Slashdot Mirror
Enceladus "Sea" Mystery Deepens
Smivs writes "The BBC reports that an ocean may not be the source of the jets emanating from Saturn's moon Enceladus. Controversial research questions the moon's promise as a target in the search for life beyond Earth. A chemical analysis of Enceladus, led by University of Colorado planetary scientist Nick Schneider, failed to detect sodium, an element scientists say should be present in any body of water that has been in contact with rock for billions of years. Spectral analysis with the Keck Telescope found no sodium in the plumes or in the vapor in orbit around the moon. At stake is whether Saturn's moon could support alien life and is thus a worthy target for a NASA exploratory mission to detect it. Such a mission to Enceladus is one of four currently under review for further development."
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060313moonjets.htm
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
failed to detect sodium, an element scientists say should be present in any body of water that has been in contact with rock for billions of years.
I know people spend their entire lives studying these things, but how do you really know that ALL rock has sulfur in it? Isn't it possible that for whatever reason this rock doesn't?
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
...overmining by the Europans. Yes, the sole hyperpower in far solar orbit is exploiting the resources of honest, hard-working, frozen Enceladans. Don't buy Morton Salt.
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
"If you have a long-lived ocean, it's going to have salt in it,"
Just like Lake Michigan?
Maybe sodium it isnt so very soluable at such cold temps.
Seriously though, why is it that life developing elsewhere MUST have sodium? The strictest definition of life doesn't require specific elements or chemicals to be present, only behaviors, or functions if you will. Ignoring something because it doesn't fit neatly with what WE need for life is absurd, ESPECIALLY when looking at something that far from the sun, and thus cold.
send the probe to enceladus anyways
just put a salt shaker on it
problem solved
sheesh these scientist types and their "problems"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
After taking an astronomy class, I am not surprised at all that scientists would detect readings that contradict their model of what "should be happening" on an alien moon. The history of astronomy is a history of failed predictions. Let the evidence speak for itself.
Trolls are like the opposite of sodium; their presence indicates that there is no life here.
except Enceladus.
Although a lack of salt is a fine excuse to not send a mission here, the better reason is that these missions are a tremendous waste of taxpayer resources. While I am no free market capitalist, it is waste like this which give fire to those who say that government can't make financially sound decisions. Lets focus our space program on useful tasks such as orbital solar energy collection and leave the fruitless search for extraterrestrial life to the hobbiests.
Not a word about Europa in a decade. What gives?
...clearly the jets are releasing aerosol cheese.
Offtopic?!
"Controversial research questions the moon's promise as a target in the search for life beyond Earth."
... BAM! Research money.
You are never going to get an NSF grant for research like that. I'll help you with the abstract. Start like this: "Life possible in habitat previously thought to be too harsh." Then hand wave a bit about the elements you have found and any formation that might conceivably be formed by a liquid, and
You're welcome.
I was wondering how long before a chance to ask this came up; not long at all, as it turns out.
... if you do not have direct, personal experience of anything astronomical (beyond the Earth's atmosphere), whence comes your understanding of it?
... like those which go into the design, construction, launch, etc of the spacecraft which gathered the data you so conveniently use to heap scorn on the work of the professionals.
Have you, yourself, stood on the surface of Enceladus pln2bz? No? Then how do you know it's real?
No, this is a serious question
Perhaps you've got a telescope from Meade or a competitor in your backyard; perhaps you've observed Saturn through the eyepiece, and seen a spot of light which you concludes is Enceladus? If so, how did you work out that there's ice on it?
Why is it important to ask these questions? Because if you choose to tilt at modern astronomy (planetary science, space science, astrophysics, etc), you should be prepared to construct an alternative universe, free of all the inputs which depend crucially on the 'mathematical models' you reject
A link to the electric universe nonesense posted by slashdot's #1 EU fanboy is about as informative as "The DaVinci Code", "State of Fear" or "The Panda's thumb".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Subject asks it all. Would it be possible for Enceladus to be pure ices with little or no rocks? It is a round moon, so it should be differentiated. Could that differentiation be layers of ices (say water Ice III below, leading up to softer ices including other volatiles) without rocks? Enceladus could still have an ocean, just one without rocks. This presents potential life-genesis issues (which generally require rock-chemistry) but presents no inherent conflict with the idea of it having an ocean.
Josh
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landings there.
(No caps for lameness filter.)
Clearly, there are Thetans down there that cannot stomache the enchilada...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Maybe the aliens refined all the sodium out of it and used it for fuel.
