Utter ignorance of astronomy

The BBQ Pit
101

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I’ve mentioned this one before:

Mangetout and Friend are gazing at the clear night sky

F: The sun is a star, right?
M: That’s right.
F: <looks around at the many visible stars in the night sky> Which one?
[/QUOTE]

My lovely wife asked me if the gravity that kept one on the ground is the same “type” of gravity that keeps the moon in orbit.

However, she’s the one who remembers birthdays/anniversaries/etc, so while I moght know about the solar system (and the various types of gravities), she’s much better at keeping our social life afloat. It all balances out in the end, to each his own, etc.

102

[QUOTE=RedSwinglineOne]
I hope somewhere there is a message board where mechanics, carpenters and the like sit around and mock the “nerds and geeks with their heads buried in books, wasting time staring into the sky pondering the boundries of the universe, dragging down society by having never learned anything useful like how to install a ceiling fan or rebuild a transmission.”
[/QUOTE]
HEY! I’ve installed five ceiling fans in my house. Some of them work right.

103

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
HEY! I’ve installed five ceiling fans in my house. Some of them work right.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, I’ll cross your name off the list. :wink:

104

[QUOTE=Angua]
Personally, no, I don’t think I could. I guess it could be “productive” provided I was happy to have a life where I didn’t think, learn, wonder about the world around me, the world that I live in, but I don’t think I’d be happy. But that’s just me. YMM and obviously does vary.
[/QUOTE]

I go days at a time without ever once thinking about the relative movements of the earth and the moon. In fact, I can go for long periods of time without even thinking about the moon at all. I think this is probably true for most people who aren’t astronomers, astronauts, or werewolves. But I certainly don’t ask myself when I get up in the morning, “What’s the position of the moon this morning?”

105

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Touché.

I should have said: chill the fuck out, you fucking cocksucker.
[/QUOTE]

You just made me guffaw. Well done sir.

106

[QUOTE=Miller]
It may be worth noting that the passage you quoted was written by a man who believed in the literal existence of faeries.
[/QUOTE]

It’s also worth noting that the words were in the mouth of a character, not the author.

107

Can’t really blame the astronomically ignorant, a lot of people still believe the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

108

[QUOTE=fachverwirrt]
You’re probably one of those assholes who thinks that Mozart’s first name is Wolfgang.
[/QUOTE]

I refuse to sacrifice my dog in this fight, but I had to chime in to say that this made me chuckle. For what it’s worth, and all that.

109

[QUOTE=JohnT]
My lovely wife asked me if the gravity that kept one on the ground is the same “type” of gravity that keeps the moon in orbit.
[/QUOTE]

Newton figured out that the force that caused earthly objects to fall would serve to explain the motion of the moon. Extending this to other celestial bodies was a logical step. This was, IMO, one of the great intellectual leaps of the human race: “The way things work here is the way they work everywhere.”

110

[QUOTE=Miller]
It may be worth noting that the passage you quoted was written by a man who believed in the literal existence of faeries.
[/QUOTE]

Did someone summon me?

::d&r::
Oh, c’mon–*somebody * had to do it! :wink:

111

[QUOTE=JohnT]
My lovely wife asked me if the gravity that kept one on the ground is the same “type” of gravity that keeps the moon in orbit.
[/QUOTE]
I think that’s a good question. I think it’s helpful toward understanding the general nature of gravity when one realizes that orbiting objects are actually falling. (Or escaping.)

112

[QUOTE=Knorf]
Cite that the IAU or any such governing body has made such a definition official? I searched their website and found nothing. The definition on the Bad Astronomer site is pretty clearly one he is proposing, and not something officially declared by a governing body of some sort.

[/QUOTE]

OK, I couldn’t find an actual IAU cite, mea culpa, my bad. But, read Phil Plait’s column properly. He says that

This is not a definition that Plait is pulling out of his arse. That is the standard definition of the seasons as documented in every single good astronomy text-book (And I should know, I’ve read enough of them). That is how astronomers everywhere define the seasons – its an internationally agreed definition. Not one that I, or Plait, or any other astronomer have pulled out of their arses.

113

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
It’s also worth noting that the words were in the mouth of a character, not the author.
[/QUOTE]

Also a good point. I’ve nothing against Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but a lot of people seem to think that writing about someone who is a genius, is the same as being a genius yourself. Just because the dude invented Sherlock Holmes doesn’t mean he had any special insight into any field other than writing good detective fiction.

114

[QUOTE=Angua]
This is not a definition that Plait is pulling out of his arse. That is the standard definition of the seasons as documented in every single good astronomy text-book (And I should know, I’ve read enough of them). That is how astronomers everywhere define the seasons – its an internationally agreed definition. Not one that I, or Plait, or any other astronomer have pulled out of their arses.
[/QUOTE]

That’s an astronomical definition, however; it should be borne in mind that there are valid NON-astronomical definitions.

