Supernova 1987A Decoded 629
bluevector writes "Electric Universe News is reporting that scientists claim to have proof that 'supernovae are catastrophic electrical discharges focused on a star' and not the result of giant stars undergoing gravitational collapse and subsequent explosion after having spent all of their nuclear fuel as previously thought."
Can I get a link please? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Can I get a link please? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can I get a link please? (Score:5, Interesting)
It'll give you some background. I have to say that a cursory reading does suggest a level of kookdom.
There is also a site put together by the László Körtvélyessy - the original proponent of the theory here: http://www.the-electric-universe.info/ [the-electr...verse.info]
Re:Can I get a link please? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can I get a link please? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Can I get a link please? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can I get a link please? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can I get a link please? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which makes me wonder why
Re:Can I get a link please? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, it's a step up from reporting that Microsoft's employees are infected by a virus [slashdot.org] or a web-based survey asking if American workers are lazy or creative [slashdot.org].
Slashdot does have real stories too, but a lot of filler as well. At least this filler story - sorry, filler summary, since there doesn't seem to be a story - is a bit more tastefull and imagination-engaging than some.
I mean, seriously, I once had my reading lights lightbulb explode and the remains just narrowly miss my head. Now I learn that the stars are just like that lightbulb - and that makes me kind afraid to go near that pile of dirty clothes and computer magazines that have sat in a dark corner of my room for years...
Re:Labeling in science circles annoys the most (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Labeling in science circles annoys the most (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, real scientists have used this event to prove a hypothesis. In 1999, Chandra X-Ray center suggested that the shape of the rings resulted from a cavity, caused by the explosion, in the dust and gas surrounding the star. They predicted that the supernova explosion would produce a shock wave which would hit the edges of the cavity and produce a dramatic increase in X-Rays. This is happening as predicted. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/0508
You see, that's the difference between science and superstition. Science makes predictions which can be tested. That's why it sometimes changes. Superstition is not testable. That's why it stays the same.
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:3, Informative)
Lot's daughters grew up in Sodom, and it seems to have had an effect. Lot took his family and fled Sodom before it was destroyed, as he was warned to do. After it was destroyed, his his daughters got him drunk and slept with him. If they were spared as the only "good" people in Sodom, maybe there was something to its destruction?
Genesis 19: 30-36 [usccb.org]
Re:Your right in a certain sense... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny. The Koran stays the same, the Hindu Vedas stay the same, and many other religious texts which have nothing to do with the Christian god stay the same too. Does the quality of being static mean something to you?
When I went to college, they taught some stuff in biology, chemsitry, and physics that is wrong. They graded our papers, and gave us low marks. Why? They did it to everyone. In my Chem class, and "A" was a 38.7%. That is about 4 out of 10 points on a test. The curve was fucking rediculous.
What, exactly, does this have to do with anything? Hundreds of years ago Christians believed the earth was flat and that women should be burned alive. And you're complaining that either you couldn't learn or that your professor couldn't teach?
God said they would persecute us. And they are doing that.
Who are "they"? And what are "they" doing exactly?
I would rather take comfort with God than with the here_today, gone_tomorrow of science.
That's fine. Kids take comfort in teddy bears and imaginary friends too. Would you prefer a static stock market if change is too difficult for you to understand?
Why not live in a happy moral time, with good families, and worthwhile occupations. Why live in horrible times, working for in the factory of an atheist for minimum wage?
False dilemma much? Why not live in a happy non-religious time, where everybody gets along? Why live in the constant fear and guilt that Christianity teaches?
THINK ABOUT IT. WHAT IS DIFFERENT TODAY? NO PENSIONS AT JOBS. NO GOOD JOBS. And there is less of God too. He is letting us know.
Ah yes... that *clearly* is the *only* thing different today. Yes, *nothing else* has changed in history. Any other pearls of wisdom to share, oh swine of knowledge?
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a whole crock of nonsense if ever i have heard it.
Compare older versions of the Torah in Hebrew to the old testament.
Compare the old and new testaments , even compare different modern versions of the bible.
It has been shown that the Jewish faith as early as 800BC was perhaps not monotheistic .
The rules of the many Christian churches have changed so often it isn't funny.