You know, Arthur Clarke has had such a great career. We really ought to find a way to keep him alive for another hundred years. Given that he has little to lose by trying, I am sure he would be up for the attempt.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Someone needs to look at this from a thermodynamic perspective. If there is in fact water on Saturn's moon, it must come from the surface. I am not sure why orbiting clouds of frozen water vapor (which i believe must have sublimated from the icy surface) are expected to contain Sodium. Thermodynamically speaking, species with low mass, and high activity (The light elements H, N, O, C, F) tend to undergo phase change before more heavy elements. These low density gases would exit into the moons atmosphere more readily than a sodium atom, even if the surface contained equal concentrations of all. (on wiki it says the atmosphere is Water, 4%Nitrogen, 3.2%CO2, and 1.7%CH4) makes sense so far, Also, i believe that if there was an ocean on this moon, the surface must be ice of near pure water. If water is going to freeze, it will do so first with minimal sodium. The sodium content in the ice will increase when the ocean concentration rises, eventually precipitating solid sodium compound when a saturation limit is reached. This only means that the outer shell of the moons frozen surface might be mostly clean ice I believe any sodium that could be detected in orbit must first diffuse to the surface through this concentration gradient. And then gain sufficient activation energy from the suns rays to enter the gas phase for an instant. I think these scientists could be looking for the wrong indicator. If we are searching for water, shouldn't we be searching for water? It is possible they have the right idea, but our instruments are not precise enough to measure such a small Sodium concentration. And i'm not sure the Seas of Saturn will follow our earthbound concepts of oceanography.
i have always had the idea that carbon is the only requirement for life.
The Enceladus flagship mission is one of four - along with those to Europa, Titan and Jupiter - competing for funding and currently under review by Nasa.
It's sad that not all four of them get funded. This kind of mission is much more important and interesting than the shuttle.
Yes, we have to invest in our legacy, but 0.5% on astronomy is a huge expenditure. How much should we spend on assyriology, dermatology, climatology, ichthyology, geology, theology, bacteriology, topology and so on? You have more than 200 interesting, useful and sometimes vital branches of the sciences, and you can't give them all 0.5% of your total government budget.
At midnight, on the 12th of August, a huge mass of luminous gas erupted from Enceladus and sped towards Earth. Across two hundred million miles of void, invisibly hurtling towards us, came the first of the missiles that were to bring so much calamity to Earth. As I watched, there was another jet of gas. It was another missile, starting on its way.
And that's how it was for the next ten nights. A flare, spurting out from Enceladus. Bright green, drawing a green mist behind it; a beautiful, but somehow disturbing sight. Ogilby, the astronomer, assured me we were in no danger. He was convinced there could be no living thing on that remote, forbidding planet.
Mod this "+1 Start of a Good SciFi Thriller".
Yeah, I can help you.
Quit taking it up the ass, you goddam cocksucker!! Go out and get some fucking poontang!!!!
Much more difficult is to come up with a demonstration that you would regard as acceptable.
Why?
For starters, as our dialogue (if it can be called that) in various SD comment strings attests, you do not accept the standard (plasma physics, space science,
So what would work?
Well, if you'd be so kind as to tell me (and all others who would read your reply) what you regard as acceptable forms of judgment, assessment, testing, evaluation, and so on (of material such as that in 'the link I posted') are, then I could start to prepare such a demonstration.
Of course, it's entirely possible that no such demonstration, within your evaluation paradigm, is possible, even in principle. Saying this another way, it may be that, within your worldview, 'the link I posted' cannot be shown to be wrong, ever.
Second, thanks for the clarity with which you state the gulf between your 'viewpoint' and the nature of modern (astro)physics.
FWIW (for what it's worth), in astrophysics, 'non-baryonic dark matter' is extraordinary
The 'seeing' of 'filaments of plasma in space' and 'surrounded by helical magnetic fields' is done through long chains of logic, a great many mathematical models, and the application of a wide range of modern (physics) theories.
To the extent that you are willing to cite this rich mix of data and theory as 'fact', to what extent are you also irrevocably binding yourself to the detailed, quantitative world of modern (plasma) physics?
The answer is, of course, that you can't avoid it
But here's a question in return: when the various spacecraft reached, and landed on, the Moon, Venus, Mars, Titan, and Eros, were there any flashes? If not, can the absence of such flashes 'legitimately be interpreted' as falsifying the hypothesis 'that bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charges'?
If the IPM (inter-planetary medium) is a plasma, and since plasmas are good (electrical) conductors, how is it 'that bodies in space can acquire [...] electrical charges'? When (if) you answer this question, please be sure to include relevant discussion of the Debye length.
Sadly, I'm out of mod points.
That night, too, there was another jetting out of gas from the distant planet. I saw it. A reddish flash at the edge, the slightest projection of the outline just as the chronometer struck midnight; and at that I told Ogilvy and he took my place. The night was warm and I was thirsty, and I went stretching my legs clumsily and feeling my way in the darkness, to the little table where the siphon stood, while Ogilvy exclaimed at the streamer of gas that came out towards us.
