I can't comment on the method in the TFA, but I myself have used a kerosene-powered fridge that required no electricity, and had no pump (in fact, there were no moving parts beyond ammonia vapour/liquid). Bugger me if I knew how it worked, but the fridge made ice...
'Dark Matter' is just one example of modern science inventing something, with no basis on observed data, to explain observations that their own theories cannot.
But dark matter does have observed data to support it - namely, the rotation curves of galaxies, which indicate the existence of significant quantities of non-luminous matter.
Galileo was also considered a crackpot and a heretic before other men of science finally checked on his theories, years later, and found them to be firmly based on observation and correct.
No, Galileo was never considered a crackpot. The theory of a heliocentric universe pre-dates Galileo by millenia - I believe all the way back to either Aristarchus or Herodotus. Galileo was not demonized by his scientific peers, he was demonized by the Catholic Church, which has historically been extremely anti-science.
If the EUM can better explain current observations, then it certainly deserves further, serious investigation by other, impartial, scientists.
And it already has been investigated by scientists, and found to be in complete conflict with observations. EUM claims that the solar wind is negatively charged, whereas in situ measurements by the ACE space mission, amongst others, has demonstrated that the wind is made from a neutral plasma. EUM makes many other claims that fail to stand up to the evidence.
Calling people crackpots, is not a very scientific way to behave. Makes you sound like a crackpot.:)
No, the conclusions I reached over EUM were based on my understanding, as a seasoned astrophysicist, of stellar wind phenomena. Our current understanding of stellar winds is backed up by huge quantities of observational data. Whereas EUM makes bold claims without even bothering to examine whether these claims are compatible with the observed universe. Hence, while my use of the term 'crackpot' does not have the usual clinical detachment so beloved in Hollywood portrayals of scientists, I can assure you that I use this appelation based on a reasoned, scientific evaluation of EUM.
Read my post above; the explosion is due to absorption of core-generated neutrinos, causing the outer envelope (which does not collapse) to heat explosively.
So you consider gang rape sodomization an... "inconvenience"?
When applied to angles, yes. I'm sorry, but if God's agents - angels - can't handle a rape mob, then God is not really all he's claimed to be.
Of course, this is all rather moot; the entire Bible is nothing more than the bloodthirsty, bigoted, racist, sexist, xenophobic fairy-tale narrative of a rather minor and inconsequential ethnic group from the middle East. Lot never did sleep with his daughters, and there never was a rape mob.
Outrageous hypotheses end up being vindicated fairly often.
I respectfully disagree. While I agree that every hypothesis you listed was at one point considered outrageous, these are a tiny proportion of the number of scientific hypotheses that are advanced, and then tested, each year.
But your point about the difference between an oddball hypothesis, and pseudoscientific bullshit, is spot on. Even when incorrect, scientific hypotheses remain scientific, rather than the obtuse gibberings that pseudoscience has to offer.
Did you ever think if we did not have fags, we would not be wasting money trying to cure a disease that will cure itself?
I'd answer your question in detail, but I'm too busy enjoying Jesus sucking my big, veiny cock.
Re:Does anyone filter science posts for credibilit
on
Supernova 1987A Decoded
·
· Score: 4, Informative
it's a gravitational bounce outward from the solid (neutron) core after fusion peters out at Iron burning.
Actually, recent models show that the bounce doesn't cause the explosion, since the outward-propagating shockwave stalls at some point within the stellar envelope. The current idea is that the explosion is caused by the neutrinos from the core, that get absorbed by the outer envelope and heat it up to crazy temperatures. Sure, the cross section for an individual neutrino to interact is miniscule; but with so many neutrinos being produced, enough of them interact to cause the explosion.
Did you ever notice how science changes its anwsers so damn often. But the Bible stays the same.
That's true. No matter how long human civilization lasts, the Bible will always hold an accurate record of God's chosen disciple, Lot, fucking his daughters. Nice choice, God - you picked a winner there!
How are these "catastrophic electrical discharges" occur and funciton?
As I understand the gibbering drivel that poses for the hypothesis of the electric universe, the claim is that the stars become positively charged due to the loss of electrons in a stellar wind. There is then some huge discharge episode that causes the supernove.
Of course, this flies in the fact of everything that is known about stellar winds. In the case of the sun, we know that the wind is electrically neutral, from in situ measurements by space missions such as ACE. In the case of massive stars, that undergo supernovae at the end of their lives, the winds cannot possibly be negatively charged, for a simple reason: these winds are driven by photons scattering off positively-charged ions. In fact, the wind plasma of massive stars is neutral, being an equal mixture of positive ions and negative electrons.
Mother Theresa is going to be sainted for her works.
This is the same Mother Theresa who refused to administer painkillers to those dying in her hospices, even though her organization had millions of dollars in unspent donations? The one who only cared about converting more people to Christ? I hope that bitch rots in hell.