In essence the bible has been rewritten so many times , that perhaps at one stage it may have contained the truth (I don't know , and i don't believe
The bible if anything is the work of man
Science may change , but so does your faith . the only difference is science changes based on understanding and advancement . The bible changes based on confusion and politics .
Take the core of your belief , the love , the helping others and faith in a higher power out to help us and use that . Don't use the confusing mess of a book that has caused countless deaths.
God and science , the twain shall never meet . you can enjoy science and a strong faith in a higher power. Science is not something to put faith in , it is something to take understanding from.
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly we need to start some classes in trolling. This is a perfect example of the decline in trolling quality that we've seen at slashdot in the last few years.
How, in the name of all that is holy, can you have a Bible troll like this without at least one direct reference to male homosexuality or bestiality! And there isn't even an attempt to blatantly steer the debate to make it a debate on abortion or prayer in schools.
At long last, do you have no sense of troll decency sir? Oh usenet trolls of alt.athiesm, why have you abandoned us?
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was a kid, hiding under the bed would make me feel safe as well. I never really saw the boogie man, because - you know - he doesn't exist. And neither does god. I take more comfort in "atheist science" than in lies - damn lies - that have kept humankind down, led the world to pain, war and destruction for the last 5000 years over and over again.
Look further, accept and embrace your human condition.
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:5, Informative)
Congratulations! You're one step closer to rational thought!
Unlike religion, science doesn't claim it's explanations to be correct. It claims them to be the best explanation we can find given the current evidence.
Science is a method for trying to explain why something is the way it is best on testing a hypothesis.in a repeatable way.
Unlike religion it does not say "this is the way it is", it says "this is the best explanation we have for why this happens".
The difference is that there's actually evidence involved in science. Religion just has books of mostly unverifiable claims by people long dead with no supporting evidence except... more mostly unverifiable claims by other people long dead!
On the other hand there are many good moral teachings in religion that virtually anyone can agree on. It's just a shame they're mixed in with so much crap.
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:3, Funny)
Good thing God gave them all those slaves, eh?
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:3, Insightful)
Good thing God gave them all those slaves, eh?
Slaves, slaves, everybody always bitches about the slaves. If a farmer paid the equivalent of a freeman's salary for a year to buy a slave at least he had to protect his investment. Same as grease, oil changes and other maintenance on the tractor.
What about the potato famine Irish? Get a factory job in the U.S. like a Chinese sweat shop working seven days a week at starvation wages until a flywheel belt takes off your arm and you bleed to death because there aren't any OSHA laws. No maintenance. You find another Irish the next day after you've gotten the blood mopped up. 100% on their own until a mean death in a short life and no cost to the factory owner.
Basically, the 19th century sucked no matter what your research watching Little House on the Prairie would lead you to believe.
Don't even get me started on the Indians. Give them a smallpox infested blanket and they'll give your whole clan free farms. They were pathetically easy shooting compared to, e.g. the Zulu, and "gave" us an incredibly rich continent to exploit.
God worked in mysterious ways to bring great prosperity to America.
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:3, Interesting)
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
That's why Karl Marx wrote favorably to Lincoln:
"From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?"
The Republicans of today have nothing in common with the radical abolitionists of the 19th century.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you'll find that Jefferson, Franklin, Washington and the others who lead the revolution and formed the republic were all highly literate people.
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:5, Informative)
Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick. That neocon bollocks is really sinking in, isn't it?
THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THE US WERE NOT CHRISTIANS!
Read some history! The US was not founded on christian principles! The signers of the declaration of independance where mostly freemasons, and it is not a coincidence that there is only one reference to god in the constitution, one which is best attributed to 'habit' and 'the way things were done at the time' than any religious thought.
Shit, even a cursory knowledge of history will show that the US was inhabited by people fleeing religious persicution in Europe and that they really, REALLY did NOT want a country founded on religious principles, but one where there was a seperation of church and state and where no religion could gain so much power that it could encroach upon any other religion.
The rest of your post is fine, but thgis one point has been spouted by the neo-con movemenet so often that now it looks like a lot of americanss actually are starting to really beleive it.
Just like it was the americans who captured the first Enigma machine.
*grumble*historicalaccuracy*grumble*
Obligatory ST:TOS reference (Score:5, Funny)
It was famous Wussian scientist that cweated first decoder for Enigma, in same facility where they kept nuclear wessels.
