Astronomers Again Baffled by Solar Observations

SteakNShake writes "Once again professional astronomers are struggling to understand observations of the sun. ScienceDaily reports that a team from Saint Andrew's University announced that the sun's magnetic fields dominate the behavior of the corona via a mechanism dubbed the 'solar skeleton.' Computer models continue to be built to mimic the observed behavior of the sun in terms of magnetic fields but apparently the ball is still being dropped; no mention in the announcement is made of the electric fields that must be the cause of the observed magnetic fields. Also conspicuously absent from the press releases is the conclusion that the sun's corona is so-dominated by electric and magnetic fields because it is a plasma. In light of past and present research revealing the electrical nature of the universe, this kind of crippling ignorance among professional astrophysicists is astonishing."

The electrical nature of the universe

The universe is clearly electrical in nature, which is why every "spacial anomaly" encountered in Star Trek history causes consoles to spark and power systems to fail. :)

Re:The electrical nature of the universe

The term "Intelligent Plasma" is preferred, I believe.

whaa?

What kind of horse shit story is this?

Re:whaa?

One that lacks a basic understanding of electromagnetism.

Re:whaa?

I'm pretty certain that astronomers have a pretty clear notion of what they are up against. You've got a plasma that must be modeled in 3D using Navier-Stokes equations with allowances made for EM coupling. You must also deal with the nuclear reactions occurring inside. The boundary conditions are ill-defined in that we must make certain assumptions about what's at the core of the Sun on one hand and where its boundary is on the other. Add to this the fact that the solar wind accelerates due to a de Laval nozzle effect and the corona seems to be hotter than the Sun's surface and you've got quite a quandry. It's not that the individual principles are not understood; they are. Rather it's how to put all of it together in such a way that it gives us the right answer. This is most certainly NOT the same as not understanding E&M! Sheesh!

Re:

It's not that the individual principles are not understood; they are. Rather it's how to put all of it together in such a way that it gives us the right answer. This is most certainly NOT the same as not understanding E&M! Sheesh!

The corona is a few

Dude seriously, who are you kidding?

Anyone with a STOS, STNG, or perhaps a DS9 certification could have written that.

In fact I know a B5 scholar who wrote a dissertation on exactly what you wrote last week.

Re:

Whether or not astronomers have a "pretty clear notion of what they are researching," does not excuse you from claiming that your claim is right just because you think the astronomers are wrong.

And how many of those google news postings are overhyped mis

Re:whaa?

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Yeah, must better to stick with the "extraordinary evidence" of black holes, dark matter and dark energy (which we can't see or measure) that have to be introduced to make the current theories work...

---John Holmes...

Re:

Welcome to Slashdot!

Re:

What kind of horse shit story is this?

Nah, you're thinking of Chariots Of The Gods [wikipedia.org], whereas this is Thunderbolts Of The Gods [bautforum.com]: it's for the more discerning, electric SUV driving deities.

Re:whaa?

DISCLAIMER: I am an astronomy grad student.

I have repeatedly gotten emails from a similar group of nutjobs linking to a 40 page paper which "proves" the universe is not powered by fusion but by magnetic fields or some such. Their paper contained I think three equations and a whole lot of hooey.

The story on the front page of slashdot is complete and utter BUNK (yes, I know not THAT big of a surprise). Editors should remove immediately.

Re:whaa?

Sorry, too angry reading the latter half to look at the first links. The St. Andrew's stuff is legit. The electric stuff is crap

Teach the controversy

A number of interests feel it is important to undermine confidence in science by teaching bogus controversies. Slashdot gets quite a bit of this in both submissions and comments. This one is so bogus that it is suprising it slipped through but you'll notice its is attracting its share of global warming is non-anthropogenic posts. Unltimately, this kind of thing teaches us to look more closely at the sources of information. The attempts to manipulate us through our skepicism will eventually be recognized as dishonest: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html [blogspot.com].
--
Real Solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]

Re:

This one is so bogus that it is suprising it slipped through

Obligatory: You must be new here.

There is no quality control on stories. No spellchecks, no dupe check, no URL check, no credibility checks. Obvious hoaxes and twisted interpretations are gi

Re:Teach the controversy

It did get voted down by at least one reader in the firehose.

Exactly. It was published regardless. So what's the point?

Re:whaa?

The electric universe people use that tactic a lot; quote some real scientists' new discovery of some physics behind space plasmas and say it proves their pet theory about how fusion doesn't really happen... of course, they never seem to say where the energy really does come from if "it's all electric." Maybe the windmill down the road?

Re:whaa?

Oh shut up, you nutbag. Really.

