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

[Caspian (99221)]

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

[fbjon (692006)]

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

whaa?

[delong (125205)]

What kind of horse shit story is this?

Re:whaa?

[massivefoot (922746)]

One that lacks a basic understanding of electromagnetism.

Re:whaa?

[niiler (716140)]

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:whaa?

[p_trekkie (597206)]

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?

[p_trekkie (597206)]

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

[mdsolar (1045926)]

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:Teach the controversy

[1u3hr (530656)]

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?

[Phil-14 (1277)]

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?

[ettlz (639203)]

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?

[sanctimonius hypocrt (235536)]

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

Crippling ignorance?

[rubberpaw (202337)]

>>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?

[Scarblac (122480)]

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?

[mazarin5 (309432)]

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

It's a crackpot theory.
-mazarin5, physicist

WTF?

[elvum (9344)]

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

Crank crackpottery

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Crank crackpottery

[DrJay (102053)]

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...

Slashdot is an easy target for kooks

[ebcdic (39948)]

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.

Electric Universe!?

[adnonsense (826530)]

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.

The Tao of Slashdot

[florescent_beige (608235)]

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?

pseudoscience

[king-manic (409855)]

Can we tag this pseudoscience.

I guess I'll chime in.

[hardgeus (6813)]

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.

Is CowboyNeal new around here?

[p3d0 (42270)]

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].

Re:insane theroies 1 - regular theories 1 billion!

[pelrun (25021)]

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.