Celestia Forums

Interesting news from Spitzer...
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitz ... 0603a.html

buggs_moran wrote:Interesting news from Spitzer...
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitz ... 0603a.html

Unless I can read the corresponding refereed publications that do NOT involve "artist's views as typical for Spitzer promos, I am not impressed.

I usually get an "allergy attack" when I have to read these generic PR phrases : "scientists have shown that... Which scientists?

Instead:

• what was the strict experimental evidence?
• was the evidence confirmed by other groups?
• what were the inherent experimental uncertainties?

Fridger

A more detailed press release is available at
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/re ... ease.shtml

The results were presented today at the AAS meeting by Robert Benjamin of the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater. There's a long list of co-investigators, but a publication isn't mentioned.

Well the problem with "artist impresions" IMO is that they are not reality and just some guess or a highly fictional representation.

I may be wrong, but isn't the current rendition of the Milky Way in Celestia based on an artist's representation? What Spitzer's scientists are saying is that there are most probably two major arms rather than four. I'll admit, I haven't had time to read everything on it as I saw it in passing while at work.

buggs_moran wrote:I may be wrong, but isn't the current rendition of the Milky Way in Celestia based on an artist's representation? What Spitzer's scientists are saying is that there are most probably two major arms rather than four. I'll admit, I haven't had time to read everything on it as I saw it in passing while at work.

NO, since I am to a substantial degree responsible for it, I should know.

The present rendering of the Milky way incorporates ALL published info about the spiral arms and the bar, including Spitzer. There is a host of different information available (including the pulsar locations, for example) that Spitzer scientists are unbeaten to ignore in their PR releases!!! All this info is integrated in the custom template that was done in collaboration with ElChristou.

Fridger

Press releases without links to the relevant papers are quite annoying really - I mean come on, this is the Internet, it's just a matter of adding a couple of tags...

Yes, indeed, and Spitzer press releases are particularly so!

Here is a case study about the "discovery of the bar" of the MilkyWay from an earlier post of mine in Aug 2005 :

First of all, Prof. Ed Churchwell's spectacularly sounding press release from Aug 16 2005

http://www.news.wisc.edu/11405

NO mention whatsoever about the previous existing STRONG evidence for the barred nature of the MW from COBE and 2MASS, as obtained up to 4 years earlier...

Details and links to original COBE and 2MASS papers are here:
viewtopic.php?t=7820&highlight=2mass&start=1

Here are two typical popular science articles that all copy the same kind of statements without giving credit to COBE and 2MASS

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=3430
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/ ... lkyfrm.htm

That's the kind of articles many of you guys tend to read and swallow-- no questions asked

I found it really incredible that both the STRONG previous evidences from COBE and 2MASS where blundly ignored in the Spitzer press releases and the follow-up articles of the popular science press....

Fridger

t00fri wrote:NO mention whatsoever about the previous existing STRONG evidence for the barred nature of the MW from COBE and 2MASS, as obtained up to 4 years earlier...

Details and links to original COBE and 2MASS papers are here:
viewtopic.php?t=7820&highlight=2mass&start=1

Here are two typical popular science articles that all copy the same kind of statements without giving credit to COBE and 2MASS

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=3430
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/ ... lkyfrm.htm

That's the kind of articles many of you guys tend to read and swallow-- no questions asked
Fridger

This is precisely why us Brain-Dead types rely upon people like you, Good Doctor, to enlighten the rest of us concerning matters of scientific accuracy. I, for one, am greatly appreciative of your efforts here.

Many thanks from the Brain-Dead