I didn't suggest or say that if you don't agree with information on a given web site that you are crippled by ignorance. What I said was that to deny the sun's corona is plasma, or to deny that plasmas are affected almost forty orders of magnitude more strongly by electric and magnetic forces than by the puny, imaginary "force" of gravity is crippling ignorance. The sun is not a ball of self-compressing gas powered by self-initiating fusion. Gasses do not self-compress, they expand to fill the available space. You have to backtrack out of this dead-end and find another path. Stellar fusion is a myth that has been falsified by about a century of evidence and counting. You definitely need to go back to the drawing board if you do not understand even the most fundamental properties of plasma. Over 99% of the observable universe is plasma. You can't run away from it.
It is true that the process of science involves getting data that puzzles you, which should force you to reexamine your model. Institutional inertia inhibits anything but tinkering and ad hoc modification of existing beliefs. When data arrives that falsifies a popular belief, we get to watch a lot of post facto justification for why the models fail to predict what we observe. We've seen this happen with comets. Close-up images and spectral analysis of comets shows they are not made of "volatiles" and ices but of rock. Data from the "Deep Impact" mission suggests the ratio of rock to hydroxyl (seen as evidence that water had been present, not is present) is about 99:1. This "shocked" astronomers all over the world, who did not challenge their beliefs that comets are made of ices, they simply looked harder for the water they knew must be there. After a while the bafflement led way to the calm surety that all was well with comet models and we just "didn't see" all the water that must be in every comet. If we believe the evidence we follow a different path. 1. hypothesis: comets are made of ice; 2. evidence: data says comets are about 99% rock; 3. conclusion: abandon icy comet model, comets are in fact rocks
Do you really think it adds merit to your beliefs if you simply deny evidence (electricity) that falsifies them? It doesn't, it just makes you like a mole. I respect blind faith but it's doubt that gets you an education.
You should get a handle on your emotions, sir. Just because contemporary data falsifies your antiquated beliefs is no reason to get indignant or angry. Welcome to the twentieth century, the universe is electric. Now you're just a century behind modern science.
You're not the only one scratching your head about the electrical nature of the universe. Professional astronogers routinely ignore electricity in space at their peril. It's astonishing in the twenty-first century that astronogers are still stuck in the gaslight era where they imagine the sun as a huge burning nuclear ball of gas. The sun is not a "gas", it is a solid. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/
I think you should do some more research before you stick your neck out like this. The sun's corona is matter in a plasma state. This is not really up for debate, even among stellar fusionists. And let's keep in mind that electrical models of the sun are verifiable. We have yet to reproduce the sun's "nuclear furnace" as a self-initiating, self-sustaining reaction. Why should this be the case if stars do it so readily?
To what are you referring when you say "horse shit story"? Are you talking about the press release from Saint Andrew's? I'd agree that it's horse shit to think that making a model to mimic superficial aspects of solar observations for predictive purposes is "horse shit". It brings to mind a parable.
Once there was a man who grew up on an island far from any shore. One day he noticed the tides rose and fell every day. Fancying himself a scientist, he set up elaborate measuring apparatus to precisely measure the tides. After a few days he devised a formula that would allow him to predict the tidal action. His formula worked well for a while but after a few weeks he noticed some errors creeping in, so he added to the formula to account for these observed tidal epicycles. Never once did he give a second thought to the cause of the tides, predictivity was his only goal. After a few months his formula started failing again, so he added more complex factors to it in order to regain his predictivity, still without ever searching for the cause of the tides. After several years and many more ad hoc modifications to his predictive formula, the man was satisfied that he could use his formula to predict with accuracy tidal action far into the future. He blindly followed his religion of predictivity until a cargo container dropped on his island and he invented polytheism and began building bamboo airplanes, forgetting all about the tides for a while. http://www.afa.org/magazine/1991/0191cargo.asp
I'm not sure what you're objecting to, here. Do you reject the notion that plasmas are dominated by electric and magnetic forces or that the observable universe is almost 100% plasma? Again and again new observations puzzle professional astronogers. Unfortunately this confusion on their part does not lead them to reexamine their beliefs, they simply wonder what undiscovered force or particle is responsible for the observed data breaking their cherished models.
