Slashdot Mirror

let's look at the data that is the source for these conclusions.

"Our observations suggest that between 20% and 60% of Sun-like stars have evidence for the formation of rocky planets not unlike the processes we think led to planet Earth,"

"Our observations" means only that in a survey of sunlike stars, they identified clouds of dust around them. They haven't imaged anything, they are making the supposition that dust clouds = rocky planets, which is a leap.

Furthermore, they are presuming that there are earth-sized bodies in our own Oort cloud, which again, haven't been imaged or otherwise identified. Another huge supposition.

In both cases, I would believe that these conclusions are reasonable, and I personally believe it's LIKELY that terrestrial, rocky planetoids ARE common both in our system and galactically. But in both these cases I don't see any evidence presented that changes what was a previously widely-held guesstimate into anything more substantial than that.

To be more specific from the grossly oversimplified BEEB article: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer-20080217.html
The telescope used images the infrared picture of dust around target stars. Logically, the dust closer in to the stars is hotter than the dust further out (like the oort cloud).
Hot dust is 3.6-8 microns in wavelenth, cold dust is 70-160 microns. "Warm dust" at ~24 microns, is presumed to be in the 'sweet spot' - representing in our system the span from Earth to Jupiter's orbits. Looking at main-sequence stars like the sun, they see that at an age of about 300 million years, the 'signal' for warm dust just drops off. Coincidentally, this is the same time in solar evolution in which we believe our solar system was swept clean of dust by the formation of the rocky planets. So they are presuming that this process is taking place elsewhere as well.

Yeah, they're so desperate to control satellite spotters that they publish an applet to spot all sorts of satellites and they took down another similar website

If they wanted to make it look like a weather/GPS/comm satellite they'd have to put it in a much much higher orbit. The three you mentioned are geo-stationary satellites which orbit at 35,790 km while the spy satellites which go shooting around really fast are at an orbit of more like 700 to 800 km (satellite heights from NASA http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/orbits.html). So if you were trying to disguise as one of those, you'd need a much better camera and probably have to worry about other spotting problems and what not. They should just keep working on their replacement to the SR-71 so there isn't any to track.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap971129.html

I'm not sure I believe that Eta Carina is producing natural laser, but if it is, I'll bet it's more powerful than the M-Go Blue Ray. And apparently has a very precise aiming mechanism to hit us so that we can detect it. If not, it's spewing all that radiation in all directions and we got lucky to detect it. That is more than 9 joules.

NASA has the scoop on everything, including pretty pictures and charts of when you can see what based on timezone :)

Unfortunately the EdGCM project won't run under Linux. We are using Goddards' GISS series of coupled atmosphere-ocean models with a Java application which plots geo-gridded arrays from netCDF datasets. Its noteworthy that you can download and view datasets from simulation runs, too. Wouldn't this make a hell of an instructional tool?

Unfortunately the EdGCM project won't run under Linux. We are using Goddards' GISS series of coupled atmosphere-ocean models with a Java application which plots geo-gridded arrays from netCDF datasets. Its noteworthy that you can download and view datasets from simulation runs, too. Wouldn't this make a hell of an instructional tool?

Unfortunately the EdGCM project won't run under Linux. We are using Goddards' GISS series of coupled atmosphere-ocean models with a Java application which plots geo-gridded arrays from netCDF datasets. Its noteworthy that you can download and view datasets from simulation runs, too. Wouldn't this make a hell of an instructional tool?

Unfortunately the EdGCM project won't run under Linux. We are using Goddards' GISS series of coupled atmosphere-ocean models with a Java application which plots geo-gridded arrays from netCDF datasets. Its noteworthy that you can download and view datasets from simulation runs, too. Wouldn't this make a hell of an instructional tool?

Budget

• Nasa: $17.6 billion / year
• Iraq: $200 billion / year (plus around $500 billion / year for the standard military budget)

• Entire Earth (including Iraq): 1
• Titan: 100

Imagine getting to Titan though. The first order of business would be prospecting for pockets of Oxygen in the crust to let you create energy from all of those hydrocarbons...

