Report of discovery of large object in far outer edges of solar system incites skeptical reactions

December 11, 2015 by Bob Yirka report
ALMA prototype-antennas at the ALMA test facility. Credit: ESO

(Phys.org)—Two separate teams of researchers (one from Mexico, the other Sweden), have incited skepticism among the astronomy community by posting papers on the preprint server arXiv each describing a different large object they observed in the outer edges of the solar system. Both teams made their observations after reviewing data from ALMA—a cluster of radio dishes in the Chilean mountains.

One of the objects was found to be near W Aquilae in the night sky—the other adjacent to Alpha Centauri . Both groups report being skeptical at first regarding a faint glow, but monitored what they had seen nonetheless—to their surprise they found that the objects appeared to move relative to the stars behind them, which suggested they might be relatively close and that they might be orbiting the sun. Neither group was able to gain much evidence regarding the properties of the objects they had spied, because both of them were only able to make two observations, but both teams suggest there was enough data to allow for ruling out the object being an ordinary star.

The Swedish team nick-named the object they observed Gna, after a Nordic God known for its swiftness, and have told the press they had no intention of suggesting they had found the mythical Planet X which supposedly lies somewhere beyond Pluto. Instead they suggest it might be a large asteroid. The team from Mexico went a little further suggesting that the object they observed might possibly turn out to be a brown dwarf.

There is also the possibility, as some astronomers who have read the two papers suggest, that either or both of the objects are merely illusions, random blips or noise that for a moment or two appeared to take the shape of a very far away object. Some have even tweeted their opinions, insinuating that jumping on the Planet X bandwagon would be sheer folly.

Despite the skepticism, it is likely that other research groups will be training their instruments on the piece of sky where the objects were possibly seen, to prove or disprove their existence and to put a stop to the conjecture. Both of the teams involved have voiced their support of such efforts, noting that they would like an explanation for what they observed.

Explore further: Newly discovered celestial object defies categories

More information: A new submm source within a few arcseconds of α Centauri: ALMA discovers the most distant object of the solar system, arXiv:1512.02652 [astro-ph.SR] arxiv.org/abs/1512.02652

The serendipitous discovery of a possible new solar system object with ALMA, arXiv:1512.02650 [astro-ph.SR] arxiv.org/abs/1512.02650

Related Stories

Newly discovered celestial object defies categories

January 8, 2014

An object discovered by astrophysicists at the University of Toronto (U of T) nearly 500 light years away from the Sun may challenge traditional understandings about how planets and stars form.

The Lords of the Rings among centaurs

September 14, 2015

(Phys.org)—Chariklo, the largest known centaur object, orbiting in a region between Saturn and Uranus, is a very intriguing celestial body that surprised astronomers last year. This remote minor planet has unveiled the ...

Young lithium-rich giant star discovered

December 4, 2015

(Phys.org)—An Argentinian team of astronomers from the Astronomical Observatory of Córdoba has announced the finding of a new exceptional young lithium-rich giant star, designated KIC 9821622. Using the data obtained with ...

Recommended for you

Spitzer Space Telescope begins 'Beyond' phase

August 26, 2016

Celebrating the spacecraft's ability to push the boundaries of space science and technology, NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope team has dubbed the next phase of its journey "Beyond."

NASA's Juno to soar closest to Jupiter this Saturday

August 26, 2016

This Saturday at 5:51 a.m. PDT, (8:51 a.m. EDT, 12:51 UTC) NASA's Juno spacecraft will get closer to the cloud tops of Jupiter than at any other time during its prime mission. At the moment of closest approach, Juno will ...

Rosetta captures comet outburst

August 25, 2016

In unprecedented observations made earlier this year, Rosetta unexpectedly captured a dramatic comet outburst that may have been triggered by a landslide.

129 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (24) Dec 11, 2015
I don't have any alarmist tendencies in me, but many aspects of this are a bit troubling from an electrical cosmology view. Let's hope that the trajectory is not determined to be incoming.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (37) Dec 11, 2015
many aspects of this are a bit troubling from an electrical cosmology view
@hannes
there is no "electrical cosmology" view... there is astrophysics/cosmology and there is pseudoscience

"electrical cosmology" is a belief that is not based upon rigorous empirical evidence nor is it supported by the strict protocol of the scientific method, thus it is a pseudoscience
and as a pseudoscience, it is then a BELIEF system more like a religion or a cult

to be considered science at all, it must (MUST) adhere to the scientific method. your eu does NOT do this and has been repeatedly debunked/falsified. it has No predictability and (i could go on, but why bother? delusional fanatics ignore the obvious for the sake of protecting their personal worldview or beliefs because admission it is fake undermines their ego, reality and proves them to be various negative things they don't wish to address)
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 11, 2015
And yet, the 5% baryonic universe (or whatever the number is these days ...) can hardly inspire confidence. So, where exactly does your confidence originate?
hemitite
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2015
If they're both equipment artifacts, and they were seen to be "moving" in a second look at those parts of the sky, then there may be some serious bugs in that ALMA system. This might call into question other research using this telescope.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (21) Dec 11, 2015
So, where exactly does your confidence originate?
@h_a
with the evidence, especially that which can be validated

therefore, by definition, your eu is off the table because of it's inability to validate itself, make predictions, functionally explain what is observed, and more importantly, adhere to the scientific method with strict rigorous protocols
And yet, the 5% baryonic universe (or whatever the number is these days ...) can hardly inspire confidence
perhaps you should try this link: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

before you continue to make yourself look horrible due to your acceptance of delusion and your failure to use your logical brain, you should research your subject thoroughly (so far, you've researched the eu... problem is, you failed to research your actual physics- hence the link)

this is your personal cognitive bias and problem, NOT (repeat NOT) the worlds astrophysicists
Steelwolf
2.2 / 5 (22) Dec 11, 2015
Actually Stump, what there is the "Paid For 'Mainstream Science' according to preconceived notions because that is what the grants paid for" and there is Study Based on Empirical Data that shows that there is a very active electromagnetic component to any and all galaxies, and that the overall mass of the clouds of ionized particles can create a much larger pull, over longer distances, than gravity does.

It is not "Pseudoscience" it is an open minded interpretation of observed and repeatably observable effects and configurations that no other explanation fits. It does not throw out the sciences of gravitational attraction, but instead ADDS to the repertoire of tools available. You keep using strawman, outdated portions of the theory and call the whole thing faulty, that would be like calling the entire Standard Model a bunch of hooey based on the fact that it is not all filled out yet.

