NASA warns two asteroids hurtling closer to Earth than the MOON in 20,000mph

I was asking for clarification about what you wanted an example of. If you're going to be silly about it then I'm afraid you're not going to get your example.

Oh come on, take credit where credit is due. The perfect use of scare quotes while asking what scare quotes are is trolling of the first order.

OK, I'll say it more clearly. Studying Astrophysics isn't a path to wealth unless, like me, you use your degree to get a job in something unrelated to it.

Then what's the "space industry" you're complaining about ?

You seem to have the idea that astrophysicists are rolling in money - rest assured, they are not.

 

How would you know what the various pay grades are in these space agencies? But whatever they are, they're not having to work - note that word - for them. You've obviously deigned to not touch on that particular subject, which I mentioned in an earlier post viz. But at least it's better than having to work for a living? Come to think about it, you haven't addressed anything I've said in my earlier posts, you've skirted around them - and you have to cheek to accuse me of trolling. Just forget it.

 

It's publicly available information, but of course you've not made it clear what's the "space industry" you're complaining about

I suppose it depends on what you mean by hard work. If you mean that the work is physically demanding then you're right they, like almost all non-manual labourers, do not work hard. If on the other hand you mean is the work demanding in other ways then yes, it is. It's mentally demanding, the hours are long and often antisocial, and working in any form of academia is stressful. You're under constant pressure to produce new and innovative work.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by working for a living. If you're talking about physical, manual labour then yes, it's likely better paid and it's definitely less physically demanding. On the other hand, work in the service sector is less demanding and better paid.

Of course I have, which is why you've decided to flounce. Be aware though, a flounce dismount from a thread is a difficult one to stick.

 

I wouldn't say dreaming up crap like the following is 'work', would you? Certainly not demanding work. Now go away, you're getting on my nerves. You are either one of the charlatans, or very naive.

"A lunar photobomb: NASA spacecraft captures moment the moon eclipses the sun TWICE in just six hours"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...t-moon-eclipses-sun-TWICE-just-six-hours.html

 

Given that you have absolutely no idea what they do, how can you comment on whether it's hard work or not ?

By the way, I'm not planning on going anywhere so get used to it.

"

I'm not entirely sure what your problem is.

If you're complaining about the term "photobomb" then that's down to the Daily Mail, not NASA

 

Infomation on their pay grades is available online.
Why keep asking other people to do something you can do yourself?

 

What, you think it was a Daily Mail scoop? Seriously?? Of course they got it from NASA - where else fgs?

 

I don't recall asking anybody to do anything for me?

 

Do you even bother to read ?

I said that if your problem is with the term "photobomb" then that's down to the Daily Mail.

 

I was essentially referring to the story itself - but then photobomb is the kind of nonsensical expression NASA would use to sensationalize it.

 

Tolkien got his information that there are trees from observation and science, but he made up the Ents based on it.

 

NASA didn't use the term photobomb - the Daily Mail did.

If you relied less on tabloid reporting of science stories and instead went to the primary sources, I honestly think think you'll be less distressed.

 

I said it was the kind of nonsensical expression NASA might use to hype it up, not that they did use it. But what about the story itself - which is really what we're talking about here, not the effing 'photobomb' word? What do you make of it??

 

I've not been around here long, but every time you've complained about the language being used in science reporting, it's been down to the reporting of the story, not the original NASA press release.

What bits you you take issue with ?

That the moon transits the sun ?

That it did so twice in a short period of time ?

That it was captured by a space probe which spends all its time pointing at the sun ?

 

IF he did so he would not only lose 99% of his posting material he would become terribly confused by the actual data and big werds.

 

As I seem to remember posting erlier in this thread - who else other than NASA or one of the other space outfits would publicise such supposed events and 'discoveries'?

Look if you really believe that then there is no point in furthering this discussion. You believe it and I don't - think 'impasse'?

 

I suppose it depends on what you mean by publicise.

NASA release a lot of their data into the public domain to allow other scientists and interested amateurs access. It could be that the double transit was spotted by a third party.

Then again news of the double transit could have been released by NASA but in a rather bland fashion and then the Daily Mail comes along and spices up the story by using words like "photobomb".

I note that you still have not answered my questions about what exactly offends you so much about the story:

The florid language ?
That the moon transits the sun ?
That it did so twice in a short period of time ?
That it was captured by a space probe which spends all its time pointing at the sun ?
Something else ?

Believe what ?

That NASA has launched (yet another) probe and that this one, is pointed at, and heading towards the sun ?

Do you believe:

- that they faked the launch entirely
- that they did launch something but it was a useless prop
- that they launched something but it was for some other undisclosed purpose
- something else

 

I keep telling you - I don't believe a word of what they say about deep space stuff; I obviously believe what they say about more earthly events, such as the pics they've issued this morning, taken from above that gathering hurricane headed towards the Carolinas, and proving drought areas take from space. And don't get me started about what hardware they're supposed to have sent to Mars. And I wouldn't describe their style of PR as 'florid' (inverted commas indicating I'm repeating your word??), rather as insultingly condescending.

 

The thing is that every time you've complained about wording, the wording comes from the tabloid, and not NASA.

Why don't you believe a word of what they say about deep space stuff ?

edited to add...

Of course, by the standard definition, deep space refers to things outside the solar system so precludes the things you're currently railing about.

 

Well I wouldn't have any way of knowing which parts of the narration are from NASA and what is tabloid sensationalist drivel for the gullible masses, would I? And as to your addendum - I'm not getting into semantics: deep space to me is the outer reaches of the universe, beyond which there is nothing else. Unless you know there is something else, and would like to share your knowledge?

 

Only because you deliberately maintain your ignorance.....

The article itself usually contains an indication of which are direct quotes and which has been provided by the journalists or third parties.

Then again you can search for the original NASA press release, if there is one.

Well now I'm plain confused.

You claim that the NASA sun probe is unbelievable, is this deep space ?

 

And there we have the core of your problem. YES you have ways of knowing, quite easily in fact. At issue is what seems to be no desire to do so. You might try looking through your tabloid stories and then doing something you might find difficult or tiresome....research and possibly learning something. You might even spend a moment looking at the actual NASA website to verify data...sounds hard I know but, may possibly help you to gain a bit of respect.

 

Okay, you think I'm ignorant and I think you're gullible. Let's leave it at that, shall we?

And I think we've had all the mileage this discussion is worth. Say I'm 'running away' if you like, but I know when I'm flogging a dead horse and it's stupid to keep flogging it.

 

The difference is that I can objectively show that you are ignorant - indeed you seem proud of it.

That does seem to be your usual approach, as soon as someone tries to pin you down on the specifics of your objections, you disengage or change the subject.

Your definitions seem to be very fluid. In another thread, you said that Mars was "deep space", in this thread it's beyond the observable universe. There seems to be a significant difference between these two.

 

You et al having been trying to pin me down with pure unadulterated bullshit and non-provable NASA double-speak, that's why I'm withdrawing. I'm actually of the opinion that your peevishness is because I'm saying things which are forcing you to think again about your beliefs. Either way, believe what you like, and I'm done here.