Astronomers Again Baffled by Solar Observations 299
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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The electrical nature of the universe (Score:5, Funny)
whaa? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:whaa? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:whaa? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The corona is a few hundred thousand miles away from any fusion, with dense plasma in between. I think it's safe to model them separately. And the lack of understanding of E&M is in the post. "Also conspicuously absent from the press releases is the conclusion that the
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps self-sustaining fusion reactions don't scale down? Perhaps self-sustaining fusion reactions require far more mass than we are currently capable of providing?
Dude seriously, who are you kidding? (Score:3, Funny)
In fact I know a B5 scholar who wrote a dissertation on exactly what you wrote last week.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:whaa? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think: What we don't know is (at least) several orders of magnitude larger than what we know. Silly science hubris tends to forget this; when you are trained as a scientist, and the equation fits for your WHOLE LIFE - it is very hard to let it go.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 misunderstandings of press releases? Science reporting sucks in general, and I haven't seen a science story in the press that didn't overstate, overhype, or get something flat-out wrong for the sake of sensationalism in over 25 years. The evidence you site o
Re: (Score:2)
I object to your claims because they are misrepresentation of what astronomers are saying. And the evidence that you site (google news of all things) to support your contention shows a complete lack of knowledge of the scientific process and a complete inability to get information from the original sources to back up your claims. (or is that on purpose?)
Finally, you portray the accepted models as a sacred cow for scientists that would do anything to protect that sacred cow. Except that the history of sc
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, that's twice. Please accept a little help: "Site" means "location." Web site, drill site, construction site. "Cite" means to quote, praise, or summon. In this case you want "the evidence that you cite" as in "quote."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is supposed to be a free-energy machine. Which is weird, because DePalma taught physics at MIT for 15 years. But it appears he came up with this N-Machine concept near the end or after of his teacher career. Anyways, here is the punchline of the wikipedia article:
"This single test failed to demonstrate the over-unity potential of the N-machine - most of the output energy being lost as heat - and the project wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No wait, hold on.. er... This was evidently meant as a serious scientific story. Okay, now I am officially embarrassed to admit that I read Slashdot.
Re:whaa? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Teach the controversy (Score:5, Informative)
--
Real Solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 given full weight. The only questions asked are 1) Can I think of a funny "From-the-XXX-department" line?; 2) Will it stir up discussion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Teach the controversy (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. It was published regardless. So what's the point?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've used Slashcode, the backend of the site, elsewhere. It has a spellcheck built in. But they can't even be bothered to use it. So expecting any semblance of professionalism here is futile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:whaa? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:whaa? (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't oppression of unappreciated genius, just avoidance of blatant idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really know all the qu
Re: (Score:2)
Blurb and last link authors' experience: None
I wonder which one I should believe?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They also have a few electrical engineers. Disclaimer: I'm a theoretical physics Ph.D. student, so I may have my biases... but I do see an awful lot of electrical engineers running crank sites claiming to have invented devices and/or theories for all sorts of outrageous things from anti-gravity to free energy to psychic amplifiers. That
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
an awful lot of electrical engineers running crank sites claiming to have invented devices and/or theories for all sorts of outrageous things from anti-gravity to free energy to psychic amplifiers.
Some of those guys are always getting "minor" electrical shocks, sometimes getting "bit" dozens of times a year over several decades of practice. While the shocks themselves are peripheral, the simultaneous discharge of huge numbers of afferent neurons from even a very small shock does create unnatural waves of
Re:whaa? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:whaa?; Further note (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:whaa? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is AWESOME, I love it, and want it to expand, however, it is a strange beast and "Wikipedia deletion" ~== not in line with current "Internet Think"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either that or he was bored and wanted to read all the crackpot comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Submission hypocrisy (Score:2, Funny)
Crippling ignorance? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
(2) You are misuing the term "troll".
I find (2) a lot more annoying than (1).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If the submitter actually belived this bullshit, it would just be crackpottery. But more likely it's some bored geek trying to stir up controversy, the language suggests the latter. That's a troll. Of course, the "crippling ignorance" is Cowboy Neal's, for accepting it at face value.
Re:Crippling ignorance? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a crackpot theory.
-mazarin5, physicist
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 bit
Re: (Score:2)
The long transit from geocentricism to heliocentrism bears this out.
Except the evidence does not support this fringe. Science will stick to an idea that has provided value until something comes and provides the same value and more. Value is based on predictive value and ability to explain the observation within the framework of the theory. the "electric unive
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, [professional] non-astrophysicists call [professional] astrophysicists ignorant about astrophysics. OK, now that is ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there were some way that the entire community of scientists could read about new discoveries and new theories, run experiments or make observations, and then publish their results and subject them to critiquing by their peers... We could call it -- oh, I don't know, how about -- peer review.
Wait, we actually have such a system and it has four centuries of wild success in weeding out insane crap and crackpot
Crank crackpottery (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Crank crackpottery (Score:5, Informative)
This is the crew that's calling modern astronomers crippled by ignorance? Excuse me while i die laughing...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Slashdot is an easy target for kooks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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 this rock" in order to "preserve" the human race.
Every time I hear that view expressed my mind wanders to people that read too much science fiction and do not have children.
Re: (Score:2)
T-Minus 15.193792102158E+9 years until the universe closes!
Think about it.
Electric Universe!? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh Codswallop. Now there's a dirty word! (being a student of word origins, I belive it's pretty aweful). But I think he's right. For a given value of steam. Everyone knows steam is a gift from His Noodly Appendage for the use of inspiring poets, like Kipling (and I do kipple occasionaly, thank you, so should you).
"LORD, Thou hast made this world below the shadow of a dream,
An', taught by time, I tak' it so--exceptin' always Steam."
Poor choice of words ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:The Tao of Slashdot (Score:4, Funny)
Tflamebait?
Re: (Score:2)
Tphtroll
T (ease?) (Score:2)
Timecube? [timecube.com]
WTF is this doing frontpage?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Take this down. Do it now.
Thunder, Thunder, Thunderbolts! (Score:2)
I need less whitespace and/or less repetition.. as badly as the story needs less 'crackpot'.
pseudoscience (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If enough people do that it should show up.
Crippling Ignorance (Score:3, Informative)
I guess I'll chime in. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Is CowboyNeal new around here? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but... (Score:3, Funny)
The "ignorance" here is not from scientists. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
What we all want to know (Score:2)
So the church was right... (Score:2)
Proving its a POV thing...
So someone needs to go and stand inside the sun.
Anyone?
If we let this in, how about Archimedes Plutonium? (Score:4, Interesting)
RS
Escapism (Score:2)
Rewrite that last sentence (Score:2)
In light of past and present criticism of the bogus nature of many science articles on Slashdot, this kind of chronic ineptitude among so-called editors is to be expected.
Re:insane theroies 1 - regular theories 1 billion! (Score:5, Insightful)
Levels of abstraction. Learn about them, friend.
Re:insane theroies 1 - regular theories 1 billion! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:insane theroies 1 - regular theories 1 billion! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)