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."
Wikipedia has a lengthy article on the Electric Universe Model, although there is a warning at the top that "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed."
It'll give you some background. I have to say that a cursory reading does suggest a level of kookdom.
There is also a site put together by the László Körtvélyessy - the original proponent of the theory here: http://www.the-electric-universe.info/
Some ludicrously misapplied scientific terms come to the front when Googled, too. Take "Birkeland current," one of the ideas put forth as some sort of power transmission line throughout the galaxy; a brief bit of research indicates that the phenomenon is referred to solely in a terrestrial context (at least, on non-out there sites)
Another one? The paper referenced towards the end, entitled "Characteristics for the occurrence of a high-current, Z-pinch aurora as recorded in antiquity," and published in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, relates solely to a large terrestrial aurora discharge.
Still, it would be great if we could get a pro in here to thoroughly debunk this. Any astronomers want to step up to the challenge?
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
Besides according to this theory when a star goes out all of the other stars on that filament would go out as well, requiring the Flying Spaghetti Monster to find a replacement star and re-string the lights.
Got a friend who is a mason and is certainly not Christian. My impression from talking to him is that you must believe in a higher being of some kind, just not one dictated by any particular religion. The are some rules about not talking about religion or politics in many settings. It probably stops many arguments from ever happening and it also debunks the crazy idea that they are some sort of world dominating secret society (would be tough to organize without discussing either).
And if anyone believes that organized religion is anything but another government, theyre are totally kidding themselves.
You're right. And I knew you were right when I posted. Thing is, we're dealing with spin here, and it needs a simple answer. If I had remained factually correct on every point, I'd have to add caveats with every single sentence in my post. Sorry.
/., not a tract for my thesis).
I know a lot of people were religious at the time. Pretty much impossible not to be (although I do suspect many of the founding fathers would have been athiests [who would have read the bible and the other 'great books'...yaddayadda] had they grown up in this time instead of then, but that's idle speculation).
As for the laws...same reason the USSR was a dictatorship even though it was based on Marx.
As for the Da Vinci Code...I revile it. But it must be said it's actually gotten quite a few people to go read actual good books on the subject, by actual historians who did actual validated research on the matter. I know where freemasonry comes from; the name is a dead giveaway (as is the symbolism) that they are descended from the cathedral builders (yeah, simplification...I'm writing a post on
So, I oversimplified. Fact is that an awfull lot of people have started believing in the past 5 to 8 years that the US was founded by a bunch of christians who wouldn't have minded the ten commandments hung up in courtroooms. For those people, oversimplification may be whats needed. Maybe not. I just don't know. Got any tips?
PS: I wasn't oversimplifying the 'just one refference to god' bit; it's right at the beginning, something about 'the year of our lord'...and thats it.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Several years ago, I read an Isaac Asimov novel called The Currents Of Space, written in the 1950's or 60's, which dealt with a planet whose star was about to undergo a supernova event, thanks to (you guessed it) a Birkeland Current. If I remember correctly, the current was deviated and missed the star, saving all involved.
Curiously, there was an author's foreword that discredited the scientific content along lines like this:
"The Birkeland Current theory was in vogue during the time this novel was written. However, science advances and astrophysics is no exception, as current theories better explain the origin of supernova events".
Goin' full circle, everything old is new again! However, in the novel, any star could go supernova if hit by the Birkland Current, so these guys today have done quite a bit of fine-tuning.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
That's why Karl Marx wrote favorably to Lincoln:
"From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?"
The Republicans of today have nothing in common with the radical abolitionists of the 19th century.
Hey, it's a step up from reporting that Microsoft's employees are infected by a virus or a web-based survey asking if American workers are lazy or creative.
Slashdot does have real stories too, but a lot of filler as well. At least this filler story - sorry, filler summary, since there doesn't seem to be a story - is a bit more tastefull and imagination-engaging than some.
I mean, seriously, I once had my reading lights lightbulb explode and the remains just narrowly miss my head. Now I learn that the stars are just like that lightbulb - and that makes me kind afraid to go near that pile of dirty clothes and computer magazines that have sat in a dark corner of my room for years...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
For those of you interested in what supernovae core collapse might look like, there are some simulated animations in the link below. Very pretty too.
http://www.astro.le.ac.uk/~rt53/work/index.html
Cheers,
Roger
Do you have any better hostages?
Haha, the same people are trolling wikipedia. Wikipedia's "no original research" policy is specifically designed to avoid physics cranks, but somehow, Wikipedia can't get rid of these guys either.