Newsflash - crops appear different in the IR spectrum, as well as their reflected visible spectrum. Just because your eyes can't see the difference doesn't mean that a computer can't.

'The human nose can be an extremely strong tool for some individuals, perhaps this is more than just psychosomatic? It would drive me crazy to never investigate this if I were in his shoes.'

The lunar astronauts have several theories on the (perhaps related) phenomenon of the smell of 'fresh' moondust, and seem quite interested in having this investigated further:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/30jan_smellofmoondust.htm

Another hypersonic aircraft carried by a B-52

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-15/Medium/EC65-885.jpg

Hydrogen injection has nothing to do with engine design.
It's the concept of sheathing the projectile in a thin layer of a light gas, such as hydrogen. The speed of sound in hydrogen is higher than the speed of sound in air due to its being 14 times less dense, so you have less of a problem with heating. The above link says it "reduces noise", so I was wondering if it could be employed on aircraft to reduce the sonic boom.

Is it reasonable to assume that a large scale space war using high-explosive satellite killing missiles could cause a cascade failure of not just spy sats - but all sats (or a large portion of them)? The ISS is apparently the most heavily shileded spacecraft in orbit, and it can only handle hypervelocity impacts of 1cm in size or smaller. A bunch of spy satellite bits whizzing around might be kind of hard to manuver away from. I imagine it might take weeks or years for the full effects of a massive sat war to become realized. Worst case, could a bunch of space junk flying around in every usable orbit at high speeds essentially shut down space? Something as small as a paint chip can have devastating effects.

http://www.wstf.nasa.gov/Hazard/Hyper/debris.htm

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/07feb_cloroxlake.htm

Enjoy

Uh huh.

When is the next shuttle launch?

This is the first hit, not shuttle launch info.

This is the second hit.. ah hah! The next launch is on Feb 7.. wait a minute, it's Feb 10! Was it delayed or something? Oh, I see, it says "Launched".. great, when's the next one.. March 11 +.. hmm.. wtf does + mean? Apparently I need to read this and hmm.. nothing there about what the + means.. I guess it means it might get delayed, they do that.

See all that reasoning I had to do? See how long that took me? That's what the Semantic Web is for.

Uh huh.

When is the next shuttle launch?

This is the first hit, not shuttle launch info.

This is the second hit.. ah hah! The next launch is on Feb 7.. wait a minute, it's Feb 10! Was it delayed or something? Oh, I see, it says "Launched".. great, when's the next one.. March 11 +.. hmm.. wtf does + mean? Apparently I need to read this and hmm.. nothing there about what the + means.. I guess it means it might get delayed, they do that.

See all that reasoning I had to do? See how long that took me? That's what the Semantic Web is for.

Uh huh.

When is the next shuttle launch?

This is the first hit, not shuttle launch info.

This is the second hit.. ah hah! The next launch is on Feb 7.. wait a minute, it's Feb 10! Was it delayed or something? Oh, I see, it says "Launched".. great, when's the next one.. March 11 +.. hmm.. wtf does + mean? Apparently I need to read this and hmm.. nothing there about what the + means.. I guess it means it might get delayed, they do that.

See all that reasoning I had to do? See how long that took me? That's what the Semantic Web is for.

There's a problem with your browser or settings.
 
Your browser or your browser's settings are not supported. To get the best experience possible, please download a compatible browser. If you know your browser is up to date, you should check to ensure that javascript is enabled.

There's a problem with our website.

<!DOCTYPE "xmlns:xsl='http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform'">

NASA has a history of letting people name things. It's a fun and easy way to get people interested in space travel, science, exploration, and whatever else it is that NASA is doing. The more people excited about NASA, the better.

NASA has a history of letting people name things. It's a fun and easy way to get people interested in space travel, science, exploration, and whatever else it is that NASA is doing. The more people excited about NASA, the better.

NASA has a history of letting people name things. It's a fun and easy way to get people interested in space travel, science, exploration, and whatever else it is that NASA is doing. The more people excited about NASA, the better.

Given the timing of the article, it seems surprising that nobody mentioned whether or not the observatory will be taking pictures of this month's solar eclipse, for which the best viewing area is in Antarctica.