Real scientists have the humility to change their minds when facts dont meet their theories.
Steelwolf
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 11, 2015
More and more of the studies done, especially those showing the farther galaxies and the construction of superstructures in the universe, huge galactic clusters with several million degree plasmas surrounding them, major jets of plasma from Black holes, and this is ALL very rigorously, scientific method, studied by Universities under proper, rigorous conditions, often overseen by doctorates, and they keep finding things that keep on showing, to a higher and higher degree, that magnetics, plasmas and huge electrical potential flow between galaxies and galactic clusters is also observed.

The Studies have been posted (Published) here, much is a matter of interpretation, and Stump is directly going against what many of the doctorate study teams at these universities are finding out. There is a vast magnetic web connecting galaxies along these huge filaments, observed magnetic fields, and those fields CANNOT occur without electrical flow Somewhere, which leaves plasmas as conductors.
tear88
4.3 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2015
It's Nibiru! Run away, run away! Uh-oh - nowhere to run, nowhere to hide!

I hope further observations do confirm the existence of a few large bodies relatively close. It would make the universe a little bit more interesting. As long as they don't come into the inner solar system. That would be much too interesting.
Steelwolf
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 11, 2015
So trying to pontificate on old theories that are not working out so well (straight dark matter ideas) as opposed to the fact that there are large amounts of plasma between galaxies, and that the magnetic dynamo effect has a lot more to do with the supposed missing mass: it does not have to be mass, just some form of attraction that has been overlooked. These ideas from when space was thought to be empty. Our Voyager Probes have shown that is not true, with solar plasma being detected even as far out as they are now, and the interstellar medium appears to be a plasma as well, from galactic sources. We know there are huge bubbles above and below the disc of our galaxy with millions of degrees plasma that shines in the gamma/radio spectrum, and you seem to think this is not going to have an effect on how much mass and attraction thus created through the effects of electromagnetism.

You are stuck on dearly held notions, so, there are none so blind as those who REFUSE to See.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (17) Dec 11, 2015
what there is the "Paid For 'Mainstream Science' according to preconceived notions because that is what the grants paid for"
@steel
conspiracist ideation without evidence is just delusion
It is not "Pseudoscience" it is an open minded interpretation
it is also NOT SCIENCE
science is about evidence, not interpretations- interpretations are subjective to the individual, which is the reason the scientific method takes great pains to remove bias from the study and results (and testing, and... you get the point)
You keep using strawman, outdated portions of the theory and call the whole thing faulty
i keep using the same arguments that i keep getting. just recently cantdrive pontificated about all the points i keep making, from moon craters to the shoemaker-levy9 breakup in Jupiter
that is making a point, not using a strawman
http://www.auburn...ion.html
Steelwolf
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 11, 2015
A Brown Dwarf, the famed "Nibiru" (even though that was apparently the other star that came through some 77K years ago) could well be encountered in the interstellar medium. There has been some question, for some time, if we did not have some massive planet that has been kicking comets into the inner system by disturbing their otherwise complacent orbits. I am not sure if I adhere to that idea, but it is a possibility that I wont throw out, out of hand. Just another data point to add. There May be big objects that are so dim/cold that we dont see them in our own solar system, so, how many of these are there out there in the galactic disc? Is it enough mass to offset the so called 'missing mass'?

So much we dont know for anybody to go and say that they have THE definitive answer and all others are Pseudoscience. So, Stumpers, I would suggest you lay back for a while and do some Modern Study, with Modern Data, and re-run the problem again.

Even you might be surprised!
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (17) Dec 11, 2015
@steel cont'd
Real scientists have the humility to change their minds when facts dont meet their theories
and i follow the EVIDENCE, not the interpretations
this is one major point of the scientific method that pseudoscience gets wrong every time... they assume that simply making sh*t up about the evidence justifies their belief in said interpretation... that doesn't work. sorry
Stump is directly going against what many of the doctorate study teams at these universities are finding out
no, i am not
i don't go against the evidence. period
but you are not giving evidence... you are giving your INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence
big difference
the fact that there are large amounts of plasma between galaxies
where have i ever disputed the facts or the fact that there is plasma in space?
please, show me that. thanks
the magnetic dynamo effect has a lot more to do with...missing mass
where are your peer reviewed links supporting your belief/interpretations?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (17) Dec 11, 2015
@Steel cont'd
A Brown Dwarf, the famed "Nibiru" (even though that was apparently the other star that came through some 77K years ago) could well be encountered in the interstellar medium
making sh*t up again? not all brown dwarves are "nibiru", nor can you justify your belief that a star came thru 77K years ago... this is what i've been talking about
NOT SCIENCE
I am not sure if I adhere to that idea, but it is a possibility that I wont throw out
this is where you and i differ... i am open to the EVIDENCE
i don't have problems with possibilities or ideas... but my acceptance of what IS must be evidence based, not speculative nor "interpreted".... that is for religions or philosophy, not the scientific method
for anybody to go and say that they have THE definitive answer and all others are Pseudoscience
and again... perhaps you should learn to read?
i don't advocate or conjecture that i have THE answer
never have
but i also don't get suckered by BS
Steelwolf
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 11, 2015
Stumpy sounds like the Vatican concerning Galileo, and eventually the Vatican apologized as being wrong. I am not going to hold my breath, but he is obviously stumping for someone else, someone who has a monetary interest in the Dark Matter/Energy theories and since his job depends on him not understanding the Electromagnetic Nature of our Universe, he will Stump against it as hard as he possibly can. Perhaps it is the fact that an electric universe makes star travel so much easier because it is a matter of manipulating electromagnetic fields (the latest ideas to warp space around the craft are electromagnetic in nature) becomes so much easier and easier to control. It also means that there are forms of energy that we are not harnessing right now that could get us off from carbon fuel tech, based on electromagnetics and plasmas. LENR is a reality and so many things that monied interests have kept hidden and used folks like stump to deride anyone with the Right science showing.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 11, 2015
one last point to steelwolf
about this
I would suggest you lay back for a while and do some Modern Study, with Modern Data, and re-run the problem again.
when i first started here, i asked a LOT of questions

want to know what one of the most common answers was? (from the already educated physicists and astro's, Dr's and more)

DO THE RESEARCH
ORIGINAL SOURCES
FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE
i was sent this link to use: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

i used it, i STILL use it

i chose to follow the evidence

you can too
i suggest you also " lay back for a while and do some Modern Study, with Modern Data, and re-run the problem again. Even you might be surprised! "
Steelwolf
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 11, 2015
Stump I and others have given you lists of articles and papers, many of the published here at Phys.Org and they keep coming out. Study some of the phonon, skyrmion, and other quasiparticle interactions that are going on and compare them to cosmology that we can see happening above us. They are actually fractal iterations of one another at quantum and cosmic scales. In the chemical and normal physical world, electrical valence is what actually does more than any other force at that level, how do you expect that there will be a greater force at higher larger scales?

