[math-fun] USA Today's fake photo of forming solar system
From: Phil Carmody <thefatphil@yahoo.co.uk> Anyway, back to:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2013/01/02/planet-formation-s...
It's a lot less remarkable than most paintings I see in the local art galleries near here. You didn't believe USAToday when they credited it "(Photo: M. Kornmesser, ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO))", did you? It's just an artist's impression, that's all. The actual *photo* is here: http://www.eso.org/public/archives/images/screen/eso1301b.jpg --hmm. The USA Today I got this from said "photo" not "artist impression" and, what really sealed the deal to my gullible mind, was they also gave a VIDEO not just still, which I foolishly thought actually meant it was, like, real data from ESO. Not just an attempt to be even more artistic. But when you think about it, you realize there is no way in hell that star-in-process-of-forming is going to be flying across the background field of fixed stars at that high a rate, so this video was actually a complete fabrication!! That's really really obnoxious to a degree I would have thought unbelievable. Lower my opinion of the press to new lows. The real "photo" which by the way was from radio telescope array, not optical, is not nearly as nice and convincing as the fake. Is it legitimate to draw the conclusion expressed by the fake?
That's really really obnoxious to a degree I would have thought unbelievable. Lower my opinion of the press to new lows Hello Warren, I'm a journalist and opinions like this make me wonder: why do you still bother with newspapers, radio, TV, Internet if those are so bad? And more, why don't you just publish yourself the good non obnoxious newspaper, (radio, TV, Internet stuff) you would dream to read? Have guts, please. A daily fed WarrenBlog should not be that expensive and you would surely count me as the first subscriber. Ah, there is a (light) counterpart: some of your followers might complain about your way of producing information, explaining the universe, selecting the right words, punctuation, illustrations... The real "photo" which by the way was from radio telescope array, not optical, is not nearly as nice and convincing as the fake. Is it legitimate to draw the conclusion expressed by the fake? Warren, did you ever ask yourself about reality? I mean, what is the "concept" of reality? This question is as old as humanity from a philosophical point of view. So, again, cool down and open a few books. What is a "real" photo? A "real" picture? A "real" planet? (Pluto?) The "real" meaning of an eleven-word sentence like this one? You know that a simple stone and the representation of this stone (by a painting, a picture, an hologram, an English sentence, a 3D film, name it) will _never_ match? Some illustrators use "fake" colors? Big deal: can you tell me what a "true" color is? Of course you know that colors (for instance) are _created_ inside our brains: where is then the "reality" of a color? The fake/true debate shoul be over now, William James having even said that what we (humans) call a "true" idea (concept, value, assertion) is only what we (humans) find useful! I know that your complaint is more about communicating ideas, using metaphors, establishing comparisions, speaking about science, etc. Nevertheless, stop blaming the press and the people making it. Be one of them. And do the right thing. Best, É.
participants (2)
-
Eric Angelini -
Warren Smith