This isn't oppression of unappreciated genius, just avoidance of blatant idiocy.

What I like about science is that it doesn't really matter what either of you says. All that really matters is the math, testable hypotheses, and repeatability.

Re:

After a quick look at the "electric universe" site it appears that as long as you are a "mythologist" (wtf?) and you can get a book published, then people should believe you.

They also have a few electrical engineers. Disclaimer: I'm a theoretical physics P

Re:whaa?

What kind of horse shit story is this?

The really bad variety that's not even good for manure. If you put roses in it, they'd jump straight back out and smack you upside yo' head.

Re:whaa?

'Astronomers baffled;' yeah, right. This is a fringe 'theory' that was deleted from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] in January.

Re:

Sure; it's not a fringe theory because it was deleted; it wasn't even deleted for being a fringe theory - Wikipedia has plenty of pages about those. It was deleted for being "notable primarily in the minds of the advocates," among a few other reasons. It's

Submission hypocrisy

It's St Andrews, not "Saint Andrews", this kind of crippling ignorance is astonishing.

Crippling ignorance?

>>this kind of crippling ignorance among professional astrophysicists is astonishing.

Isn't it rather an indication that they're doing their job? Data which challenge our current models are the most valuable things scientists can collect, because they give researchers chance to refine their theories.

If all the astrophysicists and satelite projects were returning information which merely fit their current theories, there would seem to be less need for such research. In scientific research, the known unknowns are difficult challenges, but the discovery of unknown unknowns are the wonderful bits. Definite Ignorance leads to Progress.

Re:Crippling ignorance?

Isn't it rather an indication that they're doing their job? Data which challenge our current models are the most valuable things scientists can collect, because they give researchers chance to refine their theories.

The thing is, the theory the submitter alludes to isn't the "current model", it's extreme fringe theory (I'm tempted to call it crackpot theory but will leave that to an actual physicist), and the submitter managed to get his troll on Slashdot.

I mean, he's calling the fact that scientists don't agree to a theory on thunderbolts.info as "crippling ignorance".

I mean, Nature, thunderbolts.info, they're about the same in status, don't you agree?

Re:Crippling ignorance?

(I'm tempted to call it crackpot theory but will leave that to an actual physicist)

It's a crackpot theory.
-mazarin5, physicist

Re:

Electric Universe is so incoherent that it doesn't even qualify as physical theory -- it doesn't make any predictions. I know -- I was in the fray on the Wikipedia page for many months. The page was finally deleted.

WTF?

Is Slashdot now a forum for random cranks to publish their personal rants? This isn't a story.

Crank crackpottery

Er. Can we have less of the "electric universe" guy? Geez. Next you'll be posting Bearden rants.

Re:Crank crackpottery

Did you see the electric universe team? One retired professor of engineering. One guy who claims "university training" in astronomy. A "physicist" who dropped out of grad school because "the lack of curiosity and the frequent hostility toward this challenge to mainstream science convinced Thornhill to pursue an independent path outside academia." The rest appear to be comparative mythologists.

This is the crew that's calling modern astronomers crippled by ignorance? Excuse me while i die laughing...

Re:

Last year, The Onion did a great writeup [theonion.com] on this guy.

Slashdot is an easy target for kooks

It seems that any fringe theorist can now post an apparently topical article to Slashdot as a way of getting hits on their Velikovski-style planetary catastrophe web site.

Re:

If he'd put "Astronomer baffled by solar observations" then I doubt anyone here would have had a problem with it!

Re:

If death by a thousand cuts (AKA global warming) vs. the sun exploding or something, I think I'd prefer the latter.

The fact remains that everyone reading this will eventually die.

It always amuses me to read/hear people that think "we have to get off th

Electric Universe!?

Codswallop. Everybody knows the universe is powered by good old steam. I'd post a link to the official research site on the prestigious geocities.com server, but space aliens running on diesel stole my bookmarks.

Poor choice of words ...

I find it unfortunate that SlashDot accepts an article with words such as:

this kind of crippling ignorance among professional astrophysicists is astonishing.

The writer displays a very poor understanding of the scientifical methods used in professional science. And SlashDot should have "filtered" this story.

I am tempted to write: This kind of crippling ignorance among article writers is astonishing.
But I would rather not spoil my positive Karma ...

;-)

The Tao of Slashdot

The Yin: genius multiple-PhD types figure out something about the sun. Good for them.

The Yang: irrelevant mention of a cabal of self-referential mouth breathers who don't know energy is not a discrete thing but is a property of other things.

Maybe Slashdot posts articles like this to give us a poke and see what our reaction will be. That reminds me of a certain thing I can't quite remember, I think it starts with a "t".