You deriding those who have a better grasp of REALITY than you is scary, I am sure, but you keep going against the very basic principles of science in going for the easiest, most likely with supporting evidence and experimentation, and if the facts come out in favor of ideas contrary to your own, then YOU need to change. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. And right now the facts outweigh you!
Steelwolf
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 11, 2015
And note, as I said, these elecromagnetic phenomenon just add to the gravitational and other things we have seen. It is just a fact that there were some big egos bruised, and there since then there has also been a disinformation program concerning the nature of space and the ease of which we can operate in it. Those of us advancing the electric nature of the universe are not saying gravity and all does not have it's place, and there are some from 'mainstream science' who have specifically pretended to be EU enthusiasts and presented fallacious papers in order to try to get the whole notion thrown out. It mostly just ruined their careers.

The FACT that we have Quasars that line up over millions of light years, within the Superstructure of this Universe is just one of the many Proofs of this concept that have been published here at Phys.Org. that show there HAS to be an electric flow, thus the magnetic fields at a super galactic scale. I have the DATA on my side to your opinions.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 11, 2015
I...given you lists of articles...papers
@steel
just FYI - if it isn't to an EDU site/reputable journal, i don't open them (original sources are important to research, so i don't ever visit pseudoscience sites or even most articles)
You deriding those who have a better grasp of REALITY than you is scary
so, you're going to ignore the actual physics for your belief, but you expect me to study your beliefs for you, and then you state i am ignoring those who have a better grasp b/c i require them to provide evidence they don't have for a belief they can't justify or support?
how is that logical?
but you keep going against the very basic principles of science in going for the easiest, most likely
stopped there
i don't care about easiest OR most likely, unless it has empirical evidence and validation
this is where you keep getting confused (with me and reality)
i don't CARE about the subject, only that it can be proven/validated
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (17) Dec 11, 2015
these elecromagnetic phenomenon just add to the gravitational and other things we have seen
@steel
i don't care if it is provable, nor do i care about "specifically" electrical phenomena in addition to gravity

only the evidence proving it to be real. period
this is STILL where you seem to be tripping up... i don't appeal to authority (a person, like hanes, or dr so-and-so)... this is irrelevant. the EVIDENCE is what is important
and singular studies are a subject to be investigated, but that doesn't mean they're validated
you keep ASSuming that i am ignoring your evidence - i don't
i only ignore evidence you provide that links to pseudoscience or subjective material
you give valid evidence, i am on the same page and i can be open to the information

so putting "fact" in caps and then making a claim that is not substantiated by validated studies is NOT the way to convince me of anything

nor is linking eu or pseudoscience sites

EVIDENCE
SOURCES
it's important
richardwenzel987
4 / 5 (21) Dec 11, 2015
Captain Stumpy, whoever you are, I admire the fact that you take on the nut cases. It's something that really needs to be done, for the sake of exposing them for what they are. But the battle goes on and on. If they weren't idiots, or deranged, your comments, and those of others like you, would be effective. Unfortunately, they are idiots/deranged and all the rational arguments in the world will never penetrate. But don't stop. What you do needs to be done.
Hat1208
4.3 / 5 (17) Dec 11, 2015
@Captain Stumpy

Keep up the good work!
ECOnservative
5 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2015
The JWST can't come soon enough. Would this object even be visible in the spectrum the JWST is sensitive to?
baudrunner
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2015
This wonderful land has given us equal representation, therefore the 43% of you who actually believe that the world is really just 6,000 years old have been given their respective 43% in this article content.

The fact is, UFO's exist because all they are *are* Unidentified Flying Objects, until they are identified, and until you can be sure of what they are, it's simply ignorant to believe that these things don't exist. To say so reveals one as just a narrow-minded bigot.

So, until they can identify what that mystery object is, let's just call it Planet X, okay, and don't refute the existence of Planet X unless you can resolve the mystery of what it is beyond the shadow of a doubt.

philstacy9
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 11, 2015
Separate teams of researchers have incited skepticism by describing a large climate change in the outer edges of earth's future which might only be an illusion.
andyd
1 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2015
One author is on both papers, so hardly separate or independent groups.
djc42
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 11, 2015
@captain Stumpy.

What richardwenzel1987 said. Thx
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (15) Dec 11, 2015
I find Stumpy's approach to be self-serving. He took my concern for these observations and turned it into a pitch for his own worldview.

My concern stems from the fact that people like Stumpy have put so much effort into dismissing interpretations of mythology that none of them would be aware of Dwardu Cardona's very lengthy and well-supported argument -- that currently spans four large texts and many thousand supporting references -- that mythology is actually the story of a stellar capture, as witnessed by man.

I have no problem if people want to approach the subject skeptically. That's normal.

The problem is when this skepticism is so over-the-top that it creates ignorance of basic details of the claim. This knee-jerk reaction to the catastrophist worldview has always been about protecting scientific theory from intrusion by maverick outsiders.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 11, 2015
That protection is exerted by imposing ignorance upon the public of these very detailed and nuanced interpretations of mythology.

Let's suppose, for just a moment, that there was a confirmed brown dwarf body approaching the Sun. Conventional theory would insist upon its own analysis of the situation, and as has been the tradition to-date, it would predictably dismiss alternative predictions. There would be no effort to systematically study alternative scenarios which base upon alternative cosmologies.

And yet, there is this wealth of interpretation which already exists on exactly what the last event was like for the survivors. All of that would be ignored -- obviously not in service to some sense that the astrophysical community are like stewards of this planet, but rather in service to their ideology.