Is TDRS-1 still operating? It was a sick bird from the start twenty-four years ago and I'd be surprised it it were still alive.

NASA used TDRS-1 for proof of concept for GRTS in Canberra co-located with the DSN in the early 1990's to save the science data from GRO and later to close the zone of exclusion before NASA moved the third string of equipment from STGT to the GRGT in Guam.

I know TDRS-1 was being used ten years ago to communicate with the South Pole Station because it had enough eccentricity in its orbit to be above the horizon for 3.5 hours per day. It didn't have much fuel left and NASA stopped doing stationkeeping.

NASA used to do stationkeeping to keep the rest of the TDRS satellites right on the equator so I doubt it they would do much good close to the South Pole - at best they would be right on the horizon or a degree or two above it.

Is TDRS-1 still operating? It was a sick bird from the start twenty-four years ago and I'd be surprised it it were still alive.

NASA used TDRS-1 for proof of concept for GRTS in Canberra co-located with the DSN in the early 1990's to save the science data from GRO and later to close the zone of exclusion before NASA moved the third string of equipment from STGT to the GRGT in Guam.

I know TDRS-1 was being used ten years ago to communicate with the South Pole Station because it had enough eccentricity in its orbit to be above the horizon for 3.5 hours per day. It didn't have much fuel left and NASA stopped doing stationkeeping.

NASA used to do stationkeeping to keep the rest of the TDRS satellites right on the equator so I doubt it they would do much good close to the South Pole - at best they would be right on the horizon or a degree or two above it.

Does Hydrogen Injection mess with the shape of the sonic boom? I.e. would it be quieter? If it does then they might be able to use that during the re-entry portion of their flight to help muffle the boom.

Actually, the hole in the ozone layer is caused by CFCs, or chlorofluro compounds, and is currently shrinking.

Moreover, intergalactic filaments are not unknown: NGC 1410/1409: Intergalactic Pipeline.

Leo

Any theory that attempts to explain the inverse temperature problem must also grapple with the fact that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets! There is no satisfying explanation for that one to date without consideration of an electric field, and the standard solar model miserably fails in explaining it. And this is no minor matter either because the solar wind, taken as a whole, constitutes the largest structure in our solar system, the heliospheric current sheet. Contemplate the implications of that for a moment: astrophysicists do not understand what is causing the motions of the largest structure in our own immediate neighborhood!

(pln2bz; source: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22144600; emphasis in the original).

"the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets!" BUSTED http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22148864, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22148128

(APODNereid; source: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22208390).

Not quite; see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22279668. Admittedly, however, the original statement, if enthusiastic, is also imprecise.

(leokor; source: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22279804; emphasis added).

If you know of even one observation that doesn't square with Peratt's model of galaxies, by all means, let us know. For Peratt's model, see:
A. L. Peratt. Evolution of the Plasma Universe I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets. IEEE Transactions in Plasma Science, PS-14, 6 (1986)
A. L. Peratt. Evolution of the Plasma Universe II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, PS-14, 6 (1986)

(leokor; source: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22284506; emphasis added).

How about this: "Bright Spiral Galaxy M81 from Hubble" (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070529.html) - note the asymmetric arms, the large central bulge;
or this "One-Armed Spiral Galaxy NGC 4725" (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050901.html)?

To this day, Peratt's model remains the only one that explains the shape and stability of galaxies, and does it without recourse to such ad-hoc devices as dark matter.

(source as above; emphasis added).

Even in 1986, and allowing for enthusiasm, this remains ... imprecise.

For starters, the MOND folk (Milgrom, Sanders, McGaugh, etc) would no doubt take strong exception to the "without recourse to [...] dark matter" part (http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/).

Next, even in 1986, the observed "shape" of Double Radio Sources associated with Active Galactic Nuclei (DRAGNs) was inconsistent with the Peratt's model; today, with considerably more, much higher resolution, across many more EM wavebands observations, Peratt's model clearly fails both "shape" and "stability" criteria (an example: http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~abridle/dragnparts.htm).

Finally, we now have independent estimates of the radial distribution of mass in galaxies, from analyses of gravitational lensing, something not available to any sign

Any theory that attempts to explain the inverse temperature problem must also grapple with the fact that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets! There is no satisfying explanation for that one to date without consideration of an electric field, and the standard solar model miserably fails in explaining it. And this is no minor matter either because the solar wind, taken as a whole, constitutes the largest structure in our solar system, the heliospheric current sheet. Contemplate the implications of that for a moment: astrophysicists do not understand what is causing the motions of the largest structure in our own immediate neighborhood!

(pln2bz; source: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22144600; emphasis in the original).

"the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets!" BUSTED http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22148864, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22148128

(APODNereid; source: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22208390).

Not quite; see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22279668. Admittedly, however, the original statement, if enthusiastic, is also imprecise.

(leokor; source: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22279804; emphasis added).

If you know of even one observation that doesn't square with Peratt's model of galaxies, by all means, let us know. For Peratt's model, see:
A. L. Peratt. Evolution of the Plasma Universe I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets. IEEE Transactions in Plasma Science, PS-14, 6 (1986)
A. L. Peratt. Evolution of the Plasma Universe II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, PS-14, 6 (1986)

(leokor; source: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22284506; emphasis added).

How about this: "Bright Spiral Galaxy M81 from Hubble" (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070529.html) - note the asymmetric arms, the large central bulge;
or this "One-Armed Spiral Galaxy NGC 4725" (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050901.html)?

To this day, Peratt's model remains the only one that explains the shape and stability of galaxies, and does it without recourse to such ad-hoc devices as dark matter.

(source as above; emphasis added).

Even in 1986, and allowing for enthusiasm, this remains ... imprecise.

For starters, the MOND folk (Milgrom, Sanders, McGaugh, etc) would no doubt take strong exception to the "without recourse to [...] dark matter" part (http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/).

Next, even in 1986, the observed "shape" of Double Radio Sources associated with Active Galactic Nuclei (DRAGNs) was inconsistent with the Peratt's model; today, with considerably more, much higher resolution, across many more EM wavebands observations, Peratt's model clearly fails both "shape" and "stability" criteria (an example: http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~abridle/dragnparts.htm).

Finally, we now have independent estimates of the radial distribution of mass in galaxies, from analyses of gravitational lensing, something not available to any sign

Yeah, that's why NASA uses genetic algorithms for antenna design instead of doing it manually, and estimates that it takes less work.

Err...

Incidentally, dark matter was observed last year. Or rather, we've seen its effects via gravitational lensing with enough resolution to map its distribution in relation to some other objects. This in turn helps us say what it might be and what it definitely isn't. For example, the bullet cluster image demonstrates pretty clearly that it is stuff, as it has been stripped away from a couple of galaxy clusters in collision. This best fits the WIMP (weakly interacting massive particles) theory of dark matter and is a big blow to the modified relativity camp. See here and here for some pretty pictures and explanations.

Incidentally, dark matter was observed last year. Or rather, we've seen its effects via gravitational lensing with enough resolution to map its distribution in relation to some other objects. This in turn helps us say what it might be and what it definitely isn't. For example, the bullet cluster image demonstrates pretty clearly that it is stuff, as it has been stripped away from a couple of galaxy clusters in collision. This best fits the WIMP (weakly interacting massive particles) theory of dark matter and is a big blow to the modified relativity camp. See here and here for some pretty pictures and explanations.

They did actually take a few color photos. There was only limited opportunity to take (false) color shots, since the 3 color channels had to be taken sequentially, and probe was moving quite fast during close approach, so the color pictures don't show the small details like this "spider" crater.

http://history.nasa.gov/meatball.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_logo

Although, the Star Trek emblem is far better looking, and has withstood the test of time (although trimming itself down)

However...

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-082606a.html

Soyuz, Progress too

NASA needs to spearhead projects that are useful, in collaboration with the rest of the space-viewing world. The fact that there isn't a loud voice shouting about this concept to the pols is embarrassing.

NASA needs to spearhead projects that are useful, in collaboration with the rest of the space-viewing world. The fact that there isn't a loud voice shouting about this concept to the pols is embarrassing.

NASA needs to spearhead projects that are useful, in collaboration with the rest of the space-viewing world. The fact that there isn't a loud voice shouting about this concept to the pols is embarrassing.

