Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_terminator_challenge.thumb.jpg.b7f10f594317507d0f40662231b0d9a8.jpg

andrew s

Science in Astronomy Now

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, andrew s said:

You seem to respond as if I am criticising your publication

No, not at all; I just have some empathy for whoever edits Astronomy Now. ūüôā

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to mention the magazine, but I think my own website (which is riddled with errors) in my signature has links to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even where authors go to great lengths to get things right, editors can still screw things up. I recall¬† Many years ago¬†¬†I wrote in a paper for a professional journal connected with my job that there was a "causal relationship" between two variables which someone¬†changed to a "casual relationship"¬†ūü§£

Robin 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, robin_astro said:

Even where authors go to great lengths to get things right, editors can still screw things up. I recall¬† Many years ago¬†¬†I wrote in a paper for a professional journal connected with my job that there was a "causal relationship" between two variables which someone¬†changed to a "casual relationship"¬†ūü§£

Robin 

Not as amusing, but I have had the pleasure of going through reversing a proof-reader's work to change 'lead screw' back to 'leadscrew'. You can imagine that it occurred quite frequently in a book about lathes, possibly into three figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At work I had "not explicitly modelled" changed to the possibly correct but not  intended "not expertly modelled".

Regards Andrew 

Edited by andrew s
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find BOTH "sides" (the main protagonists) persuasive. I note (wickedly),
aside from Email, "Astronomy Now" also have¬†a phone number too...¬†ūüėõ

I suppose, the expectation of being a "mine of (correct!) information"
reminds me of my latter years at WORK... As a "support" rather than 
front-line Physicist. I recall the Management Memo reminding us to:
Answer the phone within two rings and be polite (sic!) to customers...¬†¬†ūüėĎ
(My experience was that it destroyed any residual "colleague" thing)

Dunno about Journalism. I am lost in admiration for those who "got
the gig" in totalitarian states. Less impressed by the hired guns who
can dash of an article for whichever¬†side is currently *paying* them?¬†ūü§Ē

I suppose my favourite daft quote is along the lines: "To explore this
phenomena, it is important to have a TOOL of suitable size"!¬†(FNAR)¬†ūüėł
(I suppose it reveals my mental state... A perpetual adolescent boy?)

I do try hard to understand the idea that a mistake in a magazine is
the thin end of the wedge to a (life-threatening) anti-vaccine lobby?
I love¬†activists. I wish the internet could accommodate apathy tho...¬†ūüôā

P.S. I LIKE "Astronomy Now"... I hope they still have ONE left today!
In the¬†limited selection of magazines at a local WHS¬†a real beacon?¬†ūüėł

Edited by Macavity
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/09/2018 at 10:50, Macavity said:

I
I do try hard to understand the idea that a mistake in a magazine is
the thin end of the wedge¬†ÔĽŅto a (life-threatening) anti-vaccine lobby?
I love¬†activists. I wish the internet could accommodate apathy tho.ÔĽŅ..¬†ūüôā
 

I think the point I was trying to get across is that we look, quite reasonably,  to authoritative publications such as AN to publish, well no other way of saying it, accurate information.  Spelling , punctuation quotation errors are of course trivial and are entirely excusable.  Factual errors on the other hand, poor/incorrect science  on what is supposed to be the magazine's specialist area are, I would have thought, somewhat less excusable - kinda undermines their authority.  The reference to the MMR vaccination issue was to highlight the dangers of so called sources of authority not paying due diligence to what they publish.   I look forward to AN's advocacy of flat  earth :) 

Jim 

Edited by saac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I shall perhaps require A.N.¬†to be more authoritative in the future!¬†ūüėļ
I felt a slight "negative frisson" (triggered?) with their use of "Fake News"
in the Editorial... Is there no escape from the mundane? lol. But I concede:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-real-story-of-fake-news

My "word of the day" would definitely be Spallation¬†(A.N. Oct 2018¬†P.47)¬†ūüėé
I had previously only associated it with start of Neutron Beam production. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spallation
+1 to AN on THAT¬†one anyway!¬†ūüôā

Edited by Macavity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Macavity said:

Well, I shall perhaps require A.N.¬†to be more authoritative in the future!¬†ūüėļ
I felt a slight "negative frisson" (triggered?) with their use of "Fake News"
in the Editorial... Is there no escape from the mundane? lol. But I concede:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-real-story-of-fake-news

My "word of the day" would definitely be Spallation¬†(A.N. Oct 2018¬†P.47)¬†ūüėé
I had previously only associated it with start of Neutron Beam production. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spallation
+1 to AN on THAT¬†one anyway!¬†ūüôā

spallation - i first came across it concerning brickwork on a previous house!   It's not something you would want :)

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do remember seeing a scientific correction in AN. I can't remember the precise details but it concerned, if I'm not mistaken, the need to clarify the difference between the Doppler and the cosmological redshifts. 

I think the magazine tries hard to be accurate. I know that my own contributions have been peer-reviewed and that, on occasion, I've been asked to justify this or that point. In my tiny domain of deep sky AP I do sometimes take a minority or controversial view (which I try to defend) but I know that this will be scrutinized and I think that my last contribution was very effectively edited and substantially improved by Keith Cooper. I'm happy with the way I've been edited, if you like, which is pretty good since writers don't, in the main, like being edited!