That night another invisible missile started on its way to the earth from Mars, just a second or so under twenty-four hours after the first one. I remember how I sat on the table there in the blackness, with patches of green and crimson swimming before my eyes. I wished I had a light to smoke by, little suspecting the meaning of the minute gleam I had seen and all that it would presently bring me. Ogilvy watched till one, and then gave it up; and we lit the lantern and walked over to his house. Down below in the darkness were Ottershaw and Chertsey and all their hundreds of people, sleeping in peace.
He was full of speculation that night about the condition of Mars, and scoffed at the vulgar idea of its having inhabitants who were signalling us. His idea was that meteorites might be falling in a heavy shower upon the planet, or that a huge volcanic explosion was in progress. He pointed out to me how unlikely it was that organic evolution had taken the same direction in the two adjacent planets.
"The chances against anything manlike on Mars are a million to one," he said.
(So +1 cool reference, instead.)So! My instincts were right. However, I am sad that I did not have knowledge of the source.
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
Check
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
Check
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
Check
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
Check
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
Check
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
Check
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
Check.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I wish I could be so generous. As far as I can tell, that "fuzziness" is not a disadvantage. In most cases of "anti-establishment" science, it's the only support they actually have for their theories (as opposed to the evidence that something is going on here, which is often pretty good). If they attempted precision, they'd be forced to confront their theories with the probability that if (for example) there was a "space current" strong enough to power the Sun, it would be strong enough to have detectable effects on Earth.
On the other hand, truly gifted scientists often avail themselves of fuzziness precisely because it allows them to jump out of their boxes. (But please call it "speculation"!)
Nor is that precision an advantage that is used all that often by establishment scientists, except to avoid saying anything too stupid in front of their peers. Just keep doing ever more precise measurements and applying ever more abstruse group theory to the stylized facts, without looking carefully at the "stylized" facts to see whether they are real facts or not in light of more precise measurement.
What both the anti-establishment pseudo-scientists and the establishment pseudo-scientists have in common is that they ignore the truth that the real Scientific Establishment is the myriad of facts that "established theory" is fairly compatible with. The establishment pseudo-scientists just have an easier time getting published because following the beaten path helps them avoid saying anything too obviously contradictory to the myriad of past observations.
I certainly support your focus on testing, though. You don't always need a worked-out new theory to test a fuzzy idea, and thus sharpen it into a theory, but an idea without a test is pure metaphysics.
Few members of the American public (or citizens of Germany, or
Recall that the context is 'cracks on Enceladus', a mission to study them, and whether "most Americans would appreciate hearing more than just one viewpoint on how their money is being spent".
It would seem that pln2bz would like to have a viewpoint he calls 'EU Theory' the one (and only?) that "most Americans would appreciate hearing".
My question concerns why, if there are to be other viewpoints considered, 'EU Theory'? Why not Nancy and Planet X? Hoagland's Enterprise Mission? Cunningham's crater chains? And so on. (Interested readers may find their own way to sites promoting these 'viewpoints'; Google is your friend).
What criteria should "reasonable, objective people" use - in pln2bz's opinion - to choose among the hundreds of such viewpoints to even read about? And what criteria - again, in pln2bz's opinion - should they use to evaluate their validity?
It is from analyses of these detections that we derive conclusions about stars made of hydrogen, of clouds of tenuous gas and dust, of regions of hot plasma, and so on.
Many of these detections are presented as pictures, or images, such as those presented daily at Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071220.html).
Some are just like what we can see with our own eyes (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070508.html).
Some are 'false colour' images, but close enough to what we imagine we might see if only we could look through the eyepiece of the telescope (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070418.html).
It's but a small step to look at other false colour images, taken in the infrared for example, through what is obviously just a telescope, and imagine we can interpret them similarly (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070413.html).
Other images are false colour composites, with one or more components having been taken by something that may bear little resemblance to our backyard refractor; nonetheless we may feel we can still interpret them similarly (example: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/crab/index.html).
However, reading the details of how photon/EMR detection got turned into an image quickly reveals that we should be very cautious when it comes to interpreting these images. For example, take this combined (Chandra) x-ray and (VLA) radio 'image' of the supernova remnant G11.2-0.3 (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/g11/index.html). Here is a description of how the x-ray image was created (source: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0107292):
NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory observed G11.2-0.3 at two epochs, the first (Sequence Number 50076) on 2000 August 6, and the second (Sequence Number 50077) on 2000 October 15. The exposure for the first epoch was 20 ks. The second epoch consisted of two exposures, one of 10 ks and the other of 5 ks. In all observations, the remnant was positioned on the back-illuminated CCD chip S3 of the ACIS instrument in standard exposure mode. In this mode, the time resolution (3.2 s) is too coarse to resolve the pulsations from the pulsar.