One thing I noticed about Slashdot's feigned ignorance as humour (if that's what it is), it's always about things other than IT. For example, let's see an article asserting that integrated circuits are actually an alien technology harvested from flying saucers the US Government has hidden away. Not funny because it's too ridiculous?

Re:The Tao of Slashdot

That reminds me of a certain thing I can't quite remember, I think it starts with a "t".

Tflamebait?

WTF is this doing frontpage?!

A bunch of crazy crank muthas want to shift some copies of their crappy book. Strange that /. wants to help them in that. Note to author: Yes, you did go for too big a print run. How about tearing the pages from each copy and using to wipe your ass? They'l

Thunder, Thunder, Thunderbolts!

Hooooooooooooo!

I need less whitespace and/or less repetition.. as badly as the story needs less 'crackpot'.

pseudoscience

Can we tag this pseudoscience.

Crippling Ignorance

I submit that this kind of crippling ignorance in a story submission is...well not astonishing. What was he smoking???

I guess I'll chime in.

Shame on you Slashdot for even letting this touch the front page. I read "this kind of crippling ignorance among professional astrophysicists is astonishing," and wondered who in the hell was who had the balls to say something like that...Is "SteakNShake" a famous physicist I haven't heard of?

Then I clicked that last link. Ooooh. This guy is nuts. Still doesn't explain why he got his rant accepted on Slashdot.

Stop with the EU nonsense

Please Mr. Slashdot, stick to the computer stuff! There is nothing wrong (or even inaccurate) in the cited articles. The structure of the solar magnetic field is complex, and these simulations are probably going to help a lot in understanding them. Personally, I'm looking forward to reading their article ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007astro.ph..2604H [harvard.edu] ).

Is CowboyNeal new around here?

I'm not exactly the most savvy Slashdot reader around, and even I know this "electric universe" theory is about as credible as the time cube [timecube.com].

I'm sorry, but...

I'm sorry, but any pseudoscientific theory of physics that omits Time Cube [timecube.com] is one bound to fail peer review at the Journal of Irreproducible Results [jir.com]. Please, slashdot editors! Do your due diligence for once!

The "ignorance" here is not from scientists.

I have worked with scientists for a number of years from a variety of fields (I am a writer and interviewer). I have witnessed the gamut between arrogance and humility, as one would expect in any profession. Yet, I have never spoken to a single scientist or someone who works extensively with scientists who has said science knows everything there is to know. The very questions raised by the process of science is what drives some of the most dedicated individuals I have met. The idea that some level of "ignorance" on the part of science exists and is "astonishing" is merely indicative of someone who is inherently ignorant OF science. No scientist has all the answers nor, I would guess, does any scientist WANT to know all the answers. When there are no more questions, there is no reason to continue searching. The person who posted this story has, in my opinion, an axe to grind with science as a whole for what has probably been a demolition of some silly superstition or mythology, clung to so desperately by those who still need magic as an explanation for the world instead of the inherent splendor of how things really work.

Whatever questions there are regarding the sun and its structure will most likely be resolved someday, if the past is any indication. So too, will new questions arise and the quest will continue. "CowboyNeal" would do well to educate him/herself on this very basic aspect of human nature instead of issuing the tacit implication that because science hasn't answered some current question or another, its past answers must now be considered suspect.

If we let this in, how about Archimedes Plutonium?

For those too young to remember, Archi was the bane of early newsgroups with his endless rants about how the universe is a giant Plutonium Atom. His ideas are as useful as the "Electric Universe". So if we're going to let the Electric Universe cranks have objective status, then we should invite Archimedes Plutonium to come and bark at us. I should not have had to type this - this story never should have seen the light of day - it should have been filtered by our fearless Slashdot Editorial staff. Undoubtedly, they were out in the parking lot doing bong hits when they should have been reading the submissions...

RS

Re:insane theroies 1 - regular theories 1 billion!

Just because I don't have a deep knowledge of the part neurons play in intelligence, doesn't mean I can't be completely certain when somebody is acting like a complete dickhead.

Levels of abstraction. Learn about them, friend.

Re:insane theroies 1 - regular theories 1 billion!

How the sun sends the massive amounts of radiant energy towards us is not very important to a climatologist. What happens when that energy reaches us and how our environment reacts to it *is*.

By your logic, how can we *possibly* justify doing anything ever unless we are omniscient?

If your house is on fire you don't just refuse to get the fire extinguisher or refuse to call the fire brigade or refuse to LEAVE THE HOUSE just because you don't know exactly which appliance in your kitchen started it.