- Pavel Checkov
Re:Obligatory ST:TOS reference (Score:3, Funny)
- Pavel Checkov
I think you mispelled "Elmer Fudd" in there.
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:5, Informative)
Ever read the Declaration of Independence?
You are basically right--the Constitution and future government of the US was meant to be free of religion, and to protect freedom of religion. This does not mean that many of the founding fathers were not deeply religious men, nor that religion was universally reviled.
I'm also curious about your point about "no religion could gain so much power that it could encroach upon any other religion." What about anti-semitic laws, catholic/protestant anti-miscegenation laws, and more, that we've had for years? Until relatively recently even.
One must remember that the early American context was largely white (of Western European extraction), male, protestant. Other groups come into prominence later--be they black slaves, women, Irish, Catholics, Italians, Jews, etc.
This is not to disagree with your basic point, but I would take issue with many of your assumptions (and incidentally, you've been reading too much Davinci Code with regards to masons--my grandfather was a mason, and the man attended church every week of his life--what's the correlation? none..read about freemasonry and you'll see what I mean)
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:3, Interesting)
I know a lot of people were religious at the time. Pretty much impossible not to be (although I do suspect many of the founding fathers would have been athiests [who would have read the bible and the other 'great books'...yaddayadda] had they grown up in this time instead of then, but that's idle speculation).
As for the laws...same reason the USSR was a dictatorship even though it was based on Marx.
As for the Da Vinci Code...I revile it. But it must be said it's actually gotten quite a few people to go read actual good books on the subject, by actual historians who did actual validated research on the matter. I know where freemasonry comes from; the name is a dead giveaway (as is the symbolism) that they are descended from the cathedral builders (yeah, simplification...I'm writing a post on
So, I oversimplified. Fact is that an awfull lot of people have started believing in the past 5 to 8 years that the US was founded by a bunch of christians who wouldn't have minded the ten commandments hung up in courtroooms. For those people, oversimplification may be whats needed. Maybe not. I just don't know. Got any tips?
PS: I wasn't oversimplifying the 'just one refference to god' bit; it's right at the beginning, something about 'the year of our lord'...and thats it.
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:3, Funny)
So, not only did you lie, but you lied with full knowledge that you were lying, and then gave a pathetic excuse.
When are you running for president?
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:5, Funny)
They also didn't shower regularly. This uncanny association really makes you wonder, doesn't it? Maybe it was poor personal hygiene after all, rather than a belief in GOD, that made them prosperous.
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that is incorrect. The 13 colonies, and in particular the Northern ones, had very high litteracy rates. Massachusetts had universal schooling, even for girls.
Yet, they formed a country with great prosperity.
Again, incorrect. The U.S. was quite poor; it wasn't even considered a nation of importance until the time of Teddy Roosevelt, i.e. the 20th Century. Before then Americans were considered to basically just be country bumpkins by people in the powerful countries of the day (UK, France, Germany). It didn't become a superpower until after the second world war. And that was to a large extent because of the efforts of imported, secular, German and Eastern European scientists.
And they believed in GOD. They thanked him for what they had.
I infer that you think that we should "go back" to a society where religion dominates all political thinking and public life. I would suggest that you look at the Middle Ages, or even the Dark Ages for an example of what life in a theocracy is like... For 1500 years they believed in God to the point of letting the church dominate all life - and lived in total squalor.
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:5, Informative)
You can stop reading the post right here "America is a christian nation founded upon christian principles." as that statement is 100% FICTION.
The Constitution of the United States was written upon ENLIGHTMENT Principles by people that were christian, deist, agnostic and atheist - and the "Seperation of Church and State" [Thomas Jefferson] was universally agreed upon.
So before Parent opens their mouth EVER again I suggest they LEARN HISTORY.
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a typo in there "fact" should be spelled "LIE". Another possibility would be "pathetic attempt to rewrite history by idiotic religious zealots who never bother to learn facts because with religious idiots, fervor is more important the accuracy" but I think "LIE" works best there.
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:3, Insightful)
Then it's obvious who was the more magical, isn't it?
