RSS
Did Spanish Astronomers Use Google To Discover "Santa"?
from the finding-windmills dept
Last month, the discovery of a large Trans-Neptunian object (TNO) was reportedly hastened by a hacker. It turns out now that the "hacker" might actually have been Spanish astronomer Jose-Luis Ortiz, who announced the discovery of 2003 EL61, dubbed "Santa", in July. Caltech's Michael Brown had found the object months prior, but was waiting to announce it until after he had published a paper. After reviewing access logs on his website, Michael Brown noticed requests originating from the Spanish astronomers' computers. Now, there is a public brawl emerging over who rightfully "discovered" the object, as well as some ethical accusations over whether or not the Spaniards accessed (and properly attributed) the Caltech data. If the accusations do prove true, it's ridiculous that a bona fide astronomer would try and pull such a farce; even Don Quixote would have come up with a more believable tale.
Correction As pointed out by an astute reader, 2003 EL61 was incorrectly referred to as the "10th planet". 2003 UB313 is the "10th planet" whereas 2003 EL61 is merely a TNO (but still significant). We apologize for the confusion.
4 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Brazen Scams By Engineers Uncovered
- DailyDirt: Making Foods Yucky...
- No Surprise: Scammers Focus On Tricking The French With False Three Strikes Infringement Notices
- Wall Street Journal Europe Doles Out Cash And Favors To Inflate Circulation Numbers
- Paul Ceglia To Facebook: I Didn't Forge A Contract, You Did!
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
The object in dispute is not the so-called 10th pl
Discoverers Michael E. Brown (Caltech), Chad Trujillo (Gemini Observatory), and David Rabinowitz (Yale University) first imaged the object on October 21, 2003, but didn't see it move in the sky until they reimaged the same area 15 months later, on January 8, 2005. As far as I can tell from the IAU notices, the so called "10th planet" is not in dispute.
This is not to say that 2003 EL61 is not important. It is a significant object given its size, makeup, and that is has a moon which allowed its mass to be directly measured. But 2003 EL61 is not the so-called "10th Planet".
For additional information see: http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1560_1.asp .
chongo () /oo/
=-=
p.s. For what it is worth, I am happy to call 2003 UB313 a planet. I don't mind living a solar system with 10+ planets!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The object in dispute is not the so-called 10t
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
There is another possible interpretation of this
1. Spaniards did the discovery independently.
2. Then they saw the abstract from Brown.
3. Then they decided to do a verification to see whether Brown is talking about the same object (one of them) that they discovered.
4. When the answer turned out to be "yes", they rushed with their announce, just as Brown rushed with his announce two days after.
I believe it is a good idea to consider this alternative before accusing anybody of misconduct.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There is another possible interpretation of th
I concur with your observation but I sure would like to hear from the Spanish team. There silence on the matter does not look good. Brown's charge would still stand even if your scenario were true. A scientist is supposed to cite another scientist's work if he used it in any way. It would be interesting to hear from some members of the scientific/legal community regarding this issue!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment