Bad Astronomy
badastronomy.com · Personal blog · on HN since 2008
Phil Plait, an astronomer and science writer, debunks astronomy myths and explains space topics for a general audience.
What HN saysCommenters call Plait one of their favorite science writers and recommend his pages as expert takes on topics like the Apollo photos and starlight.
16HN people shared it
10linked it in comments
6stories submitted
55story points
3 years agolast shared
2008people per year2026
Most-shared posts
- 1Foxapollo3 people · first shared 2011
- 2No Alien Signal2 people · 5 points · first shared 2008 · discussion on HN
- 3The Long Climb from the Sun's Core (1997)1 people · 32 points · first shared 2013 · 11 comments on HN
- 4Ten things you don’t know about the Milky Way Galaxy1 people · 7 points · first shared 2008 · 2 comments on HN
- 5Are we aliens?1 people · 7 points · first shared 2008 · 2 comments on HN
- 6Gamma ray burst visible to the naked eye1 people · 3 points · first shared 2008 · 1 comments on HN
- 7Mars Lander Phoenix descending (picture taken during flight)1 people · 1 points · first shared 2008 · discussion on HN
- 8Meteoric1 people · first shared 2013
- 9Whois1 people · first shared 2023
- 10Homepage1 people · first shared 2008
- 11Badstarlight1 people · first shared 2018
- 12Index1 people · first shared 2019
- 13Moon spin1 people · first shared 2013
What HN people wrote when they linked it
overlordalex · 2019-11-15
> This article brings about the exact same glee and nostalgia.
Phil Plait is one of my favourite science writers, and has been consistently putting out great "bad astronomy" blog posts for years (decades?). If you want more of his writing you can check out the website:
http://www.badastronomy.com/index.html
dhimes · 2008-03-23
Those of you interested in astronomical things may enjoy
http://www.badastronomy.com/
skeltoac · 2023-09-24
The author is Phil Plait, Bad Astronomer. He is writing for an audience that is not as technically well-informed as most of HN, so it’s no surprise to see his writing called out as “pedantic” by… a bunch of pedants! He’s helping people understand the world a bit better and that’s a great thing to do.
I recognized the style before I noticed his name. Phil was writing online as The Bad Astronomer at least as far back as 1999. I started reading his blog after it appeared on my WordPress “Blogs of the Day” ranking site in 2005.
http://www.badastronomy.com/info/whois.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20230922000000*/http://www.badastronomy.co…
https://web.archive.org/web/20051212173430/http://blogsoftheday.com:80…
akvadrako · 2018-03-02
Honestly I'm not sure, but based my comment off this page I read years ago:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/badstarlight.html
It doesn't seem so unreasonable. I have also read the human eye can detect a single photon and 450 photons per cm³ is about 3e10 photons per second.
ryanjshaw · 2014-07-21
If you genuinely want an expert's take on these matters, this is a good place to go: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Specifically w.r.t. photos: http://www.iangoddard.com/moon01.htm
There's also a book: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Astronomy-Misconceptions-Revealed-Astrology/…
generj · 2013-10-02
"meteoric growth" sounds about right for most startups, since they fail.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/meteoric.html
DanielRibeiro · 2013-06-01
It seems that the moon does rotate: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=142
At least to an observer sitting in a fixed point in outer space.
Edit: better explanation: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/moon_spin.html
ktizo · 2012-07-30
This might help you - http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
JonnieCache · 2011-01-24
>Another argument I heard against 3D movies is that apparently our brains use all sorts of cues (about 20, I think) other than differences between what the eyes see, in order to make us see things as 3D... 3D movies provide only one of those cues, and so naturally causes a strange feeling because the other 19 cues are missing.
A big one is atmospheric haze, which is easy to reproduce to be fair. It is also the reason for a lot of the perceived inconsistencies in apollo moon photography: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds
jkush · 2008-01-17