Re:Your link is the bible (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can I get a link please? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It's not. It's actually a fairly prudent argument. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a good parallel as a lot of people's idea of religion. Making up stupid arguments against evolution is a lot like making up stupid arguments that the world is flat. There's really not much left to disprove, in a lot of these places. If people wanted prudent arguments they could just ask. But, as even the most prudent arguments have been ignored... Welcome our new Noodly Overlord.
Just because having God compared to a Flying Spaghetti Monster annoys people, doesn't mean that it's not effective. And certainly it's not damaging because it "strengthens resolve". I've listened to creationists speak. They would be hard pressed to get any more resolve. If religious parallels actually were not effective, we wouldn't know what you're talking about. Keep in mind that Bobby Henderson only became a Prophet of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism back in June. And, it's already bigger than most cults (perhaps some divine noodly force is nudging it). In short, it doesn't really matter how strong a person's resolve is, if they are wrong they are still wrong.
So, drawing fun parallels is a great way to get your point across. And I have to admit the FSP people are way funnier than the Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhhnbs) people. And much more on the ball with Pascal's Wager. The IPU people gave nobody a reason to play the system. The FSM people have had it revealed to them that Heaven (for believers of Pastafarianism) contains a stripper factory and a beer volcano.
RAmen.
Re:Can I get a link please? (Score:3, Funny)
April fools? (Score:3, Funny)
I for one... (Score:2, Funny)
wow, no fa or anything. (Score:2)
so... does it run linux?
almost forgot (Score:2)
Re:almost forgot (Score:3, Funny)
and here is a useful article on the subject (Score:4, Informative)
Site seems down; here's that article's text (Score:5, Informative)
Supernova 1987A is the closest supernova event since the invention of the telescope. It was first seen in February 1987 in the nearby Magellanic cloud, a dwarf companion galaxy of the Milky Way, and only 169,000 light years from Earth. Close observation since 1987 has now provided proof that supernovae are catastrophic electrical discharges focused on a star.
>> IMAGE CAPTION: The enigmatic and beautiful structure of SN1987A with its three axial rings. The brightening of the equatorial ring is obvious. The two bright stars are just in the field of view and are not associated with the supernova.
A supernova is one of the most energetic events witnessed in the universe. The accepted explanation is that it occurs at the end of a star's lifetime, or red giant stage, when the star's nuclear fuel is exhausted. There is no more release of nuclear energy in the core so the huge star collapses in on itself. If sufficiently massive, the imploding layers of the star are thought to rebound when they hit the core, resulting in an explosion, and the blast wave ejects the star's envelope into interstellar space. The bright equatorial ring is caused by the collision of exploded matter from the star with the remnants of an earlier stellar "wind." The two faint rings are a problem. The best that theorists have been able to manage is to postulate some kind of rotating beam from an assumed supernova remnant, sweeping and lighting up a shell of gas expelled at an earlier epoch. The ad hoc nature of these explanations is obvious.
The detection of a pulsar remnant after some supernovae is explained by the implosion of the stellar core to produce a neutron star. Pulsars emit bursts of radiation up to thousands of times a second. It is believed that a pulsar must be a super-collapsed stellar object that can spin up to thousands of times a second and emit a rotating beam of X-rays (like a lighthouse). Commonsense suggests that this mechanical model is wrong when some pulsars rev beyond the redline, even for such a bizarre object.
A recent example of conventional thinking can be seen on the Chandra website. On August 17, a news story was posted: Supernova 1987A: Fast Forward to the Past.
Recent Chandra observations have revealed new details about the fiery ring surrounding the stellar explosion that produced Supernova 1987A. The data give insight into the behavior of the doomed star in the years before it exploded, and indicate that the predicted spectacular brightening of the circumstellar ring has begun.. The site of the explosion was traced to the location of a blue supergiant star called Sanduleak -69Â 202 (SK -69 for short) that had a mass estimated at approximately 20 Suns.
Subsequent optical, ultraviolet and X-ray observations have enabled astronomers to piece together the following scenario for SK -69: about ten million years ago the star formed out of a dark, dense, cloud of dust and gas; roughly a million years ago, the star lost most of its outer layers in a slowly moving stellar wind that formed a vast cloud of gas around it; before the star exploded, a high-speed wind blowing off its hot surface carved out a cavity in the cool gas cloud.