The data were analyzed using the CIAO 2.02 and MIRIAD software packages. Following the energy binning scheme of Hughes et al. (2000), we added together the individual count maps from the three different observing epochs in the 0.6-1.65 keV, 1.65-2.25 keV, and 2.25-7.5 keV energy bands. Spectrally weighted exposure maps were created for each observation and energy band, and were summed over the three observations, creating a total count map and exposure map for each energy band. The count maps were divided by the exposure maps, and the result convolved with a 5" FWHM Gaussian to enhance the nebular structure given the low count rate. The three individual maps were then combined into a 3-color image, with red, green, and blue assigned to the low, medium, and high energy bands respectively.
And the radio image (source http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0202262):
Radio observations of G11.2-0.3 were made with the VLA at 20 and 6 cm (L- and C-bands, respectively), between 1984 April and 1985 May. Details of these observations are summarized in Table 1.
Data reduction and analysis were performed using standard procedures within the miriad package (Sault & Killeen 1999). The data were flux-density and anten
How do you go about determining what "its own terms" are, for "[e]ach piece of evidence", concerning evidence which is not mythological?
For example, data returned from the Cassini probe, since it started orbiting Saturn (and the subset of such data that pertains to Enceladus, however you choose to assess pertinence)
Or, more generally, evidence obtained by detection of photons/electromagnetic radiation from beyond the solar system (assuming that you and I agree on what, in astronomy, would constitute detection [...] from objects beyond the solar system).
my initial response to your rejoinder to my philosophical challenge, with ensuing dialog between APODNereid and myself pertaining you:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=387489&cid=21746036
a further post from that same thread, which you will no doubt want to read in its entirety:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=387489&cid=21759276
A simple analysis of his writing style versus mine, and his argumentation strategy versus mine, should clue you in.
Sorry to further butt in, but you said so many things that just flabbergast me:
You cannot evaluate mythology and ancient documents with mathematics.
The only way to determine this is through a logical analysis...
Logic is *precisely* mathematics, and mathematics is *precisely* logic! I see in your posts that you claim to be a "computer engineer" of some color, and yet you fail to grasp the deep nature of this? Mathematics is an intrinsic part of the universe, and by using your "logic" to evaluate ancient artifacts, you immediately rediscover/reinvent mathematics! There was even a (huge) discussion on Slashdot recently about this that is quite pertinent:
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/08/0547234
In particular, read the following post (not my writing):
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=246995&cid=19789707
Logic *is* mathematics. That is why Tesla could do do mathematical things without knowingly using mathematics, and that is why your mythologists can do mathematical things without knowingly using mathematics.
Any reasonably intelligent and objective person can pick up Ginenthal's book on the Mammoths and determine from the overwhelming evidence that it is so.
In my own opinion, it is because of what we know about the mammoths that makes your conclusions about mythology incorrect.
Thanks to youreternal insistence that this is so, I've recently taken interests outside my normal areas of expertise, including the issue of the mammoths. Ginenthal (who is a neo-Velikovskian, I've discovered!) makes inferences (NOT deductions) that are simply wrong. The flash-freeze assertion, the dating of mammoth remains to *anything* less than about 10,000 years old, the assertion that they lived in WARM(?!?) climates and ate fauna native to said climates are ALL CATEGORICALLY WRONG. If you understand the differences between among the Ice-Age mammoth species, and among other contemporary proboscideans, I have never seen evidence of this in your posts on Slashdot.
arguments that the extinction was related to the Clovis people's apparent Ice Age migration can be dismissed surprisingly easily.
No, they most certainly cannot! The evidence does not contradict this, but it does not rule it out either. I don't personally think predation by humans was the sole cause of extinction of ANY of the relevant proboscideans, but I have reached that opinion through diligent research and not hand-waving arguments.
My full rebuttal will be forthcoming, probably right after I finish the earlier rebuttal I promised (on the philosphical issues). If you are interested in truth and knowledge, you will want to read them. If you are interested in "proving" the Saturnian Configuration, perhaps then you should ignore them. I'm sure APODNereid will be interested in these too.
In the long run, as the awareness of the evidence is raised by people like myself, you are going to observe an actual split occur within the sciences on
So, in comments on a story about Enceladus and the lack of sodium in Keck observations, you introduce a book about mammoth extinctions?!
A book which even you do not dare claim has anything directly to do with Enceladus (or the Keck observations).
Your comments, to this story, can thus be accurately be summarised as a cynical, deliberate attempt to improve the rankings of a certain crackpot website in search engines, by linking it to Slashdot, with no intention whatsoever to engage in discussion, discourse, or debate about:
* specific (non-scientific) so-called 'EU Theory' claims about Enceladus,
* the (merely coincidental) relationship between the methods used by so-called 'EU Theorists' and those used by real scientists, or
* anything else that has any relevance to Enceladus and the Keck observations.