Where can I track the orbit of this satellite? http://science.nasa.gov/Realtime/jtrack/3d/JTrack3D.html don't list it. http://www.n2yo.com/ lists it, but can't track it.

In future, when I respond to your comments, I shall state explicitly that the intended audience does not include you.

With that preamble over ...

Down here, at the bottom of the ocean of air, distant "point sources" in the optical (or visible) and near-infrared wavebands are smeared out by what astronomers call "seeing". You notice this as the twinkling of stars in the night sky. Assuming radial symmetry*, the 1D distribution of intensity of such a seeing smeared point source looks like a Gaussian, but isn't (it's a Kolmogorov distribution, as the primary source of distortion is turbulence). Adaptive optics is a term used to describe a range of techniques to deconvolve the seeing, to recover the "beyond the atmosphere" 2D distribution of source intensity; the most ambitious of these aim to deliver diffraction limited images, using phase conjugation and laser guide beacons to "measure and compensate for turbulence-induced phase aberrations in three dimensions".

The image cited by pln2bz was taken by NaCO (NAOS-CONICA, Nasmyth Adaptive Optics System Near-Infrared Imager and Spectrograph), attached to one of the VLTs (http://www.eso.org/instruments/naco/index.html). Note the following comment: "Publications based on data obtained with the NACO instrument should quote the following reference papers: Lenzen, R. et al. 2003, SPIE 4841, 944 and Rousset, G. et al. 2003, SPIE 4839, 140." Clearly, pln2bz did not bother (perhaps he felt his SD comments did not constitute a "publication"); he's in good company, as his source was undoubtedly TPOD (or similar), which also did not bother.

Why does this matter?

Fundamentally, it goes to the issue of "evidence", which EU proponents (not only pln2bz, not only on Slashdot) get so worked up about.

As I said above, the two objects in the VLT/NACO image are statistically the same as two point sources.

One could, as pln2bz has done, claim to see something other than two point sources.

However, one could also claim that there's a face in the image (example1: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070421.html; example2: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990315.html), or a planet with rings (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071023.html), or even invisible pink fairies ... there is no objective method (that I know of) to choose between these claims.

Amusing aside: some of you have seen this "neutrino image" of the Sun (or similar) http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html, http://elvis.phys.lsu.edu/svoboda/superk/sun.gif. At least one prolific EU proponent interpreted this to show that neutrinos are emitted from the surface of the Sun, not its core! {insert ROFL smilies here}^

Concerning BAUT

There is a very long thread there, on the Electric Universe (nearly 2400 posts! http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/28596-electric-universe-model.html), as well as instructions to all those who wish to post on the topic, and links to all other EU-related threads (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/45529-read-first-re-posting-electric-universe-ideas-here.html).

In addition, this thread may be of interest to readers of this comment: http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/55206-reflections-year-half-s-experience-baut-s-atm-section.html.

* whic

In future, when I respond to your comments, I shall state explicitly that the intended audience does not include you.

With that preamble over ...

Down here, at the bottom of the ocean of air, distant "point sources" in the optical (or visible) and near-infrared wavebands are smeared out by what astronomers call "seeing". You notice this as the twinkling of stars in the night sky. Assuming radial symmetry*, the 1D distribution of intensity of such a seeing smeared point source looks like a Gaussian, but isn't (it's a Kolmogorov distribution, as the primary source of distortion is turbulence). Adaptive optics is a term used to describe a range of techniques to deconvolve the seeing, to recover the "beyond the atmosphere" 2D distribution of source intensity; the most ambitious of these aim to deliver diffraction limited images, using phase conjugation and laser guide beacons to "measure and compensate for turbulence-induced phase aberrations in three dimensions".

The image cited by pln2bz was taken by NaCO (NAOS-CONICA, Nasmyth Adaptive Optics System Near-Infrared Imager and Spectrograph), attached to one of the VLTs (http://www.eso.org/instruments/naco/index.html). Note the following comment: "Publications based on data obtained with the NACO instrument should quote the following reference papers: Lenzen, R. et al. 2003, SPIE 4841, 944 and Rousset, G. et al. 2003, SPIE 4839, 140." Clearly, pln2bz did not bother (perhaps he felt his SD comments did not constitute a "publication"); he's in good company, as his source was undoubtedly TPOD (or similar), which also did not bother.