The intense flash of ultraviolet light from the supernova illuminated the edge of this cavity to produce the bright ring seen by the Hubble Space Telescope. In the meantime the supernova explosion sent a shock wave rumbling through the cavity. In 1999, Chandra imaged this shock wave, and astronomers have waited expectantly for the shock wave to hit the edge of the cavity, where it would encounter the much denser gas deposited by the red supergiant wind, and produce a dramatic increase in X-radiation.
The latest data from Chandra and the Hubble Space Telescope indicate that this much-anticipated event has begun. Optical hot-spots now encircle the ring like a necklace of incandescent diamonds. The Chandra image reveals multimillion-degree gas at the location
Re:Site seems down; here's that article's text (Score:5, Insightful)
"heavy elements" (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if TFA was mildly belivable there is still the problem of where does all the electrical energy come from, where is the "power station" at the other end of the "Birkeland current transmission lines".
Skip to the end of the article and it starts dribbling on about the geometry of Stonehenge. The fact that it was posted seems to indicate that slashdot will soon have an astrology section.
Kristian Birkeland (Score:3, Informative)
Forgot to mention... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Site seems down; here's that article's text (Score:5, Informative)
The vast majority of the energy in supernovae is emitted in neutrinos - upwards of 90%. The neutrinos from SN1987A aren't theoretical - we saw them. They were, in fact, the first extrasolar particles other than photons we've been able to associate with an astrophysical object.
Neutrinos get produced when electrons and protons are forced into neutrons via inverse beta decay, which only happens at ridiculous pressures. They can't be produced by electromagnetic processes - they're weak byproducts only.
There is nothing in that article to explain why the star would produce 10 times more energy in neutrinos than in photons. A magnetic pinch would not produce this much energy in neutrinos. There's simply not enough energy.
Re:Site seems down; here's that article's text (Score:5, Insightful)
I would be hesitent (Score:3, Insightful)
HOWEVER, it is certainly reasonable to act on the assumption that this article is false as it is the more complicated theory and fails to explain a significant range of observations regarding supermassive stars. As such, it does seem to fail the litmus test.
Re:Site seems down; here's that article's text (Score:3, Informative)
Most of them, in fact, emit X-rays, low energy gamma rays, and probably TeV gamma rays as well. The Crab is so bright in TeV gamma rays that it's the basic unit of flux in that region of the spectrum.
But the bigger "this article is crap" flag that should go off in your head is the question "what about the neutrinos?" Magnetic reconnection can't create neutrinos, and SN1987A had a flux of neutrinos way, way above background, and consistent with the majority of the energy of the collapse going into neutrinos.
The only way you can get that kind of a flux of neutrinos is via the URCA process: p+e->n+v->p+e+vbar+v, which means you're at a ridiculous pressure, and you're creating neutrons.
It's just embarassing that people like this get any press.
Re:Site seems down; here's that article's text (Score:3, Insightful)
Stars forming along lines of electric current? Please. What would form such currents? How could they be stable for tens of millions of years? How would matter collect there? Why wouldn't all the regular, well-established theories of fusion apply? How does this explain white dwarfs? Etc. etc. etc. etc..
This shouldn't have made it to Slashdot's front page or even the science section. (Although I suppose it could be considered a public service to Slashdot their site out of existence.)
Death to Occam's Razor! (Score:5, Funny)
Now compare this to the misguided THEORIES of those scientists who try to suppress us! Instead of our wonderfully complex and gap riddled ideas they would have you believe it is as simple as gravitational compression. Arrogant fools! Common sense demands that the simpler explanation be dropped.
Stop being fooled by MAINSTREAM scientists with their experiments, controls, peer reviews, data, exhaustive studies, hard work, successful predictions, working theories, revisions, and hard evidence.
Next week, how refrigerator magnets can cure arthritis.
"Electric Universe" is not "Plasma Cosmology" (Score:3, Informative)
There's serious work [lanl.gov] going on detecting and characterizing solar-, nebular-, galactic-, and galactic-supercluster- scale current flow that the Electric Universe people are happy to co-opt. Regardless of how supernovas happen, what you end up with really are huge clouds of electrically-conductive plasma at widely-varying densities, compositions, and degrees of ionization, that spontaneously organize. Forms routinely observed in laboratory plasma experiments, scaled up many orders of magnitude, are unmistakable in such nebulae, just as is also seen on a smaller scale in our own solar system (e.g. the aurora), and on an immensely larger scale in the galactic core.