At the end of the day, their approach would predictably put all of humanity in more danger than it needs to be.
Mimath224
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2015
Keep your eyes on the object chaps, wouldn't like it be something like one pf those apocalypse movies Ha!
If it is real what's the chance it might be just passing through, that is, does it have to be in orbit around the Sun?
Porgie
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2015
Its the Meglock for planet cah cah. We will be contacted soon.
jljenkins
Dec 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jljenkins
3.1 / 5 (15) Dec 12, 2015

HannesAlfven 1.4 /5 (9) 12 hours ago
I don't have any alarmist tendencies in me,


Proof he can't open his mouth without lying.

Steelwolf 1.5 /5 (8) 10 hours ago
Stumpy sounds like the Vatican concerning Galileo


The Vatican were protecting entrenched interests. What interest is he protecting? Logic? Galileo was a scientist. The poster is a deluded POS. You know, sometimes you dismiss people as ignorant assholes because they're ignorant assholes. Methinks I smell the stench of "American democracy" where any idiot with an opinion to yell is worthy of consideration purely by virtue of the fact that they steal oxygen, regardless of any merit or logic. (And is a good xtian and served as a hired killer for the empire, no doubt).
antigoresockpuppet
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2015
You don't know the 1/2 of it. The original poster is not only a crank, he explicitly defends cranks! Check out this thread. http://bbs.boingb...s/1874/8

lol They nailed tinmutt. "Everyone that's wrong thinks he's Galileo".

"Amateur scientist". That's someone that gets up every night and freezes their privates off going out to the telescope to monitor variable stars or do galaxy photography patrol for early detection of supernovas. Clue: If you never get out of your chair, you're not doing science. If you post contrary opinions based on that that are not falsifyable, then you're trolling. Trolling is not a science.
jim_xanara
3.1 / 5 (11) Dec 12, 2015
Steelwolf 1 /5 (8) 11 hours ago
A Brown Dwarf, the famed "Nibiru" (even though that was apparently the other star that came through some 77K years ago) could well be encountered in the interstellar medium. There has been some question, for some time, if we did not have some massive planet that has been kicking comets into the inner system by disturbing their otherwise complacent orbits.


There's been a question for some time, raised by young children, if everyone in China jumped at the same time if the earth would move.

What is it about these tinfoil jobs that they a) have no appreciation of scale, and b) have no ability to appreciate their total lack of grasp of scale. lol So ironic that these people with simplistic, innacurate mental models that they use with such assuredness are the first ones to poo-poo any simulation. Hey, jerks. The worst computer simulation is a helluva lot better than your ignorant armchair assertions.
AGreatWhopper
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 12, 2015
Ignorance thrives in a vacuum. It's not like we have hard data...oh, wait. http://wise.ssl.b...etX.html

Hmmmm. Painstaking WISE survey data, vs legends in their own mind social losers. Hard to know which one to take seriously? The cognitive condition that allows that to be a valid question needs to be in the DSM.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2015
He took my concern... turned it into a pitch for his own worldview
@H-A
no, i just pointed out your logical fallacy of pushing anything that you believe is confirmation bias when you can't actually prove any of your own interpretations or opinions
Dwardu Cardona's very lengthy and well-supported argument
lets review just DC for a moment: he wrote for a journal that "published [diverse] articles on ...ancient history, catastrophism and mythology" - hardly a SCIENCE journal at all, and not constrained to the scientific method
and this is proven by a comment on the wiki article on Kronos "Schadewald commented that "Though Velikovsky's views were rejected by scientists... " I stopped there for a reason: V's views were rejected for the SAME reasons eu is currently rejected: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE supporting them, just speculation and opinion
http://www.veliko..._Cardona

https://en.wikipe...ynthesis
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2015
@h-a cont'd
velikovsky, like the eu, also have "true believers, as Schadewald commented, who continue to believe his speculations and interpretations even today... why? why does someone believe in something that cannot be proven and has no evidence?
THIS is the $1,000 question
I have no problem if people want to approach the subject skeptically
except that you are proving this to be wrong every time you post with no evidence... perhaps it is because you are defending a religious belief and not a scientific one? https://www.psych...ttle-ego

a scientific held belief would contain EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that is validated or at least supported by the laws of physics... something the eu fails to do on many accounts

Do they get some things correct? yes... the law of averages says they MUST get something correct now and again. even religion gets it correct now and again

that does NOT make it science, though
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2015
@h-a cont'd
This knee-jerk reaction to the catastrophist worldview has always been about protecting scientific theory from intrusion by maverick outsiders
if you will note: my "knee jerk reaction" is to your dearth of evidence, not to your catastrophist worldview
it would predictably dismiss alternative predictions. There would be no effort to systematically study alternative scenarios which base upon alternative cosmologies
there would also be no study of prayer requests or faerie dance circles... because wasting money and time on the known delusional belief systems that are NOT capable of affecting the situation would be folly
At the end of the day, their approach would predictably put all of humanity in more danger than it needs to be
so, concentrating on PROVABLE effective science is wrong and we should accept religious beliefs as legitimate?
next comet strike, do you want to pray to the spaghetti monster too?
get the point yet?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2015
@h-a last
So, my point, repeated ad nauseum, is that it all boils down to evidence
you claimed above
I have no problem if people want to approach the subject skeptically
but when you are requested to provide evidence, you are defensive when you produce non-standard evidence (AKA- pseudoscience) and are called on it

there is a difference in what constitutes evidence in science and what pseudoscience considers evidence, and this is demonstrated in YOUR OWN POSTS

you accept things like OPINION and CONJECTURE over evidence that is validated, as demonstrated by your support of eu against the laws of physics (like the electric sun model)

this is not being open minded, it is being a religious fanatic
PERIOD

when researching anything, it is important to be able to separate the chaff from the wheat. this is done with evidence and the scientific method: not by accepting any random authority's opinion on any subject (like an engineer on astrophysics)
jljenkins
2 / 5 (12) Dec 12, 2015
Captain Stumpy, whoever you are, I admire the fact that you take on the nut cases.


Don't. Look at this "story", on the site. http://phys.org/n...urs.html

Look at the way it's written. As the comment from AGW says, this isn't a science site anymore. The pimps that bought it are using science as the bait to attract trolls and that traffic generates revenue for the greedy bastards. That doesn't work unless people argue with them. When you "take on" the trolls, you're actually helping the pimps screw over what was a good site and are satisfying their greed. As for motivation, lack of frustration tolerance isn't a virtue. He only argues with them because he can't help himself. It doesn't affect the trolls, it feeds the pimps. Just what are we supposed to admire about that?

