Slashdot Mirror
The Stolen Credit For What Makes Up the Sun
StartsWithABang writes: Sure, it's easy today to look at the Sun and know it's a ball of (mostly) hydrogen, generating energy by combining those protons in a chain into helium through the process of nuclear fusion. But before we even knew that nuclear fusion was possible, we needed to figure out what the Sun was made out of, a more difficult task than you'd imagine. The credit was given to Henry Norris Russell (of Hertzsprung-Russell diagram fame), but he completely stole the work from a woman you never heard of: his student, Cecilia Payne, after discouraging her from publishing her work on the subject four years prior.
Fuck off with that sensationalist garbage. He didnt "steal" anything. He admitted he was wrong and that she was right when it became clear that she was.
> The credit was given to Henry Norris Russell (of Hertzsprung-Russell diagram fame)
Citation?
This site has been completely taken over by man-hating feminists.
This is not even wrong. Payne had the idea first, Russell thought it was wrong, Russell later changed his mind and gave Payne credit: http://blogs.britannica.com/20... His work cites hers.
This is how science is supposed to work, although there is always a factor of fame involved in credit-giving, and women have in general not been as forceful in claiming or defending credit as men.
Furthermore, how many people claiming to be "outraged" by this were even aware of who had been given credit for figuring out the composition of the sun in the first place? Who amongst us is "shocked, shocked" that Russell--whom they had been giving credit to all these years, citing in papers, talking up at cocktail parties--didn't actually make the discovery that is commonly and incorrectly attributed to him?
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
The article missed the opportunity to mention that the spectral line for helium was unknown at the time, and was first discovered in the sun. Hence the name was adopted from Helios, the Greek god of the sun.
Dox this person and get them fired from their job!!!
-SJW
She made an important scientific breakthrough.
In my opinion, thats very sexy. 10/10, five stars.
This was the subject of an episode of the Neil deGrasse Tyson Cosmos. The summary is pretty sensationalistic too. Hertzsprung discouraged his student from publishing because he thought she was wrong. When she was persistent and turned out to be right, they published. Professors always get the credit for what their students do.
Also, what is "combining those protons in a chain"?
HA! This reminds me of my days at Rice University, in the early 70s. The Post grad students there each year would award one of their number the "Young Marsden" award. It was presented to the student whose work had been most egregiously ripped off by a faculty member that year. It was called the Young Marsden award, in memory of Marsden, since Rutherford and Geiger got credit for his work on alpha particle scattering
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
They invented the sun. They ate the apple.
Sure, it's easy today to look at the Sun
No it's not, unless you're trying to blind yourself. Use eclipse glasses or make a pinhole projector.
I think what you meant was "look at Wikipedia [etc]"
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
he completely stole the work from a woman you never heard of: his student, Cecilia Payne,
He didn't "steal" it, and she wasn't his student.
Cecilia Payne's dissertation originally concluded that stars (particularly our Sun) were composed primarily of ionized hydrogen and helium, with smaller amounts of other elements, mostly metals. Russel reviewed her dissertation, and dissuaded her from presenting that conclusion, because the common wisdom at the time was that the Sun was made of the same stuff as the Earth, but heated to incandescence.
Later, Russel realized that Payne was right, and gave her brief credit in one of his papers for the idea. Unfortunately the idea was still attributed to Russel for a long time. Payne did get the recognition she deserved, albeit belatedly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I know how it sounds to complain that your one submission (out of the many /. receives) didn't get accepted, but I've tried submitting this recent scientific discovery (published in Nature Chemistry) a few times. IMO it's perfect material for Slashdot: a interesting new hypothesis (about a supposedly "well-understood" reaction) put to the test via regularly evolving experiments and apparatuses. And it was even largely funded through Youtube viewers (who the lead scientist thanks in the paper) and documented with (at least one) well-done video.
/. never ran it. I can't help but think that part of the problem is that the scientist is Dr. Phil Mason, aka thunderf00t, who is known for his vids that expose Atheism+ and anti-Gamergate types as fools. Think about the lousy submissions that do often make it on the front page, especially those that push an agenda.
But
This is why things like Gamergate (and Slashdot's atrocious coverage of it) matter, even if you yourself don't personally care about videogames; it is a fight against neo-puritans who want to filter ALL types of content (not just games, comics, music, movies, etc) you're allowed to see, and refuse to acknowledge the work of those who don't buy into the "narrative."
P.S. Clearly I'm biased, so if any of you think that my article submission is unworthy for some other reason, let me know (seriously).
I think that SJW is a quite appropriate subject to bring when talking about this article.
Let me list a few ways in which just the summary is wrong, deliberately twisting the truth so that SJW can get their righteous anger on.
o Cecilia Payne-Gaposhkin is not someone I have not heard of. She was a professor at Harvard, a department chair, and hers is a name that you are very likely to hear even if you have just taken classes there.
o Her credit was not stolen. The man who dissuaded her from publishing part of her theory thought that the claim, unsupported, would expose her to ridicule. He did not do it to steal the credit - once he actually proved the claim, he gave her credit in the paper, and actually admitted there, without having to, that he was originally wrong.
And seriously, do we have to twist the facts to make things more interesting? There are enough wrongs to get angry about, and every time lies that are meant to inflame are discovered, assholes get to cast doubt on other, true injustices.
No good deed goes unpunished...
She made an important scientific breakthrough.
In my opinion, thats very sexy. 10/10, five stars.
Really? It think of sexy and scientifically-productive as kind of orthogonal qualities. Case in point: Marie Curie was undeniably brilliant, but I wouldn't have much of an urge to sleep with her.
Well her husband Pierre Curie apparently did. They had two children: Irène (scientist and Nobel laureate, along with her parents) and Ève (writer and pianist.)
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
That's hertory! There's no fucking "s" after you remove "his"!
After you remove 'him' there is no fucking, period.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Good. More sexily smart women for those of us who appreciate them.
Nobody considers it all that strange when a woman falls in love with some brilliant gnome for his mind, why should it be any different if the genders are reversed?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Of course the summary's wrong, it's clickbait for StartsWithABang at medium.com.
If you remember, that's the hiptard who thinks he knows more about designing space probes than people who design space probes.
He's the Bennet Haselton of astronomy.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."