Wanted for questioning (Score:5, Funny)
Science fiction (Score:2, Funny)
Stun Extreme (Score:2)
The Article is a troll (Score:5, Informative)
Electric Universe [slashdot.org] 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 [nasa.gov] hit Tempel 1.
As usual, the /. editors display their utter inability to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Idiots.
Fixed Link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fixed Link (Score:5, Funny)
What idiots!
Re:Fixed Link (Score:3, Interesting)
Some handy links debunking this crap (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/ind
Yeah, these people are total crackpots
Re:Parent is a troll (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Parent is a troll (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org], 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.
Re:Parent is a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Thier predictions about Deep Impact were so vaguo they would make a astrology cringe, so to claim they got that right is absurd.
These people don't open themselves up to peer review. We aren't talking about a bunch of little Einstiens the world wont accept. These are genuine crackpots.
Elementary, my dear Watson... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Elementary, my dear Watson... (Score:4, Funny)
Hello Scuttlemonkey?? (Score:2)
It must be the Death Star!!
Not even a LINK? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qx
It's already running so slow it's useless. What I managed to get screams crackpot:
24 August 2005
Supernova 1987A Decoded
13 July 2005
Comet Tempel 1's Electrifying Impact
03 July 2005
The Deep Impact of Comet Theory
26 March 2005
The Dragon Storm
08 February 2005
Columbia downed by Megalightning
05 February 2005
Saturn's Strange Hot Spot Explained
30 January 2005
Titan - A Rosetta Stone for early Earth?
25 December 2004
Megalightning at Saturn
25 November 2004
Titan puzzles scientists
27 October 2004
The True State of the Universe
Electric theory has already been discussed on /. (Score:5, Informative)
Summary of the previous discussion: the electric universe theory has as much scientific support as geocentrism.
This should not be news on slashdot I suppose, but since it is, I guess we're going to spend some time bash.. I mean challenging the electric universe theory once more...
"Evidence" (Score:4, Informative)
FTFA:
The crucial evidence for the electrical nature of supernovae must come from experiment and observation. Anthony L. Peratt, Fellow, IEEE, published a seminal paper in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 31, No. 6, December 2003. It was titled Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity. [lanl.gov] In it he explained the unusual characteristics of a high-energy plasma discharge. He discussed mega-ampere particle beams and showed their characteristic 56- and 28-fold symmetry. He wrote: "A solid beam of charged particles tends to form hollow cylinders that may then filament into individual currents. When observed from below, the pattern consists of circles, circular rings of bright spots, and intense electrical discharge streamers connecting the inner structure to the outer structure."
*sigh* I seriously doubt that 'supernovae are catastrophic electrical discharges focused on a star', and think that this is instead more unsubstantiated guesswork on the part of the Electronic Universe Theorists.
has slashdot been hacked? (Score:3, Funny)
a fringe crackpot theory on the front page
no monty python foot
Re:has slashdot been hacked? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Hah! They got it wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hah! They got it wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
when the turtle at the bottom of the stack of turtles that make up the universe
Dude, there is no bottom. It's turtles all the way down.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
MORE proof of Intelligent Design! (Score:3, Funny)
Can we get a pro to elaborate on the BS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some ludicrously misapplied scientific terms come to the front when Googled, too. Take "Birkeland current," one of the ideas put forth as some sort of power transmission line throughout the galaxy; a brief bit of research indicates that the phenomenon is referred to solely in a terrestrial context (at least, on non-out there sites)
Another one? The paper referenced towards the end, entitled "Characteristics for the occurrence of a high-current, Z-pinch aurora as recorded in antiquity," and published in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, relates solely to a large terrestrial aurora discharge.
Still, it would be great if we could get a pro in here to thoroughly debunk this. Any astronomers want to step up to the challenge?
Does anyone filter science posts for credibility? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does anyone filter science posts for credibilit (Score:5, 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.
Re:Does anyone filter science posts for credibilit (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a guess.