No, my friend, your ad hominem came first when you accused me of trolling, with nothing to back up your claim. Read through the rest of the posts for this article, and it should become pretty apparent that the electric universe hypothesis (I won't dignify it with the label 'theory') is fringe science. The claims of these 'scientists' are barely coherent, indicating a total absence of familiarity with how science is prosecuted and presented, irrespective of the specifics of the claims themselves. The fact that they present their hypotheses as press releases, rather than in peer-reviewed journals, should set alarm bells ringing.
In your original post, you referred to 'those who dared say that the earth was round hundred of years ago'. In the interests of educating you about science, just a little, you may be interested to hear that the spherical circumference of the Earth was measured by Eratosthenes, well over 2,000 years ago. Unfortunately, people ignorant of history and science seem to believe that Columbus was the first to make the outrageous claim that the Earth was round. In fact, it was well accepted at that time that the Earth was round; the only uncertainty lay in the precise size.
Ultimately, the fact that pseudoscientific claims draw ridicule from mainstream science does not make these claims any more plausible. Sure, some outrageous hypotheses that are subject to ridicule are later found to be true. However, this happens only in very rare cases, and once the evidence is provided to back up the claims, the ridicule evaporates.
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.
I don't know if these electric universe guys are right or wrong, but it seems VERY scientific to me to come up with new theories about how things work...
I have a new theory: jim_v2000 is an ignorant fuckwit who is incapable of assessing the validity of pseudoscientic claims. There you have it, folks: science in action.
The proper link is here. While checking on this, I took the opportunity to have another look around the website. These guys really are chewing the carpet; for instance, their page on the CHANDRA X-ray observatory shows a failure to grasp even the most basic aspects of X-ray emission in astrophysical plasmas.
Electric Universe is a well-known crackpot site, built on the most absurd pseudoscience. They're the same outfit that predicted a large explosion when Deep Impact hit Tempel 1.
As usual, the/. editors display their utter inability to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Idiots.
On a server I needed to remotely manually replace libc with an older version file from another machine. Ofcause you have to remember to do everything in a single command otherwise if you delete the old version you cannot run anything else. (I am sure there must be a simpler solution to that than take the disk out and do it on another machine).
That's exactly what sln is for. It is like ln, but statically linked, so you can change the libc symlink without the system barfing.
Re:Probably not first post, but...
on
10 Computer Mishaps
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Now I get a page claiming that they are experiencing 'planned downtime'. Looks like they're trying to cover their arses over being slashdotted.
Hmmm, just the sort of bullshit I've come to expect from ZDNet....
Outside Australia, in the rest of the world, to explain the joke as though nobody else gets it is to demonstrate that you don't have much of a sense of humour yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't comment on the method in the TFA, but I myself have used a kerosene-powered fridge that required no electricity, and had no pump (in fact, there were no moving parts beyond ammonia vapour/liquid). Bugger me if I knew how it worked, but the fridge made ice...
'Dark Matter' is just one example of modern science inventing something, with no basis on observed data, to explain observations that their own theories cannot.
But dark matter does have observed data to support it - namely, the rotation curves of galaxies, which indicate the existence of significant quantities of non-luminous matter.
Galileo was also considered a crackpot and a heretic before other men of science finally checked on his theories, years later, and found them to be firmly based on observation and correct.
No, Galileo was never considered a crackpot. The theory of a heliocentric universe pre-dates Galileo by millenia - I believe all the way back to either Aristarchus or Herodotus. Galileo was not demonized by his scientific peers, he was demonized by the Catholic Church, which has historically been extremely anti-science.
If the EUM can better explain current observations, then it certainly deserves further, serious investigation by other, impartial, scientists.
And it already has been investigated by scientists, and found to be in complete conflict with observations. EUM claims that the solar wind is negatively charged, whereas in situ measurements by the ACE space mission, amongst others, has demonstrated that the wind is made from a neutral plasma. EUM makes many other claims that fail to stand up to the evidence.
Calling people crackpots, is not a very scientific way to behave. Makes you sound like a crackpot. :)
No, the conclusions I reached over EUM were based on my understanding, as a seasoned astrophysicist, of stellar wind phenomena. Our current understanding of stellar winds is backed up by huge quantities of observational data. Whereas EUM makes bold claims without even bothering to examine whether these claims are compatible with the observed universe. Hence, while my use of the term 'crackpot' does not have the usual clinical detachment so beloved in Hollywood portrayals of scientists, I can assure you that I use this appelation based on a reasoned, scientific evaluation of EUM.
Read my post above; the explosion is due to absorption of core-generated neutrinos, causing the outer envelope (which does not collapse) to heat explosively.
So you consider gang rape sodomization an... "inconvenience"?
When applied to angles, yes. I'm sorry, but if God's agents - angels - can't handle a rape mob, then God is not really all he's claimed to be.
Of course, this is all rather moot; the entire Bible is nothing more than the bloodthirsty, bigoted, racist, sexist, xenophobic fairy-tale narrative of a rather minor and inconsequential ethnic group from the middle East. Lot never did sleep with his daughters, and there never was a rape mob.
Not when you recall that Lot offered these same daughters to a rape mob, to avoid inconveniencing a couple of angels. Truly a man of God!
That's an easy one. You just drink a glass of water, and an hour or so later, hey presto!
