behind and the astronauts foot prints.

LRO Moon Landing Pics

That's over 40 years they have continued this conspiracy.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#40241 - 09/20/11 11:44 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Bill]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill
The same conspirators that faked the moon landing are still at work....
That's over 40 years they have continued this conspiracy.
Bill Gill

So, if you believe the moon landing was faked, how come you never write up any articles to prove it.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#40246 - 09/20/11 02:19 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: preearth]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
It's called ironic statement Preearth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony) ... somehow I don't think Bill G really believes it ... just a guess by me!
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 15 of 16 < 1 2 ... 13 14 15 16 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.