Slashdot Mirror
Supernova 1987A Decoded
bluevector writes "Electric Universe News is reporting that scientists claim to have proof that 'supernovae are catastrophic electrical discharges focused on a star' and not the result of giant stars undergoing gravitational collapse and subsequent explosion after having spent all of their nuclear fuel as previously thought."
So what about heavy elements? Where were they produced if they weren't produced in massive supernovas?
No, no, it's psuedoscience. Thier explanation of the behaviour of comets shape simply does not match reality. Nor does thier explanation of the solar wind (which they claim is positively charged if I recall, it is infact electrically neutral).
Thier predictions about Deep Impact were so vaguo they would make a astrology cringe, so to claim they got that right is absurd.
These people don't open themselves up to peer review. We aren't talking about a bunch of little Einstiens the world wont accept. These are genuine crackpots.
I see this as an inevitable consequence of the decline in scientific literacy among the nerd/geek population. Once, being a nerd was synonymous with having a good grounding in science, to the extent that one was capable of a rational, skeptical evaluation of new claims.
Instead, we've now reached the point where being a nerd simply means you know how to buy a watercooling rig on the interweb and bolt it on to your processor.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Did you ever notice how science changes its anwsers so damn often. But the Bible stays the same.
2 1234547.htm
Actually, real scientists have used this event to prove a hypothesis. In 1999, Chandra X-Ray center suggested that the shape of the rings resulted from a cavity, caused by the explosion, in the dust and gas surrounding the star. They predicted that the supernova explosion would produce a shock wave which would hit the edges of the cavity and produce a dramatic increase in X-Rays. This is happening as predicted. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/0508
You see, that's the difference between science and superstition. Science makes predictions which can be tested. That's why it sometimes changes. Superstition is not testable. That's why it stays the same.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
This article is pure crap. I, as an High-energy astronomer, will never give credito to an article stating that "It is believed that a pulsar must be a super-collapsed stellar object that can spin up to thousands of times a second and emit a rotating beam of X-rays (like a lighthouse)." Pulsars that are the relic of supernovae (like the crab pulsar) are RADIO pulsars, meaning that they are mainly detected as pulsating sources at radio wavelengths. It is indeed true that most of them do emit X-rays (the crab pulsar is -again- a beautiful example), but a statement like the one in the article is completely misleading. I look forward a peer reviewed version of this article to come up on a serious journal. Until then, this is just crap (after all, we're on /., right?)
Did you ever notice how science changes its anwsers so damn often. But the Bible stays the same.
That's funny. The Koran stays the same, the Hindu Vedas stay the same, and many other religious texts which have nothing to do with the Christian god stay the same too. Does the quality of being static mean something to you?
When I went to college, they taught some stuff in biology, chemsitry, and physics that is wrong. They graded our papers, and gave us low marks. Why? They did it to everyone. In my Chem class, and "A" was a 38.7%. That is about 4 out of 10 points on a test. The curve was fucking rediculous.
What, exactly, does this have to do with anything? Hundreds of years ago Christians believed the earth was flat and that women should be burned alive. And you're complaining that either you couldn't learn or that your professor couldn't teach?
God said they would persecute us. And they are doing that.
Who are "they"? And what are "they" doing exactly?
I would rather take comfort with God than with the here_today, gone_tomorrow of science.
That's fine. Kids take comfort in teddy bears and imaginary friends too. Would you prefer a static stock market if change is too difficult for you to understand?
Why not live in a happy moral time, with good families, and worthwhile occupations. Why live in horrible times, working for in the factory of an atheist for minimum wage?
False dilemma much? Why not live in a happy non-religious time, where everybody gets along? Why live in the constant fear and guilt that Christianity teaches?
THINK ABOUT IT. WHAT IS DIFFERENT TODAY? NO PENSIONS AT JOBS. NO GOOD JOBS. And there is less of God too. He is letting us know.
Ah yes... that *clearly* is the *only* thing different today. Yes, *nothing else* has changed in history. Any other pearls of wisdom to share, oh swine of knowledge?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Therefore, "gags" like this are actually more damaging.
No. It's not. It's actually a fairly prudent argument. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a good parallel as a lot of people's idea of religion. Making up stupid arguments against evolution is a lot like making up stupid arguments that the world is flat. There's really not much left to disprove, in a lot of these places. If people wanted prudent arguments they could just ask. But, as even the most prudent arguments have been ignored... Welcome our new Noodly Overlord.
Just because having God compared to a Flying Spaghetti Monster annoys people, doesn't mean that it's not effective. And certainly it's not damaging because it "strengthens resolve". I've listened to creationists speak. They would be hard pressed to get any more resolve. If religious parallels actually were not effective, we wouldn't know what you're talking about. Keep in mind that Bobby Henderson only became a Prophet of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism back in June. And, it's already bigger than most cults (perhaps some divine noodly force is nudging it). In short, it doesn't really matter how strong a person's resolve is, if they are wrong they are still wrong.
So, drawing fun parallels is a great way to get your point across. And I have to admit the FSP people are way funnier than the Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhhnbs) people. And much more on the ball with Pascal's Wager. The IPU people gave nobody a reason to play the system. The FSM people have had it revealed to them that Heaven (for believers of Pastafarianism) contains a stripper factory and a beer volcano.
RAmen.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
"I would rather take comfort with God than with the here_today, gone_tomorrow of science."
When I was a kid, hiding under the bed would make me feel safe as well. I never really saw the boogie man, because - you know - he doesn't exist. And neither does god. I take more comfort in "atheist science" than in lies - damn lies - that have kept humankind down, led the world to pain, war and destruction for the last 5000 years over and over again.
Look further, accept and embrace your human condition.
IANAL, but imagine a beowulf cluster of in Soviet Russia all your belong are base to us welcoming the new SCO overlords.
- supernovae just happen to match what would happen to a star under gravitational collapse when it runs short of fusion to support itesf.
- we just happen to have the distribution of elements that would happen to a star under runaway fusion in spherical shells....
- supernovae just happen to put out scads of neutrinos, just what would happen under runaway fusion.
- supernovae just happen to push waves of matter in front of them, at the speeds and in the quantities expected under runaway fusion.
I'm an astronomy news bottom-feeder, and even I see the problems with an "electrical" theory of supernovae.Well, untill they get some propper science background (calculations, simulations and predictions to back up the explanations), they'll remain crackpots.
/. put this up; why are these people getting 'airtime' on (what used to be) a reputable techsite?
Which makes me wonder why
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Actually, that is incorrect. The 13 colonies, and in particular the Northern ones, had very high litteracy rates. Massachusetts had universal schooling, even for girls.
Yet, they formed a country with great prosperity.
Again, incorrect. The U.S. was quite poor; it wasn't even considered a nation of importance until the time of Teddy Roosevelt, i.e. the 20th Century. Before then Americans were considered to basically just be country bumpkins by people in the powerful countries of the day (UK, France, Germany). It didn't become a superpower until after the second world war. And that was to a large extent because of the efforts of imported, secular, German and Eastern European scientists.
And they believed in GOD. They thanked him for what they had.
I infer that you think that we should "go back" to a society where religion dominates all political thinking and public life. I would suggest that you look at the Middle Ages, or even the Dark Ages for an example of what life in a theocracy is like... For 1500 years they believed in God to the point of letting the church dominate all life - and lived in total squalor.
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Playing around is fine - you don't have be be serious all the time, of course not. But playing around and pretending you're serious is another matter.
Scientists don't like to play with theories that are obviously wrong, as this one is. Science is a search for how the universe really works, and bullshit purporting to be truth is deeply offensive to that goal.