In what respect do your comments differ from porn/knock-off watch/'free' software/viagra (etc) spam?
Even comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly thing-amy-whats-its have more relevance to the original story than anything you've written!
For background information on how anomalously high temperatures of electrical arcs were handled in the Io mission, check out http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041217io-series-4.htm.
...
What I find peculiar about the situation though is that there is even so much controversy over the idea that these could be electrical arcs on Io and Enceladus. NASA already accepts that a burst of radio waves is associated with the material coming from Enceladus
That you guys and NASA continue to act as if Thornhill "owns" the idea of electrical terra-forming is a waste of everybody's time. If you see a burst of radio waves coming from Enceladus, material being thrown off of it, carved channels across the surface and very hot point sources that move across the surface associated with the rilles, are mathematical quantifications really necessary for a plasma arc to be considered as a possible explanation? I mean, NASA's image of Enceladus' atmosphere clearly depicts "Holt Plasma Flow" heading from Saturn to Enceladus, and the website attributes the magnetic field bend to "electric currents generated by the interaction of atmospheric particles and the magnetosphere of Saturn". But they just can't make the short leap from electric
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
Earlier, you acknowledged that, for you, the standard, mainstream science (plasma physics, space physics, etc) paradigm was NOT to be used to evaluate, test, or otherwise assess these non-science ideas. In fact, if I recall correctly, you explicitly stated that NO MATTER WHAT you might or might not read in any mainstream textbook or journal, you would find it unconvincing.
... what methods, what techniques, what tools to use?
However, you did not bother to suggest just HOW anyone - other than the high priests of the 'EU Theory' religion - should (or could) test any of these ideas
Nor did you bother to explain how anyone - including yourself - could tell the difference between these non-science ideas and the hundreds of other non-science ideas promoted on various internet websites, from TVF's exploding planets, to Nancy's Planet X, to Cunningham's (non-terrestrial) landforms as evidence of interplanetary warfare, and beyond.
So, may I ask again?
Why should anyone pay any more attention to these EU ideas (about Enceladus) than those of hundreds of other non-science websites'?
How - in specific detail - do you suggest a disinterested, unbiased outsider go about assessing the (non-science) claims from that website that you have chosen to copy above?
I think the absurdity of your statement here speaks for itself. I asked a very legitimate and reasonable question, and your response is to portray me as a mad man.
And yet, you must realize that Thornhill can still be right that we're observing electrical terraforming, even if he doesn't present a single equation for it. Electrical terraforming is something that we can do, and that is done, within the laboratory with plasma guns; it exists in the real physical world regardless of whether or not Thornhill presents equations for it. To argue that it is not possible as an explanation without quantification ignores the fact that people point plasma guns in the laboratory at blocks of matter all of the time to see what happens, and that the results look qualitatively similar to what we're observing on both Io and Enceladus. It's called sputtering within the semiconductor industry, and it's used for laying down a thin film onto a chip.
I honestly do not know how to evaluate whether or not sputtering is what we're observing. My experience with plasma guns is very limited. But I do know enough to see that it is similar to what we're observing on those two planets, and you've yet to provide me with a single piece of information that would dissuade me.
"Non-science ideas"? Were it not for sputtering, you'd not be typing on your computer right now.
Um, yeah.
Because sputtering is something that we do in the laboratory all of the time.
They could ask a plasma physicist who has experience in a lab what *they* think ... I'm sure that Anthony Perratt, for instance, could tell you all about sputtering if he had the time.
Have *you* asked somebody who works with plasma guns what *they* think about Enceladus? Let me re-phrase that: Do you *know* anybody who works with plasma guns?
To be honest, based upon my own interactions with you, I'm not sure that I blame the EU Theorists for ignoring the peer review system. I'm beginning to suspect that perhaps the system is broken. I mean, you've hardly demonstrated a single ounce of respect for any of *them* in spite of the fact that their publications are completely logical. Peer review is no entity that is free of human malfeasance. If the rest of the astrophysicists are like you, then that says far more about you and them than Thornhill. In the grand scheme of science, scientists who allow themselves to become emotionally invested in the theories they work on inevitably risk making themselves irrelevant to the history of science. I do
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
How did the Cassini spacecraft get designed (successfully)?
With mathematics (among other things)
How did the Cassini mission control team get the spacecraft to Enceladus and know when to start collecting data?
With mathematics
How did the Enceladus data from the Cassini spacecraft get transmitted (successfully) to Earth?
With mathematics
How did the astronomers using the Keck telescope conclude there is little to no sodium on Enceladus?
With mathematics
How did Maxwell describe electricity and magnetism?
With mathematics
How did Langmuir and Alfven (and others) develop plasma physics, and so describe the behaviour of plasmas?