If astronomers had a "pretty clear notion" of what they claim to be researching, they would not be continually puzzled by every new observation. Go through Google's news archives and see how many times you see phrases suggesting astronomers guessed wrong, that observations baffle them and invalidate their beliefs.
If you're referring to the Saint Andrew's press release, you have a good point, it does seem to be sprinkled liberally with horse shit. Computer models that mimic superficial aspects of the sun's electromagnetic influence for predictive purposes brings to mind a parable. Think of a man who grows up alone on an island far from any shore with no contact with the outside world. One day he notices the tides rise and fall every day. He fancies himself a scientist so he sets up exquisite measuring devices to precisely measure the tides. After a few days he sees patterns and devises formulas to describe them. After a few weeks he sees his formula is inaccurately predicting the tides so he adds on to his formula to account for the observations, never once considering the cause of the tides. After a few months he finds his formula is still inadequate and makes it more complex to account for new observations, still not giving more than a nod to the fact that tides do have a cause. All he wants is predictivity. So as the years go by his formula becomes more and more complex until finally he can predict with great accuracy the coming and going of tides very far in advance. At this point, practicality gives way to prudence and the search for the cause of the tides is never even begun. This lonely man then spends the rest of his days, a devotee of the religion of predictivity, and in his ignorance he is a very good predictor of tides around his island. And he never knows what causes the tides. Shortly thereafter a cargo container is dropped on his island and he invents polytheism and starts building bamboo planes. http://www.afa.org/magazine/1991/0191cargo.asp
Over ninety-nine percent of the visible universe is matter in a plasma state. Only utter ignorance of plasma could lead one to the conclusion that the universe is anything but electrically-driven. Plasmas are affected about forty orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic fields than by the weak, virtual force of "gravity". Gravity is an anachronistic model and stellar fusion is a myth that's been falsified by observations. The sun is not a "nuclear furnace". The sun is solid.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't suggest or say that if you don't agree with information on a given web site that you are crippled by ignorance. What I said was that to deny the sun's corona is plasma, or to deny that plasmas are affected almost forty orders of magnitude more strongly by electric and magnetic forces than by the puny, imaginary "force" of gravity is crippling ignorance. The sun is not a ball of self-compressing gas powered by self-initiating fusion. Gasses do not self-compress, they expand to fill the available space. You have to backtrack out of this dead-end and find another path. Stellar fusion is a myth that has been falsified by about a century of evidence and counting. You definitely need to go back to the drawing board if you do not understand even the most fundamental properties of plasma. Over 99% of the observable universe is plasma. You can't run away from it.
It is true that the process of science involves getting data that puzzles you, which should force you to reexamine your model. Institutional inertia inhibits anything but tinkering and ad hoc modification of existing beliefs. When data arrives that falsifies a popular belief, we get to watch a lot of post facto justification for why the models fail to predict what we observe. We've seen this happen with comets. Close-up images and spectral analysis of comets shows they are not made of "volatiles" and ices but of rock. Data from the "Deep Impact" mission suggests the ratio of rock to hydroxyl (seen as evidence that water had been present, not is present) is about 99:1. This "shocked" astronomers all over the world, who did not challenge their beliefs that comets are made of ices, they simply looked harder for the water they knew must be there. After a while the bafflement led way to the calm surety that all was well with comet models and we just "didn't see" all the water that must be in every comet. If we believe the evidence we follow a different path. 1. hypothesis: comets are made of ice; 2. evidence: data says comets are about 99% rock; 3. conclusion: abandon icy comet model, comets are in fact rocks
Do you really think it adds merit to your beliefs if you simply deny evidence (electricity) that falsifies them? It doesn't, it just makes you like a mole. I respect blind faith but it's doubt that gets you an education.
Yes, what a horrible tactic, using facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! Yay internet and yay slashdot!
Here's a link to a Google news search for "astronomers baffled": http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&newwindo w=1&safe=off&q=astronomers%20baffled&btnG=Search&i e=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn
What the! This slashdot article is at the top of the list right now. D'oh! hahahaha yay slashdot
You should get a handle on your emotions, sir. Just because contemporary data falsifies your antiquated beliefs is no reason to get indignant or angry. Welcome to the twentieth century, the universe is electric. Now you're just a century behind modern science.