Why does this matter?

Fundamentally, it goes to the issue of "evidence", which EU proponents (not only pln2bz, not only on Slashdot) get so worked up about.

As I said above, the two objects in the VLT/NACO image are statistically the same as two point sources.

One could, as pln2bz has done, claim to see something other than two point sources.

However, one could also claim that there's a face in the image (example1: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070421.html; example2: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990315.html), or a planet with rings (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071023.html), or even invisible pink fairies ... there is no objective method (that I know of) to choose between these claims.

Amusing aside: some of you have seen this "neutrino image" of the Sun (or similar) http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html, http://elvis.phys.lsu.edu/svoboda/superk/sun.gif. At least one prolific EU proponent interpreted this to show that neutrinos are emitted from the surface of the Sun, not its core! {insert ROFL smilies here}^

Concerning BAUT

There is a very long thread there, on the Electric Universe (nearly 2400 posts! http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/28596-electric-universe-model.html), as well as instructions to all those who wish to post on the topic, and links to all other EU-related threads (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/45529-read-first-re-posting-electric-universe-ideas-here.html).

In addition, this thread may be of interest to readers of this comment: http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/55206-reflections-year-half-s-experience-baut-s-atm-section.html.

* whic

In future, when I respond to your comments, I shall state explicitly that the intended audience does not include you.

With that preamble over ...

Down here, at the bottom of the ocean of air, distant "point sources" in the optical (or visible) and near-infrared wavebands are smeared out by what astronomers call "seeing". You notice this as the twinkling of stars in the night sky. Assuming radial symmetry*, the 1D distribution of intensity of such a seeing smeared point source looks like a Gaussian, but isn't (it's a Kolmogorov distribution, as the primary source of distortion is turbulence). Adaptive optics is a term used to describe a range of techniques to deconvolve the seeing, to recover the "beyond the atmosphere" 2D distribution of source intensity; the most ambitious of these aim to deliver diffraction limited images, using phase conjugation and laser guide beacons to "measure and compensate for turbulence-induced phase aberrations in three dimensions".

The image cited by pln2bz was taken by NaCO (NAOS-CONICA, Nasmyth Adaptive Optics System Near-Infrared Imager and Spectrograph), attached to one of the VLTs (http://www.eso.org/instruments/naco/index.html). Note the following comment: "Publications based on data obtained with the NACO instrument should quote the following reference papers: Lenzen, R. et al. 2003, SPIE 4841, 944 and Rousset, G. et al. 2003, SPIE 4839, 140." Clearly, pln2bz did not bother (perhaps he felt his SD comments did not constitute a "publication"); he's in good company, as his source was undoubtedly TPOD (or similar), which also did not bother.

Why does this matter?

Fundamentally, it goes to the issue of "evidence", which EU proponents (not only pln2bz, not only on Slashdot) get so worked up about.

As I said above, the two objects in the VLT/NACO image are statistically the same as two point sources.

One could, as pln2bz has done, claim to see something other than two point sources.

However, one could also claim that there's a face in the image (example1: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070421.html; example2: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990315.html), or a planet with rings (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071023.html), or even invisible pink fairies ... there is no objective method (that I know of) to choose between these claims.

Amusing aside: some of you have seen this "neutrino image" of the Sun (or similar) http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html, http://elvis.phys.lsu.edu/svoboda/superk/sun.gif. At least one prolific EU proponent interpreted this to show that neutrinos are emitted from the surface of the Sun, not its core! {insert ROFL smilies here}^

Concerning BAUT

There is a very long thread there, on the Electric Universe (nearly 2400 posts! http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/28596-electric-universe-model.html), as well as instructions to all those who wish to post on the topic, and links to all other EU-related threads (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/45529-read-first-re-posting-electric-universe-ideas-here.html).

In addition, this thread may be of interest to readers of this comment: http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/55206-reflections-year-half-s-experience-baut-s-atm-section.html.

* whic