With mathematics
How did pln2bz, Thornhill et al explain the Cassini and Keck Enceldadus data?
With mythology
What use did pln2bz, Thornhill et al make of the (intrinsically mathematical) theories of electromagnetism and plasma physics, in their explanations?
None.
One that is ~10s to ~thousands of km in each of 3 dimensions; one that has a vacuum with pressure and composition of {insert quantitative values here}; one that has been operating for tens of thousands to millions of years; (and so on)?
But thanks anyway for your answer, I see now that logical consistency - with all easily tested environmental variables - is not required in this non-science method you have described.
For example, for 'sputtering' of the kind used in the semiconductor industry to be pertinent to the formation of 'Tiger Stripes' on Enceladus, surely a simple check on reasonableness would be whether the required electric field should be observable, via the Stark effect, in the line spectra? Oh wait, no, according to the non-science methods you have outlined, it is not necessary to do any such simple consistency checking
How is an Arp paper/preprint on quasar redshifts pertinent to Cassini and Keck observations of Enceladus?
In the methodology of this non-science, is it pertinent for others to introduce papers such as "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology" (Spergel et al.: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449) into comments on an Enceladus story?
Why should anyone pay any more attention to these EU ideas (about Enceladus) than those of hundreds of other non-science websites'? pln2bz: Because sputtering is something that we do in the laboratory all of the time. If you take the trouble to check out some of these other non-science websites, you'll find they use a similar logic:
*Readers of Slashdot comments should pay more attention to {insert non-science idea here} because {insert well-observed natural/artificial phenomena here} is something we do in the laboratory/observe in the sky/experience in our lives all of the time.*
This, of course, simply pushes the testing back one step - why, of all things, should sputtering in the lab be the phenomenon that trumps all the other alternatives?
And why 'a plasma physicist who has experience in a lab'? Why not a plasma physicist who has experience with space plasmas? Why not a geophysicist or geologist who as experience with rifting (etc) here on Earth (or the Moon)?
How do you assess their 'thoughts' (answers)? Especially if they disagree?
In the methods of the non-science 'EU Theory', is appeal to authority the ultimate test?
If the chosen EU Theory authority is too busy (or otherwise than unwilling or unable) to give me, you, or anyone else an answer, does the standard methodology of the non-science 'EU Theory' have a fall-back (Plan B) suggestion as to how a disinterested, unbiased outsider could go about assessing the (non-science) claims from that website that you have chosen to copy above? Have *you* asked somebody who works with plasma guns what *they* think about Enceladus? Let me re-phrase that: Do you *know* anybody who works with plasma guns? It's already very clear that APODNereid is among the damned - my personal experience or expertise is quite irrelevant to 'EU Theory' methodology. I could say 'I think the correspondence between lab sputtering and data about Enceladus is tenuous, even qualitatively' or something else; it's irrelevant because APODNereid doesn't qualify as an anointed 'plasma physicist who has experience in a lab' authority.
Some selected extracts:
pln2bz: [...] your appeals to formalism within astrophysics [...] do not work as a mechanism for convincing me that he's wrong. APODNereid: Now that I know - thanks for the clarification - that that is not the paradigm you are working within, I am looking forward to you explaining - to me and any other readers of this comment - just what paradigm you are working within. [...] For avoidance of doubt, I have already acknowledged that, for you, the paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science does NOT convince you (of anything, apparently). pln2bz: Each piece of evidence demands that it be considered on its own terms because mathematics does not adequately describe all forms of evidence. (and then you introduced 'evidence' about mammoths as relevant to Cassini and Keck observations of Enceladus). To be honest, based upon my own interactions with you, I'm not sure that I blame the EU Theorists for ignoring the peer review system. I'm beginning to suspect that perhaps the system is broken. I mean, you've hardly demonstrated a single ounce of respect for any of *them* in spite of the fact that their publications are completely logical. Peer review is no entity that is free of human malfeasance. If the rest of the astrophysicists are like you, then that says far more about you and them than Thornhill. In the grand scheme of science, scientists who allow themselves to become emotionally invested in the theories they work on inevitably risk making themselves irrelevant to the history of science. I don't know what role you play in all of this, but you appear to demonstrate rather extreme attachments, as evidenced by your off-the-charts lack of *curiosity*. If you had any, you'd just go out and ask somebody who works with plasma guns what they think (assuming that you know such people), and they would tell you pretty much precisely what the EU Theorists are saying. So, once again, here's the theme:
pln2bz, you have stated - in pretty unambiguous terms - that the paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science does NOT convince you.
We are commenting here on a story in the *Science* section of Slashdot.
Aside from the oddity of choosing to comment about a story within an (implicit) framework that you explicitly reject, I'm still trying to understand what the logically consistent framework is within which you (and other 'EU Theorists') test ideas against observations and experimental results (preferably of direct pertinence to Cassini and Keck observations of Enceladus).
