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."

Comments

Re:Parent is a troll

[professionalfurryele]

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.

Re:Your link is the bible

[ozmanjusri]

Did you ever notice how science changes its anwsers so damn often. But the Bible stays the same.

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/2005/08/05082 1234547.htm

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.

Re:Site seems down; here's that article's text

[Tingulli 3]

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?)

Re:Your link is the bible

[nacturation]

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?

Re:Your link is the bible

[RayBender]

200 years ago, most of the USA was filled with people who could not read or write.

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.