But the bigger "this article is crap" flag that should go off in your head is the question "what about the neutrinos?" Magnetic reconnection can't create neutrinos, and SN1987A had a flux of neutrinos way, way above background, and consistent with the majority of the energy of the collapse going into neutrinos.
You're right. However, I just wanted to point out how inaccurate the article was even on a basic level.
Hmm. God Bashers... Hmm.
It is so. Distressing to me how many people are so rational when it comes to most parts of life, but then, when it comes to God, are all. Hmm. Anti. Just Anti.
How often do we complain about lack of education for poor kids? Do we say "oh, you are poor, so you must be stupid?"
Since when does uneducated = stupid?
As to non-stupid people. Newton? Sir Issaac? He was stupid? I cant really vouce for the source but it doesnt stray from what I Have read about newton (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton. html):
I mean, fine. You dont believe in God. All good. So you will burn in hell. No big deal. But, why, oh why be so anti somone who DOES believe in God (not the troll whose comments I havent bothered reading, he is just a flamebait mark him so with mod points. But all the other Theists out here)? And, sheesh, if you ARE going to be anti, at least be clever about it, instead of implying that the uneducated are neccessarily stupid.
It seems to me that the most vicious here have forgotten something about the venerated scientific method - it gathers evidence but never, ever confers proof. Want proof? talk to a mathematician. But even assuming Science did offer proof, how many here are really evolutionary biologists? And how many are merely cheering the authorities along.... blindly? Oh, could it be, that the loudest of the FSM cult have not seriously examined and weighed the evidence? Are they simply relying on other authorities?
Then I suppose it is very appropriate that the FSM cult is a religion, for only a very few have looked critically at the evidence. Many people, many more that you would care to admit believe in evolution or FSM for simply emotional reasons and not for carefully considered scientific ones.
I submitted this controversial article, and I suppose I ought to poke my head up and offer a few observations.
/.'s main page, was missing a link to the article hosted by holoscience.com, it's not my fault, as I did include one, but the story as submitted (expectedly) underwent heavy editing before it was displayed for public consumption, and the editor must have accidentally dropped the link. By the time I visite Slashdot today, the mistake was corrected.
/. that pointed to thunderbolts.info's "Deep Impact predictions" page. I'd never heard of "plasma cosmology" and the "Electric Universe" theories before . . . and so began to read about them. I discovered that there is quite a spectrum of thought that makes up this fringe scientific camp.
First, if the story, as it showed up early this morning on
I've seen many replies under this story crying "crackpots!" and "quacks!".
But I haven't read even one yet that suggests some simple principles or facts which can be used to debunk the basic claim of the plasma cosmologists and the Electric Universe proponents: that plasma physics (i.e. electrodynamics as embodied in the behavior of plasmas) is not given enough credit when scietific models and theories that attempt to explain stellar and interstellar phenomenon.
And I am all ears. I studied physics in college and was well on my way towards a B.A. in that discipline when I decided to try my hand as an entrepreneur during the dot-com boom. I think I've developed a fairly sensitive internal "b.s. meter" over the course of my lifetime. And I try to "keep up" in my personal (albeit hobbyist) study of science, with space physics and cosmology being my dominant interests. I read stuff on the "popular science" level and I am also comfortable reading papers of a more technical nature. I self-admittedly have a more philosophical bent in my musing upon these matters, but that is not a variant of the excuse, "I'm not so good at math" -- I am actually fairly competent when it comes to advanced mathematics.
Several weeks ago, I read the story on
On the one hand, you have the plasma physicists/cosmologists that believe that the behavior of stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, etc. are governed not primarily by the gravitational force but rather gravity AND electrodynamics, with electrodynamics dominant in many contexts. And they pretty much stop with that assertion and confine most of their work to exploring it.
The Electric Universe enthusiasts go farther, and are trying to develop an all-encompassing framework in which they see every aspect of the universe (from the subatomic to the intergalactic) and its history as governed by the "Electric Force."
Am I true believer in the so-called "Electric Universe?" No. I actually find members of that end of the spectrum in question to be a bit too eager to engage in polemics, and that doesn't impress me. On the other hand, I will say that I find myself highly sympathetic to the work and claims of plasma physicists like Dr. Anthony Peratt.
Here's why, in a nutshell: Since I was a little kid I've been fascinated by ideas like black holes, neutron stars, the "big bang," grand unified theories, etc., etc., etc. In fact, it was my reading Timothy Ferris' Galaxies when I was in the 2nd grade that planted the seeds for my future interest in pursuing physics as a career. I read Hawking's A Brief History of Time in the 6th grade, "understood" it, and from there began a more rigorous self-directed study into more advanced treatments of physics and mathematic
IC XC NIKA