I see. (Score:3, Funny)
Plasma Cosmology... (Score:4, Informative)
After you RTFA and think to yourself "I haven't heard that much non-sensical technobabble since Star Trek!" head over to Wiki's Plasma Cosmology page [wikipedia.org]. Or this more detailed page [answers.com]. Its contested, mainly because this is a contested field and the article is overly broad, but I think it fills in some of the holes.
Honestly if their predictions are true it will change everything in cosmology. And if my predictions are true I'll win the Lotto. I'm not sure who has better odds....
Slow news day? (Score:5, Funny)
Tomorrow's Stupid News article: RocketRainbow writes about a staggering discovery: "Some guy in a bar told me that he made a time machine". The implications are astonishing.
Finally! (Score:3, Funny)
Talk about "Bad Astronomy"... (Score:5, Informative)
Hopefully Phil will have the time to examine the claims and comment on their truth or falsity on his web site.
If you ever have a few hours to kill and want to read about some fascinating astronomy topics check out his web site. He spends a lot of time debunking claims made by "scientists" regarding such things as the face on Mars, the moon landing "hoax" and many other hugely engrossing topics.
almost... (Score:3)
That was just a wee bit over the top, guys. Next time, try to hold back on that, and some people might actually be fooled.
Not even good snake oil. (Score:5, Insightful)
Supernovae core collapse simulations (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.astro.le.ac.uk/~rt53/work/index.html [le.ac.uk]
Cheers,
Roger
This begs the question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Supernova 1987B Decoded (Score:4, Funny)
This Guy is a Nutjob (Score:4, Informative)
Lets get real people! When people start using Stonehenge as evidence in their modern astronomy papers they you have a real crackpot. I mean this guy uses a preface from H.P. Lovecraft in his preface!
Next think you know this guy is going to be claiming that the moon landing never happened. Oh, wait.... Perhaps calling his website hollow-science would be more appropriate.
Explain to me why this is such quackery (Score:4, Interesting)
First, if the story, as it showed up early this morning on
I've seen many replies under this story crying "crackpots!" and "quacks!".
But I haven't read even one yet that suggests some simple principles or facts which can be used to debunk the basic claim of the plasma cosmologists and the Electric Universe proponents: that plasma physics (i.e. electrodynamics as embodied in the behavior of plasmas) is not given enough credit when scietific models and theories that attempt to explain stellar and interstellar phenomenon.
And I am all ears. I studied physics in college and was well on my way towards a B.A. in that discipline when I decided to try my hand as an entrepreneur during the dot-com boom. I think I've developed a fairly sensitive internal "b.s. meter" over the course of my lifetime. And I try to "keep up" in my personal (albeit hobbyist) study of science, with space physics and cosmology being my dominant interests. I read stuff on the "popular science" level and I am also comfortable reading papers of a more technical nature. I self-admittedly have a more philosophical bent in my musing upon these matters, but that is not a variant of the excuse, "I'm not so good at math" -- I am actually fairly competent when it comes to advanced mathematics.
Several weeks ago, I read the story on
On the one hand, you have the plasma physicists/cosmologists that believe that the behavior of stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, etc. are governed not primarily by the gravitational force but rather gravity AND electrodynamics, with electrodynamics dominant in many contexts. And they pretty much stop with that assertion and confine most of their work to exploring it.
The Electric Universe enthusiasts go farther, and are trying to develop an all-encompassing framework in which they see every aspect of the universe (from the subatomic to the intergalactic) and its history as governed by the "Electric Force."
Am I true believer in the so-called "Electric Universe?" No. I actually find members of that end of the spectrum in question to be a bit too eager to engage in polemics, and that doesn't impress me. On the other hand, I will say that I find myself highly sympathetic to the work and claims of plasma physicists like Dr. Anthony Peratt [lanl.gov].
Here's why, in a nutshell: Since I was a little kid I've been fascinated by ideas like black holes, neutron stars, the "big bang," grand unified theories, etc., etc., etc. In fact, it was my reading Timothy Ferris' Galaxies [amazon.com] when I was in the 2nd grade that planted the seeds for my future interest in pursuing physics as a career. I read Hawking's A Brief History of Time [amazon.com] in the 6th grade, "understood" it, and from there began a more rigorous self-directed study into more advanced treatments of physics and mathematic
Re:Original Theory (Score:3, Informative)
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.