You're not the only one scratching your head about the electrical nature of the universe. Professional astronogers routinely ignore electricity in space at their peril. It's astonishing in the twenty-first century that astronogers are still stuck in the gaslight era where they imagine the sun as a huge burning nuclear ball of gas. The sun is not a "gas", it is a solid. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/
I think you should do some more research before you stick your neck out like this. The sun's corona is matter in a plasma state. This is not really up for debate, even among stellar fusionists. And let's keep in mind that electrical models of the sun are verifiable. We have yet to reproduce the sun's "nuclear furnace" as a self-initiating, self-sustaining reaction. Why should this be the case if stars do it so readily?
To what are you referring when you say "horse shit story"? Are you talking about the press release from Saint Andrew's? I'd agree that it's horse shit to think that making a model to mimic superficial aspects of solar observations for predictive purposes is "horse shit". It brings to mind a parable. Once there was a man who grew up on an island far from any shore. One day he noticed the tides rose and fell every day. Fancying himself a scientist, he set up elaborate measuring apparatus to precisely measure the tides. After a few days he devised a formula that would allow him to predict the tidal action. His formula worked well for a while but after a few weeks he noticed some errors creeping in, so he added to the formula to account for these observed tidal epicycles. Never once did he give a second thought to the cause of the tides, predictivity was his only goal. After a few months his formula started failing again, so he added more complex factors to it in order to regain his predictivity, still without ever searching for the cause of the tides. After several years and many more ad hoc modifications to his predictive formula, the man was satisfied that he could use his formula to predict with accuracy tidal action far into the future. He blindly followed his religion of predictivity until a cargo container dropped on his island and he invented polytheism and began building bamboo airplanes, forgetting all about the tides for a while. http://www.afa.org/magazine/1991/0191cargo.asp
I'm not sure what you're objecting to, here. Do you reject the notion that plasmas are dominated by electric and magnetic forces or that the observable universe is almost 100% plasma? Again and again new observations puzzle professional astronogers. Unfortunately this confusion on their part does not lead them to reexamine their beliefs, they simply wonder what undiscovered force or particle is responsible for the observed data breaking their cherished models.
If astronomers had a "pretty clear notion" of what they claim to be researching, they would not be continually puzzled by every new observation. Go through Google's news archives and see how many times you see phrases suggesting astronomers guessed wrong, that observations baffle them and invalidate their beliefs.
If you're referring to the Saint Andrew's press release, you have a good point, it does seem to be sprinkled liberally with horse shit. Computer models that mimic superficial aspects of the sun's electromagnetic influence for predictive purposes brings to mind a parable. Think of a man who grows up alone on an island far from any shore with no contact with the outside world. One day he notices the tides rise and fall every day. He fancies himself a scientist so he sets up exquisite measuring devices to precisely measure the tides. After a few days he sees patterns and devises formulas to describe them. After a few weeks he sees his formula is inaccurately predicting the tides so he adds on to his formula to account for the observations, never once considering the cause of the tides. After a few months he finds his formula is still inadequate and makes it more complex to account for new observations, still not giving more than a nod to the fact that tides do have a cause. All he wants is predictivity. So as the years go by his formula becomes more and more complex until finally he can predict with great accuracy the coming and going of tides very far in advance. At this point, practicality gives way to prudence and the search for the cause of the tides is never even begun. This lonely man then spends the rest of his days, a devotee of the religion of predictivity, and in his ignorance he is a very good predictor of tides around his island. And he never knows what causes the tides. Shortly thereafter a cargo container is dropped on his island and he invents polytheism and starts building bamboo planes. http://www.afa.org/magazine/1991/0191cargo.asp
Over ninety-nine percent of the visible universe is matter in a plasma state. Only utter ignorance of plasma could lead one to the conclusion that the universe is anything but electrically-driven. Plasmas are affected about forty orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic fields than by the weak, virtual force of "gravity". Gravity is an anachronistic model and stellar fusion is a myth that's been falsified by observations. The sun is not a "nuclear furnace". The sun is solid.