115

[QUOTE=Miller]
Also a good point. I’ve nothing against Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but a lot of people seem to think that writing about someone who is a genius, is the same as being a genius yourself. Just because the dude invented Sherlock Holmes doesn’t mean he had any special insight into any field other than writing good detective fiction.
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. And I hope no-one was seriously thinking a point was being made upthread about the inadvisability of learning stuff! :smiley:

I’d’ve quoted that passage myself, likely enough, but because I thought it was funny and to the point - not because it’s true. :dubious:

116

[QUOTE=RickJay]
That’s an astronomical definition, however; it should be borne in mind that there are valid NON-astronomical definitions.
[/QUOTE]

But of course. I’m not denying that, merely pointing out the technical astronomical definition.

117

[QUOTE=Lumpy]
The other week a co-worker asked me, in all seriousness, if the Earth goes around the Moon or the Moon goes around the Earth.
[/QUOTE]

Considering the recent debates among the Astronomy community itself about whether Pluto was a planet, which also involved the lesser quandary of whether Pluto/Charon should rightly be called a planet-moon system or a double-planet system, this is hardly a good example of ignorance. Indeed, technically speaking, the Earth and the Moon revolve around each other. By convention if the center of revolution is completely within one of the bodies, we’ll consider it the dominant one and for linguistic ease talk about the other body revolving around it, but this ignores the realities of relativity. Granted, it would seem odd if they just weren’t aware that the moon is smaller than the Earth.

[QUOTE=Sailboat]
There is a widespread misconception in this country–which extends, I might note, to the makers of most calendars, dictionaries, and encyclopedias–that summer “officially” starts on the day of the summer solstice, June 21 or 22, which is the longest day of the year. Americans also believe (1) that there is some valid scientific reason for doing it that way, and (2) that everybody in the Northern Hemisphere does it that way, and always has. None of these things is true. --Cecil Adams
[/QUOTE]

With respects to the Great Master, this at best is misleading and at worst simply isn’t true. First, since language is defined by use, stating that “makers of most calendars, dictionaries, and encyclopedias” are defining a word a certain way automatically makes it one of the proper definitions of the word. As rightly noted by the wikipedia article Summer (and seasons) have several alternative meanings, depending on whether you are referring to the astronomical definition (period between equinox/solstice), a calendrical one (defined as certain months, or between certain dates, depending on country/culture), an agricultural one (season when certain thrings grow), a meteorological one (summer is the hottest part of the year), a recreational one (season when beaches are open, typically marked by Labor and Memorial Day in the US), etc. Granted, stating that summer is only defined as between two dates is wrong, but so is the opposite - stating that an astronomical definition is wrong or that only the meteorological one is correct.

Back to the OP with my own examples - an older female relative, who was also a career public elementary school teacher, believed, and insisted when I contradicted her (and presumably taught to her classes) that gravity is caused by the spin of the Earth! There was also a pair of classmates in Junior High who did an oral science report demonstrating how through the use of time zones one could time travel. I couldn’t tell whether was supposed to be factual or whether it was intentionally fictional for cleverness’s sake, and I’m not sure whether the teacher was also ignorant or was taking into account the potential of cleverness, but I do recall them getting a good grade.

118

[QUOTE=fachverwirrt]
You’re probably one of those assholes who thinks that Mozart’s first name is Wolfgang.
[/QUOTE]

What exactly is assholish about that? Is that more or less assholish than thinking that Paul McCartney’s first name is Paul?
Or was the whole thing a whoosh?

119

[QUOTE=Angua]
This is not a definition that Plait is pulling out of his arse. That is the standard definition of the seasons as documented in every single good astronomy text-book (And I should know, I’ve read enough of them). That is how astronomers everywhere define the seasons – its an internationally agreed definition. Not one that I, or Plait, or any other astronomer have pulled out of their arses.
[/QUOTE]

There is no governing body that has “officially” declared such a definition. It may a popularly understood definition, but that does not make it “official.”

I’d like to see a cite that even a majority of astronomy textbooks–as opposed to popular layman’s star books which are scarcely better than sci-fi novels at times–propose that definition as “official.” My experience is that astronomers are not and never have been particularly directed toward coming up with official start and end dates for seasons. That is the province of TV meteorologists, hence the current ignorance about “official.”

In point of fact, the summer solstice as “Midsummer’s Day” is a far older and more widely held tradition, than that the solstice is the first official day of summer.

120

[QUOTE=Knorf]
There is no governing body that has “officially” declared such a definition. It may a popularly understood definition, but that does not make it “official.”

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you’re right, its not an official definition, and I shouldn’t have said that it was. But it is a commonly understood definition, and is used by most astronomers who deal with these things. My bad, I apologise.