It seems that every time I ask you to tell us all what this framework is, you reply with lots of words about the failings (in your mind) of certain aspects of the standard paradigm, irrelevancies (mammoths, cosmologies, for example), personal attacks,
pln2bz: what do you propose to put in the place of the standard paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science?
The problem is that spacecraft perform corrections (either manual or automatic) to their trajectories. Math isn't the only thing directing them.
But the bigger problem with your analysis here is that spacecraft are judged on the basis of whether or not they get to where they were directed and perform their function. We essentially buy (build) the spacecraft on the basis of our perception that it will perform as it is programmed.
Actually, the biggest problem is for 'EU Theorists'.
... Indeed, there cannot be, because quantitative tests are not part of the 'EU Theory' method.
After all, first, they reject any role for maths, or even of quantitative analyses, data, etc - the key method for determining whether an idea passes an observational or experimental test is whether it, qualitatively, looks like something from the playbook.
Second, there is no 'EU Theory'* account of how spacecraft get to where they go, or planetary orbits, or the orbits of moons, or
But, I could be wrong. So, please give us all a reference - website, paper, whatever - using material in which anyone (with the relevant expertise) can calculate the Cassini trajectory, and the Enceladus orbit, given the relevant inputs. Don't forget to state the expected degree of precision (and thanks for so clearly mis-stating what the role of 'precision' and 'accuracy' is, in celestial mechanics).
As you've demonstrated, the critics are ignored or insulted.
Oh this is priceless!
Please, take the time to read what I have written in my comments in Slashdot. In particular, pay attention to my persistence in trying to get you to state, clearly and unambiguously, what the 'ground rules' are, in the non-science 'EU Theory' you are so enthusiastic in promoting.
If you can, please connect these ground rules to good engineering practice.
Most of all, please explain how the testing of any 'EU Theory' idea can be performed, independently, without any numbers, math, or equations.
APODNereid:
How did Maxwell describe electricity and magnetism?
With mathematics
pln2bz:
That's very simplistic. Maxwell was *only* able to derive his equations because of the work of Faraday, who did most of the laboratory work that Maxwell required to build a reasonable physical model, AND WHO SUSTAINED OVERWHELMING CRITICISM FOR NOT QUANTIFYING HIS LABORATORY WORK. Faraday lived most of his life as an outcast for this reason even though he was right in the end! This is no minor point either because Maxwell was *only* successful because of the efficacy of his physical model, which Faraday helped to create. If his physical model had been wrong in some way, we wouldn't be using his equations today.
Nice story (if somewhat inaccurate).
Nicely irrelevant too.
"EU Theory" = "Electric Universe Theory" (I think). If you assert that electricity (and magnetism) plays a crucial role in astronomical phenomena, yet refuse to use the standard theory of electricity and magnetism (in the classical domain, Maxwell's equations) to test those ideas, how should a disinterested, unbiassed outsider respond? I mean, the equations aren't all that difficult, and there are huge numbers of good resources to use to apply them, so why - after decades of working on this - don't we have even the basics presented by true believers like you?
This is why it's important that you *wonder* whether or not Thornhill is right. If you discount them on the basis of some superficial reasons, then you are valuing your own psychological desire to sound and feel right over the reality of who actually is right. You're struggling to find some sort of all-encompassing litmus test, and you've chosen mathematics and the peer review system as your guide.
Ah, the classic mis-statements and diversions rear their heads again, right on cue!
pln2bz, once again, what - in the 'EU Theory' worldview - are the methods used t
Planetary scientists continue to perpetuate misunderstanding when they call the "Tiger Stripes" of Enceladus "cracks" that allow water to reach the surface. The channels are, in fact, precise analogs of those seen on Europa. Their frequent parallelism, their ridges or levees, and their ability to cut across all other channels in their paths stand as a definitive contradiction of the "fracturing" hypothesis. The pictures suggest something akin to a "claw" or router bit dragged across the surface in disregard for prior surface relief. That is a unique signature of an electric arc. In contrast, fracturing is invariably affected by a pre-existing surface channel or groove, as anyone who has ever worked with a glasscutter knows very well.