The commenter that used to be on here that left to beat the shit out of trolls is "taking on the trolls".
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Dec 12, 2015
He only argues with them because he can't help himself. It doesn't affect the trolls, it feeds the pimps
@jljenkins
your comment is "TROLLING" by definition as it is designed to sow discord, its OT, and it has no scientific or evidenciary value
but i am going to answer this once

i try to avoid the intentional troll (like antigorical on AGW threads) because he is not there to actually learn anything OR talk science - he is there to only fight/argue/sow discord

but when someone posts something that is directly in opposition to science or has no evidence, it is important to refute said claims (like dogbert, alchie, jvk, h-a, etc)

hannes posted OPINION, not science, but couched it in terms that infer scientific credibility
that is called pseudoscience

you, however, are simply baiting for an argument (trolling)

PS- there is a difference between pseudoscience and trolling, and i am studying pseudoscience posters
my2cts
4.1 / 5 (17) Dec 12, 2015
And yet, the 5% baryonic universe (or whatever the number is these days ...)

Since you lack the data let me help:
"According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary (baryonic) matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy."
https://en.wikipe...k_matter
can hardly inspire confidence. So, where exactly does your confidence originate?

It is a viable theory AND you have no viable alternative. Prove it wrong and/or develop viable alternatives. And stop complaining.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 12, 2015
OK. After reading those posts, I am going to buy a handgun. These nut cases are a clear and present threat. They're running a candidate for POTUS. They're preventing action on climate change. They're endangering my child's health with their anti-vaxxer wisdumb. They're at the core of many violent racist groups.


A lot of hate within the context of all that rhetoric. So you believe in the torture of those opposed to your beliefs with this quote:
Enough is enough. Time to pass a few amps between each testicle of every "electrical cosmologist".
But I suppose you imagine you should be exempted from the hate brigade because you are an AGW? I clicked the Report Abuse button on you.

Hat1208
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2015
@Benni
Kinda the pot calling the kettle black
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 12, 2015
@Stumpy,

Just curious given your past track record of your name calling & foul mouthed profanity along with making threats of ID theft on those who disagree with you, have you clicked the Report tab on "jijenkins"? I'm surmising you probably have not in your quest for additional members of the 1 Star Vote Brigade.

I noticed who the first 1 Star vote on me was over on the Skyscraper circuit design chip, yeah go take a look. I also answered Axemaster, Ant Phy, & your question as well. It was the correct answer because this is my profession, not my hate vote hobby.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2015
@Benni
Kinda the pot calling the kettle black


Ok, so you too want to grovel around in the mire of the name calling & profanity that goes on within the ranks of the 1 Star Vote Brigade here.

So just let me ask you too: Did you Report "jijenkins"? How about Report clicks by Axemaster? Anti Alias Phy? VietVet? MM? ......you know, all the usual suspects within that 1 Star Vote Brigade.

Here's an even more poignant question: Have you ever clicked the Report button on me? After all I don't grovel around in the use the jijenkins & Stumpy skillset of language., and maybe you find that offensive?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2015
have you clicked the Report tab on "jijenkins"?
@benji
no. why would i?
and as for "past name calling" ... there is a difference between labeling someone and simply calling names
you think you are smarter than everyone else (Dunning-Kruger) so you denigrate people with commentary like "if you studied Einstein like i have" or "if you knew how to do ODE's like i do"... problem is, you have never demonstrated your ability and you HAVE demonstrated that you are definitely NOT educated as claimed
that part is proven time and again on PO- so don't bother arguing about it
the Skyscraper circuit design chip, yeah go take a look
and you begin that whole post with "because you do not understand why" as well
again, just because your mom told you that you're smart doesn't mean that you really are

your claims re: differential equations - except you CAN'T do them
proof: http://phys.org/n...ood.html

that's just 1 thread
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2015
@benji cont'd
and normally i just ignore your posts as well, because you don't have anything of content to add, but feel it is relevant to "poke the troll" in this case
why?
because people like you are demonstrative of the failure in culture with regard to scientific literacy

you make a CLAIM, yet you cannot substantiate said claim with evidence (mostly you brag about your own ability, but can't prove it)
this is argument from authority, though you perceive yourself to be said authority
this is the very definition of Dunninng-Kruger, as you can't demonstrate your braggadocio, but you think you've been able to actually show intelligence WRT subjects

you give some of the best examples of someone who can't substantiate claims as well as Dunning-Kruger... and you also perfectly exemplify Rule 37 (there are no [insert claim here] on the internet)

you are a research psychiatrists wet dream and your continued posting is harvested as examples
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 12, 2015
People, we can all do benni a great service with the ignore option.
Lets take the fun out of being an idiot.
plasmasrevenge
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2015
Re: "Time to pass a few amps between each testicle of every "electrical cosmologist"."

Be sure to count Plato as one of this group ... and by association, presumably Socrates, no? ...

From Plato's Dialogues at https://books.goo...pg=PA367

"Phaethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burned up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now, this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving around the earth and in the heavens, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth recurring at long intervals of time"

"All of these stories, and ten thousand others which are still more wonderful, have a common origin; many of them have been lost in the lapse of ages, or exist only as fragments; but the origin of them is what no one has told."
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2015
... "electrical cosmologist"
Be sure to count Plato as one of this group ... and by association, presumably Socrates, no?
@plasmasdysentery
no
|
Plato (and Socrates) were using, in their culture and world, the latest information to make presumptions about the world around them in the most descriptive way possible

Now, as philosophers in their day, they used primarily logic to determine the workings of the universe as they knew it (they didn't understand gravity, for instance)

their use of colloquial mythology as supposition and description is NOT electrical or plasma universe as they had NO idea what either of the latter might be

modern people do NOT have the same excuse because of free access at libraries to the internet and sites like this: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

http://www.pppl.gov/

so your comment is like ASSuming cro-magnon man to be A/C pilot's because they had all the requisite appendages
plasmasrevenge
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2015
Re: "their use of colloquial mythology as supposition and description is NOT electrical or plasma universe as they had NO idea what either of the latter might be"

Let's not forget that one of the world's leading plasma physicists, Anthony Peratt, traveled the globe cataloging the rock art drawn by these people and their antecedents. The point which you seem keen on ignoring is that there is potentially important knowledge to be learned from these people about plasmas.