Outrageous hypotheses end up being vindicated fairly often.
I respectfully disagree. While I agree that every hypothesis you listed was at one point considered outrageous, these are a tiny proportion of the number of scientific hypotheses that are advanced, and then tested, each year.
But your point about the difference between an oddball hypothesis, and pseudoscientific bullshit, is spot on. Even when incorrect, scientific hypotheses remain scientific, rather than the obtuse gibberings that pseudoscience has to offer.
Did you ever think if we did not have fags, we would not be wasting money trying to cure a disease that will cure itself?
I'd answer your question in detail, but I'm too busy enjoying Jesus sucking my big, veiny cock.
it's a gravitational bounce outward from the solid (neutron) core after fusion peters out at Iron burning.
Actually, recent models show that the bounce doesn't cause the explosion, since the outward-propagating shockwave stalls at some point within the stellar envelope. The current idea is that the explosion is caused by the neutrinos from the core, that get absorbed by the outer envelope and heat it up to crazy temperatures. Sure, the cross section for an individual neutrino to interact is miniscule; but with so many neutrinos being produced, enough of them interact to cause the explosion.
Did you ever notice how science changes its anwsers so damn often. But the Bible stays the same.
That's true. No matter how long human civilization lasts, the Bible will always hold an accurate record of God's chosen disciple, Lot, fucking his daughters. Nice choice, God - you picked a winner there!
How are these "catastrophic electrical discharges" occur and funciton?
As I understand the gibbering drivel that poses for the hypothesis of the electric universe, the claim is that the stars become positively charged due to the loss of electrons in a stellar wind. There is then some huge discharge episode that causes the supernove.
Of course, this flies in the fact of everything that is known about stellar winds. In the case of the sun, we know that the wind is electrically neutral, from in situ measurements by space missions such as ACE. In the case of massive stars, that undergo supernovae at the end of their lives, the winds cannot possibly be negatively charged, for a simple reason: these winds are driven by photons scattering off positively-charged ions. In fact, the wind plasma of massive stars is neutral, being an equal mixture of positive ions and negative electrons.
Mother Theresa is going to be sainted for her works.
This is the same Mother Theresa who refused to administer painkillers to those dying in her hospices, even though her organization had millions of dollars in unspent donations? The one who only cared about converting more people to Christ? I hope that bitch rots in hell.
No, my friend, your ad hominem came first when you accused me of trolling, with nothing to back up your claim. Read through the rest of the posts for this article, and it should become pretty apparent that the electric universe hypothesis (I won't dignify it with the label 'theory') is fringe science. The claims of these 'scientists' are barely coherent, indicating a total absence of familiarity with how science is prosecuted and presented, irrespective of the specifics of the claims themselves. The fact that they present their hypotheses as press releases, rather than in peer-reviewed journals, should set alarm bells ringing.
In your original post, you referred to 'those who dared say that the earth was round hundred of years ago'. In the interests of educating you about science, just a little, you may be interested to hear that the spherical circumference of the Earth was measured by Eratosthenes, well over 2,000 years ago. Unfortunately, people ignorant of history and science seem to believe that Columbus was the first to make the outrageous claim that the Earth was round. In fact, it was well accepted at that time that the Earth was round; the only uncertainty lay in the precise size.
Ultimately, the fact that pseudoscientific claims draw ridicule from mainstream science does not make these claims any more plausible. Sure, some outrageous hypotheses that are subject to ridicule are later found to be true. However, this happens only in very rare cases, and once the evidence is provided to back up the claims, the ridicule evaporates.
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.
I don't know if these electric universe guys are right or wrong, but it seems VERY scientific to me to come up with new theories about how things work...
I have a new theory: jim_v2000 is an ignorant fuckwit who is incapable of assessing the validity of pseudoscientic claims. There you have it, folks: science in action.
LOL. It's not defamation or slander if it's true!
The proper link is here. While checking on this, I took the opportunity to have another look around the website. These guys really are chewing the carpet; for instance, their page on the CHANDRA X-ray observatory shows a failure to grasp even the most basic aspects of X-ray emission in astrophysical plasmas.
Electric Universe is a well-known crackpot site, built on the most absurd pseudoscience. They're the same outfit that predicted a large explosion when Deep Impact hit Tempel 1.
As usual, the /. editors display their utter inability to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Idiots.
I hear sea bass make a good drop-in replacement - but only if they are ill-tempered.
Find new friends.
That's exactly what sln is for. It is like ln, but statically linked, so you can change the libc symlink without the system barfing.
Now I get a page claiming that they are experiencing 'planned downtime'. Looks like they're trying to cover their arses over being slashdotted.
Hmmm, just the sort of bullshit I've come to expect from ZDNet....
Outside Australia, in the rest of the world, to explain the joke as though nobody else gets it is to demonstrate that you don't have much of a sense of humour yourself.
Many of the current generation would have succeeded in Germany in the late 30s.
Indeed. And that's why we have the president we have.
Replied to the insult rather than to the meat of the post? Hmmm, sure sign of an argument lost. HAND.