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
Clarification
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind approaching black holes, I felt a sense that SGL was approaching CN for a while, thankfully it's been diverted. I used to happily subscribe to AN but my current narrowing of astronomical interests don't support the cost. My problem, not AN's.¬†¬†¬† ūüėÄ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This 20min vid attemts to explain the event horizon and this being a subject of some disagreement among astrophysicists I am curious to see what some commentators in this thread might think of it's accuracy in this regard.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/10/2018 at 07:15, SIDO said:

This 20min vid attemts to explain the event horizon and this being a subject of some disagreement among astrophysicists I am curious to see what some commentators in this thread might think of it's accuracy in this regard.

 

It seemed to me to do a good job but I suspect the Penrose diagram is a bit advanced for many. The words however were as I understood the situation to be.

Regards Andrew 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is now almost a week since I wrote to the editor of AN and not even an acknowledgement.  Maybe Neil or Olly could try to see if their more nuanced approach gets results?

Regards Andrew

Edited by andrew s
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, andrew s said:

It is now almost a week since I wrote to the editor of AN and not even an acknowledgement.  Maybe Neil or Olly could try to see if their more nuanced approach gets results?

Regards Andrew

i can't really write a complaint to a magazine I have never read :hiding:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stub Mandrel said:

i can't really write a complaint to a magazine I have never read :hiding:

No but you could refer to this discussion and how you would have managed my letter had it been to your magazine!

(I do realise this is unlikely to happen.)

Regards Andrew

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a slight aside, a few years ago an erstwhile colleague of mine, we were both in education at the time saw an advertisement for a engineering lecturer at a local college. The add maintained that any applicants must have "experience of the full spectre" of mechanical engineering. He scribed a letter to said college emphasising  that he was eminently suitable for the post as he had worked on phantom aircraft whilst an engineer in the RAF. Needless to say he never received a reply.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently missed a typo in an article on using Arduinos so it declared "Make sure modules are insulted properly... ".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I recently missed a typo in an article on using Arduinos so it declared "Make sure modules are insulted properly... ".

I've found insulting tape to be useful for all sorts of different jobs :)

James

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect its time and money related Andrew. I have done some publication (not science related), and my mistakes were always due to tight deadlines. The proof reader rarely knew what the subject matter was about and just looked for spelling and grammatical errors before firing the mag' off to press.
If the content is of written importance however, then i think the game changes slightly (as the editors should then be obliged to get the content right). The proof reader should thus be clued up on the subject matter.
Its amazing how easy it is to miss errors though. I consider myself pretty vigilant and slightly OCD when working on content, yet it still amazes me how many mistakes appear in the final printed mag'.

Don't even get me started on predictive text algorithms and spell checkers.

Edited by humblepigeon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, humblepigeon said:

I suspect its time and money related Andrew. I have done some publication (not science related), and my mistakes were always due to tight deadlines. The proof reader rarely knew what the subject matter was about and just looked for spelling and grammatical errors before firing the mag' off to press.
If the content is of written importance however, then i think the game changes slightly (as the editors should then be obliged to get the content right). The proof reader should thus be clued up on the subject matter.
Its amazing how easy it is to miss errors though. I consider myself pretty vigilant and slightly OCD when working on content, yet it still amazes me how many mistakes appear in the final printed mag'.

Don't even get me started on predictive text algorithms and spell checkers.

The odd typo never bothers me even if I spot them. The problem is the basic physics is wrong. I suspect the editors think they understand what they write about in "Ask Astronomy Now" but unfortunately they don't. 

Yes money is probably  the issue they can't or won't pay for a knowledgeable person to provide the answers.

Regards Andrew 

Edited by andrew s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2018 at 19:34, andrew s said:

The odd typo never bothers me even if I spot them. The problem is the basic physics is wrong. I suspect the editors think they understand what they write about in "Ask Astronomy Now" but unfortunately they don't. 

Yes money is probably  the issue they can't or won't pay for a knowledgeable person to provide the answers.

Regards Andrew 

Alan Longstaff's will be a hard act to follow...

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Alan Longstaff's will be a hard act to follow...

Olly

I fully agree. When it was ask Alen iit was almost impossible fault. 

Regards Andrew 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‚Äé26‚Äé/‚Äé09‚Äé/‚Äé2018 at 15:45, andrew s said:

 

"If a person were to fall into a black hole, time would come to a halt for them at the event horizon, so photons would not even reach their eyes"

Regards Andrew 

Unfortunately not only wrong but also actively misleading.

Perhaps a correction will be published. After all, a scientific magazine has a responsibility to the public understanding of science. The consideration of objects falling into black holes are a great way of looking at GR, it is a shame that it has gone so badly awry in this most public case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tiki said:

Unfortunately not only wrong but also actively misleading.

Perhaps a correction will be published. After all, a scientific magazine has a responsibility to the public understanding of science. The consideration of objects falling into black holes are a great way of looking at GR, it is a shame that it has gone so badly awry in this most public case.

I have emailed them pointing out errors on several occasions but never even had an acknowledgement.  So I have given up.

Regards Andrew 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

√ó
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.