And your own point that they knew less than us about the technical aspects of this subject is not just unimportant. It's also once again self-serving.

I'm afraid that you are only demonstrating my point that in the event of an impending large-scale event, your own inclination will not be to serve the people of the world by doing a comprehensive survey of what is claimed. Your approach would be an arrogant one which will either produce a triumph for your own specific worldview -- or the world be damned.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2015
Let's not forget that one of the world's leading plasma physicists, Anthony Peratt, traveled the globe cataloging the rock art drawn by these people and their antecedents
@plasmasdysentery
1- that in NO WAY validates his claims to eu or pseudoscience
2- by all means, prove plato et al carved those rocks (LOL)
3- fearing an unknown natural phenomenon was common in multiple cultures: are you going to say the Lakota Contraries were also "electrical cosmologist"? because i can tell you truthfully, regardless of their admiration of lightning, they definitely ARE NOT

this is why ASSumption without evidence and validation keep destroying the eu and your specific claims, BTW
And your own point that they knew less than us about the technical aspects of this subject is not just unimportant
so... it IS evidence for you but not evidence against you?
confirmation bias is your friend, Dunning-Kruger boy
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2015
@dysentery-boy cont'd
The point which you seem keen on ignoring is that there is potentially important knowledge to be learned from these people about plasmas
this is like saying you can learn archery from a mute quadriplegic because he watched robin hood a lot as a kid in a bed

if they couldn't possibly know what a PLASMA was, how can you learn about plasma? because they sure won't say "hey look! that lightning must be plasma, i bet its like the sun!"
I'm afraid that you are only demonstrating my point that in the event of an impending large-scale event
actually, you are demonstrating MY point even better...

how will faerie circles, dwarven hammers and elf poop help the next "impending large-scale event"?
they won't
just like investing money in a known pseudoscience, religion, "we-didn't-land-on-the-moon" anti-science will not help anything

it would be like pouring money into filing helium Balloons to tie to the earth to change orbit
(i bet you would try this)
indio007
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2015
Stumpy, modern cosmology has to rely on the emperors new clothes to even explain it's gravitational theory. That's pseudo science.

Hat1208
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2015
@Indio
Explain GPS
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 12, 2015
Captain Stumpy, whoever you are, I admire the fact that you take on the nut cases.


Don't. Look at this "story", on the site. [....] As the comment from AGW says, this isn't a science site anymore. The pimps that bought it are using science as the bait to attract trolls and that traffic generates revenue for the greedy bastards. That doesn't work unless people argue with them. When you "take on" the trolls, you're actually helping the pimps screw over what was a good site and are satisfying their greed. As for motivation, lack of frustration tolerance isn't a virtue. He only argues with them because he can't help himself. It doesn't affect the trolls, it feeds the pimps. Just what are we supposed to admire about that?


They installed an ignore-option.

But there is no actual science discussions here because people like CaptainStumpy routinely double the number of crank posts by jerry-springer'ing every thread.
Captain Stumpy
3.6 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2015
Stumpy, modern cosmology has to rely on the emperors new clothes to even explain it's gravitational theory. That's pseudo science
@indio007
surely you jest?

are you stating that GR and Newtonian mechanics are false?

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...

Newtonian mechanics and GR are some of the best tested physics of our day, as you can see by some of the evidence linked in the following pages

https://en.wikipe...lativity

https://en.wikipe...echanics

if you have a refute to demonstrate otherwise (peer reviewed journal, validated like the links/studies in the wiki article above) then by all means, show your hand and lets go get that Nobel!

I promise to give you full credit to the college when i submit it (so i will need your name to go with it)
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2015
Quoted for posterity. There is no actual science discussions here
so you've quit trying to actually talk ANYTHING so you can troll?

OKEE DOKEE

now i know i can just ignore your posts, right?
especially since i know you will add zero content (which is a relief, because your ad nauseum posting of subjective philo-double talk circular reasoning gets boring as all h*ll)

don't forget to uprate yourself and pat yourself on the back
https://www.psych...ttle-ego

https://en.wikipe...r_effect

Report of discovery of large object in far outer edges of solar system incites skeptical reactions December 12, 2015, 4:35 pm 1 Noumenon
i see my comments here and on the other thread really got to you!
http://phys.org/n...rld.html

i wonder why?

hate being outed, philo-girl?
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 12, 2015
He only argues with them because he can't help himself. It doesn't affect the trolls, it feeds the pimps
@jljenkins
your comment is "TROLLING" by definition as it is designed to sow discord, its OT, and it has no scientific or evidenciary value
but i am going to answer this once


LOL,... 98% of your posts are nothing more than jerry-springer'esque nonesence with zero actual scientific substance, yet you have the nerve to call trolling, pointing out how you're damaging the site? I never actually see you post anything scientific. You're truly delusional.

but when someone posts something that is directly in opposition to science or has no evidence, it is important to refute said claims

No its not. And you don't actually refute such claims,... you just post your repetitive incantations about what science is and is not, without ever stating WHY the person is wrong,... only accusations, insults, and name calling.

Mastoras
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2015
there is no "electrical cosmology" view... there is astrophysics/cosmology and there is pseudoscience


Well..., if you do that again, I will very angrily give you 1 star, because you are feeding the troll.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 12, 2015
because you don't have anything of content to add, but feel it is relevant to "poke the troll" in this case
why?because people like you are demonstrative of the failure in culture with regard to scientific literacy

you make a CLAIM, yet you cannot substantiate said claim with evidence (mostly you brag about your own ability, but can't prove it


And this is how you & the rest of the 1 Star Vote Brigade explain my succinct explanation to the questions you were posing on the Skyscraper circuit chip design? I gave you the correct answer that none of you had the "scientific literacy" to figure out, and all that did was raise your hackles in defiance of the only kind of language skills you have, this accompanying your admission you wouldn't hit the Report button on jijenkins who espouses TORTURE for anyone not part of the 1 Star Vote Brigade.

You think the most VILE response to your name calling & foul mouthed profanity is to call into question your math skills.

Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2015
December 12, 2015, 7:43 am 1 Captain Stumpy Vietvet Uncle Ira greenonions tooty

......and here many of them are, the 1 Star Vote Brigade, none of whom reject jijenkins call for TORTURE for those who dare to disagree with them.
greenonions
4 / 5 (12) Dec 12, 2015
Benni - would it be too much for you to wonder why people are down voting you? My assumption is that you do care about being down voted - otherwise you would not turn threads into a pity party - because someone gave you a one.