Now let's see what Schneider et al. actually found, per the abstract of the conference paper that the SD story which all these comments are on (source: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.P11F..08S)
A groundbased telescopic search for sodium emission near Saturn's moon Enceladus places a firm upper limit on the possible amount of sodium released by eruptions there. Independent observations at the Keck and Anglo- Australian Telescopes using high resolution spectroscopy failed to detect any sodium emission near Enceladus, despite the high sensitivity of such instruments to minute amounts of sodium originating at Jupiter's moons Io and Europa. Large amounts of sodium would be expected if Enceladus' plume material were derived directly from a long-lived ocean (or more confined "sea") in contact with rocky material. Chemical models predict that sodium would dissolve into such an ocean at mixing ratios relative to water of 10-4 to 10-1 (Zolotov et. al, 2007). Our numerical plumes models show that such high sodium concentrations would result in a long-lived torus of sodium encircling Saturn. Our detection upper limits fall orders of magnitude below these models, leading us to conclude that the Enceladus plumes do not originate in an ocean or sea. These observations support the alternative theories that Enceladus' plumes are generated by shear heating of the icy crust - resulting in sublimation or melting - or the decomposition of clathrates. These results do not rule out the possibility that a deep ocean exists at depth that is not directly responsible for the plumes. Plume sampling by Cassini or potential future missions, however, would not be probing this potentially habitable environment. This work has been supported by NSF's Planetary Astronomy Program.
(I added the bold re Io and Europa).
So, pln2bz would have us accept that certain surface features on Io, Europa, AND Enceladus are *all* due (entirely?) to 'sputtering' or 'electric arcs', based solely (so it would seem) on certain qualitative similarities in the appearance of these features with some lab materials blasted with plasma guns^.
However, despite the SD story having been up for over 10 days, he apparently did not bother to check the source, nor check whether Thornhill (or any other 'EU Theory' authority) commented on (or was even aware of) the apparent inconsistency; namely that the Keck results suggest the method of formation of the Enceladus features is not the same as the Io or Europa ones (for avoidance of doubt, the Keck results do not *prove* anything; such is the nature of modern science).
What say you, pln2bz? Within the 'EU Theory' paradigm, is it legitimate to introduce evidence, concerning Enceladus' plumes in this case, beyond qualitative similarities in images? Especially when that (other) evidence is quantitative? When it is independent of the images?
And if it is legitimate, how should that evidence be weighed? To what extent do the qualitative similarities trump the quantitative spectroscopic data? Or do 'EU Theorists' feel compelled to develop mathematical models of these hypothesised arcs and sputterings,
pln2bz, I've finished reading your comments on SD.
... some are PhDs, some merely BScs. Further, some are professional scientists, making a living by practicing science. And many have degrees, often advanced degrees, in math, or computing science, or related fields.
While I can't be sure that I've read all 441, I don't think the ones that I may have missed will alter what I am about to say in any significant way.
First, you correctly observed that many of those who responded to your comments seem to have not actually read the material which you presented. However, to the extent that at least a subset of these responses did, in fact, address a key part of your message, I feel you did them a disservice by (apparently, nearly always) ignoring them. More on this later.
Second, where there was a response which seemed to indicate some familiarity with the material you presented, I feel that you all too often failed to tackle the questions, challenges, misunderstandings, etc in an appropriate way. More on this later.
Third, I note that, at a meta-level, most if not all of the points in my SD comments have been made by others at one time or another, in connection with different aspects of 'EU Theory' ideas and so-called evidence. And as with my SD comments, you have largely failed to address the core challenges in an appropriate way.
In a nutshell, what is 'science' and 'evidence' to you is, more often than not, at odds with what those who have engaged you in discussion consider these to be (more later). Some folk have, if what they write is to be believed, degrees in one branch of science of another
pln2bz, you are perhaps unaware of just how effectively you have achieved the opposite of what you clearly had intended, by many of your comments - you convinced the very folk with curiosity (about the material you presented) AND far more experience with science than you seem to have that these 'EU Theory' ideas have little to no basis in science, and so can be dismissed out of hand in the same way as hundreds of other crackpot ideas.
I have chosen to put this summary as a reply to your comment on the role of mathematics, partly because your reply is such a good example of how to alienate your intended audience.
Where to from here?
If you are genuinely interested in continuing to promote 'EU Theory' here in SD, may I suggest that you pay attention to why you have, it seems to me, so singularly failed so far? In particular, seek to:
* understand why appeals to authority (Alfven, Peratt, 'plasma physicists', and so on) will usually get readers' backs up
* avoid invoking what I like to call 'martyr logic' (you know, '*they* suppressed Galileo yet he was right; *they* are suppressing Thornhill, therefore Thornhill is a modern-day Galileo, and EU Theory MUST be right too'); in the absence of a strong case, this will serve to do nothing more than confirm in most readers' minds that you are a crank
* learn some physics, preferably astrophysics. Given your beliefs, it might be a good idea to concentrate on stuff that's both relatively simple (in terms of the math involved) and quite unrelated to electricity (etc) - for example, how the masses, radii, and absolute luminosities of stars are estimated, from direct observations, leading to an understanding of the HIPPARCOS mission. The point would be to try to appreciate why your remarks about math, about quantitative vs qualitative evidence, and - above all - your approach to how ideas are (or should be) tested send such clear, negative, messages to your intended audience.