Look back at every comment you have put on this thread. Not one discusses the science.

I guess I need to discuss the science. - I agree with Captain - science asks for evidence - not philobabble.
indio007
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2015
Stumpy, modern cosmology has to rely on the emperors new clothes to even explain it's gravitational theory. That's pseudo science
@indio007
surely you jest?

are you stating that GR and Newtonian mechanics are false?

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...

Newtonian mechanics and GR are some of the best tested physics of our day, as you can see by some of the evidence linked in the following pages

https://en.wikipe...lativity

if you have a refute to demonstrate otherwise (peer reviewed journal, validated like the links/studies in the wiki article above) then by all means, show your hand and lets go get that Nobel!

I promise to give you full credit to the college when i submit it (so i will need your name to go with it)


It refutes itself by the introduction of dark matter to explain observation.
GR proponents are the ones making extraordinary claims.
BTW that was a sad attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2015
I guess I need to discuss the science. - I agree with Captain - science asks for evidence - not philobabble.


So this is "science"?:
"Enough is enough. Time to pass a few amps between each testicle of every "electrical cosmologist"
.......jijenkins.

Or is this "philobabble"? Greeno, you gave him your 5 Star for this post, so which of the two is it?

I know, we should also put these two questions to the MIT guy who brokers deals with PhysOrg qualifying who can be approved for posting on this site:

Axemaster..............Is it "science" or "philobabble"? Fair is fair.....I gave you an answer over on the Skyscraper chip design that you couldn't figure out, now I want a return for this post by Greeno that I can't figure out.
Mimath224
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2015
I have no idea why I was down voted when I asked a question especially when this thread contains many posts that don't mention the topic at all.
So I'll ask the question again; has anyone done some math (I haven't because I'm not in possession of the astro data) that would substantiate either orbit around the Sun or not. The article only says that scientists have read the paper but consider objects are illusions (random blips etc) and that some are likely to look into it. Does anyone 'in the know' here know if the latter is being pursued?
greenonions
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2015
Benni - first off - I did not give jjjenkins any vote at all.

Second - do you not feel really pathetic - that all you have to do with your time - is complain about who gave who what score on an anonymous voting system - on an internet board?

Third - I am asking you to think about the issue of science. Captain speaks up for the process of science - ie the selection of evidence - over superstition. I encouraged you to think about why - multiple readers may consistently view your posts - worth a down grade. Maybe just stay with the science - instead of having a pity party about a pretty insignificant rating system. Let others use the rating system as they see fit - and stop trying to control the world.
meerling
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2015
The whole electomagnetic universe or whatever you call it, whether pro or con, is totally OFFTOPIC !
Please just shut up about it, I'm sure plenty of people other than me are sick of the yahoos hijacking the discussion of almost every article to blather about that.
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2015
@go
ignore b.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2015
Look back at every comment you have put on this thread. Not one discusses the science.

I guess I need to discuss the science. - I agree with Captain - science asks for evidence


Where did YOU discuss science above? Where did CS discuss science above? CS has 30 posts in this thread,... go back and read them, most of them say basically the same thing over and over, without actual scientific substance.

I give CS a hard time because he makes the mistake of presumptuously insulting me with accusationary style responses and troll rating, all the while avoiding substance.

What is a far more instructive and interesting discussion than jerry-springer combats, is to actually engage the supposed crank into substantive details,... not just simply relaying your naive notion of the scientific method ad nauseum. I have engaged cranks like johanfprins and others here in detail so that I used them for instructive discussion,.... and to "test" my own understanding.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2015
....It is a necessary element and quite ubiquitous in science history to put forth hypothesis. A hypothesis by its meaning does not necessarily require conclusive and immediate evidence. The point of a hypothesis is as a point of departure for further investigation. This is a necessary element in the scientific method for which CS appears not to understand. Another point he misses is that science does not "prove" things. That GR is not omnipotent Truth. Is is susceptible to change if physics is compelled to change it**.

So, therefore it's not counter-science to put forth a hypothesis, as CS entire argument seems to suggest.

Accepting this fact, would then require one to engage the supposed crank into detailed discussion if they were interested in refuting them.

Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2015
What CS and others should understand imo, is that dark-matter IS itself a hypothesis, which is categorically NOT "proven" by Newtonian/GR theory. It is predicted by theory, but remains a hypothesis until it can be directly observed.

** What compells science to change or reject a theory is that observable evidence can not be accounted for in the present accepted theory. Given the rotation velocity of galaxies and clusters and the amount of observable mass, this is indeed the case. The inference of missing mass is a hypothesis.

Where the anti-DM people are going wrong imo, is in putting the cart before the horse....

You don't reject a theory (Newton/GR) without letting that theoy speak to you, i.e....by motivating the hypothesis of DM. Einstein didn't let GR 'speak to him' about expansion of the universe. Dirac's relativistic Schrodinger equation via matrices to square the space-time interval, spoke to science to predict anti-matter,.... etc etc.

Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
I agree with Captain - science asks for evidence - not philobabble.


A giant pile of "evidence" by itself is utterly useless to science without a hypothesis in which to form a synthesis of it in the hopes of establishing or validating a theory. Philosophy is at the heart of the scientific method. An analysis of what constitutes knowledge.

I like CaptainStumpy and think he is a valuable contributor,... but deserves to be my victim when he engages in off topic anti-philosophy, troll-rating ones opinion, insults, presumptions wrt ones state of knowledge, hypocritical posts, lack of actual specific substance, etc.

What is particularly amusing and for which he is evidently unaware, is that 90% of his own posts are about the scientific method,... which is in fact a Philosophy of knowledge. In fact philosophy of science investogates the legitimacy of claims of knowledge, the methods of science, it's implications, what indeed qualifies as science, etc.

Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
The crux of all this being - they observed something, made no speculations as to it's nature (due to insufficient observation) and reported it. Everything else in the article and comment thread is speculative and imaginary "interpretation".
Hopefully, someone takes the cue and INVESTIGATES FURTHER, so as to make a proper delineation of what these guys reported seeing...
Mimath224
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2015
So who agrees with P K Feyerabend? And who agrees with W V Quine etc.?
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2015
OK. After reading those posts, I am going to buy a handgun. These nut cases are a clear and present threat. They're running a candidate for POTUS. They're preventing action on climate change. They're endangering my child's health with their anti-vaxxer wisdumb. They're at the core of many violent racist groups.

Enough is enough. Time to pass a few amps between each testicle of every "electrical cosmologist".


The road to present scientific understanding was paved on the basis of skepticism and freedom of thought, and is strewn with failed hypothesis as a necessary component of its progress.

Your post is orders of magnitude more offensive than one merely being wrong.

greenonions
4.9 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2015
Noumenon
but deserves to be my victim

For me - this statement sums up the entire argument. Who are you - to claim that another person is your "victim"? Captain is discussing the science - when telling people that they are making assertions - without evidence. We watch this happening on a daily basis. Dogbert recently announced "I have not decided if the climate is warming." There is the crux. The collective body of science has made that determination - and my opinion on the subject is irrelevant. Does noumenon et al propose that I collect data on the electric universe, and formulate my own hypothesis - and then promote my hypothesis on the comments section of a web site? How would I collect this data? Does noumenon et al propose that we can litigate the details of the electric universe - in 1,000 character comments? Here is a technical discussion of the EU theory - http://neutrinodr...ked.html Cont.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
Trying to debunk cranks (a technical term meaning proponent of pseudoscience) http://rationalwi...oscience is pointless. Watch a debate between JVK, and an evolutionary biologist. That biologist can present all the evidence supporting evolution - and the debate goes around in circles. Advocating for rigorous science is discussing science. The thing that really interests/bothers me is how you and Benni et al need to control the rating system. There are many cranks, and jerks on this board - that make detailed debate absolutely pointless (antigoracle would be the prime example). It is my prerogative to slap such people a one, and move on. But you and Benni have to control the world - and have big pitty parties over others use of ratings. If you don't like me - give me a one - and move on. A one from antigoracle et al is a compliment. Of course you could create a sock puppet - and stroke your own ego that way. Oh - you already did that....
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2015
So who agrees with P K Feyerabend? And who agrees with W V Quine etc.?


It what sense? It may depend upon the specific scientific field. In the "exact sciences" I tend toward positivism as opposed to scientific-realism, but also think the analytic / synthetic distinction is necessary in science [is MWT or string theory science?]. Feyerabend makes a point wrt how science actually progressed historically [imo theories that merely try to save intuitive understanding, are subjective].

"Each time we get into this log-jam of too much trouble, too many problems, it is because the methods that we are using are just like the ones we have used before. The next scheme, the new discovery, is going to be made in a completely different way." - Richard Feynman

Hat1208
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2015
@greenonions

Thanks for the link. I know that the EU society will never accept the bullet points of the author yet I think the arguments are well reasoned. I am always looking for understanding this seemingly contradictory approach to the universe if for no other reason the zest with which the EU defend their theory

Thanks again keep up the good work.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2015
Captain is discussing the science - when telling people that they are making assertions - without evidence.


In point of fact, he is not discussing science, he is discussing philosophy,.... the scientific method.

One has a choice to prevent littering phys.orgs comment section with crank-bickering , ...you can either click on the Ignore option, or you can make use of your science knowledge to litigate the details of the alternative theory, as THATS how science works, .... and the point above is thats what would making reading this comment section actually interesting and about science....

Here is some evidence ... ----> jerry-springer argumentation is not working as a refutation.

The collective body of science has made that determination

Even a cursory glance at history informs one that scientific-consensus alone, is not a structural component of scientific progress. See the Feynman quote above.

cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
@greenonions

Thanks for the link. I know that the EU society will never accept the bullet points of the author yet I think the arguments are well reasoned.


You can wish the bullet points are well reasoned, but as usual it is nothing but misinformation and a skewed understanding of the proper physics. But you'll never accept that obvious fact.

Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2015
..... My above posts are not meant to advocate for anti-GR or EU theories, as I don't know about them at present, ...but only to defend the act of putting forth alternative hypothesis from inappropriate and irrational argumentation.

There are and were many such hypothesis under development in need of supporting evidence,...quantum objective-reduction, aether, many-worlds, multiverse, loop-quantum gravity, string theory, non-singularity BB,...

Eventually, .....to evolve to a scientific theory, they will have to predict something over and above present theory or at least offer a simpler and coherent formulation, but that can't happen before that capability is at hand, or before it finds coherent mathematical formulation.

Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2015
Noumenon
but deserves to be my victim

For me - this statement sums up the entire argument. Who are you - to claim that another person is your "victim"?


Someone with a sense of humour.

If that sub-phrase sums up my entire argument for you, then you appear to have no interest in objective analysis, or are dishonestly attempting to control by obscuring, the points made. Which is it?

Hat1208
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
@cantdrive85

There is no wishing to it. I think that the arguments are well reasoned. You decry others not accepting your opinion yet you then deny that to me along with taking my response out of context. I simply said that I thought that the arguments were well reasoned not that they are somehow facts. BIOYA
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2015
There is no wishing to it. I think that the arguments are well reasoned.

Point by point shall we? Just to see where your reason lies.

Missing neutrinos- By their own admission, astrophysicists reported less than half of the required neutrinos had been detected. They "solved" this discrepancy by claiming changing flavors, however the solution is based upon assumptions shoehorned to fit the observation.

The author of this blog goes on to say;
"If an alternative theory is to be considered, scientists would need to reject the theory of nuclear fusion at the centre of a star."
Yep, although the tone would suggest this be sacrilege. They go on;
"This would also necessarily lead to rejection of the theories of thermodynamics, gravitation, nuclear physics, statistical physics, electromagnetism, hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics."
This is a completely asinine statement, a strawman of epic proportions. Reasonable? Not even close!

greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
Noumenon
If that sub-phrase sums up my entire argument for you


As usual - down the rabbit hole - and the pointless circularity begins. No that does not sum up your entire argument - it sums up the entire argument. The core of the problem is engaging in back and forth - pointless arguments - which seems to be for the purpose of one-upmanship. One cannot litigate massive subjects such as EU - on a 1,000 word comments section. Plus - these debates have already been had. Read the link I gave - clearly others much more informed than us have had this debate. Using terms like 'my victim' - shows the approach you take to this kind of debate. Then you accuse Captain of 'littering' the comments section.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2015
Convection- Once again, astrophysicists have shown by their own studies there is not enough convection to support the standard theory. Only one percent of the required convection was reported when scientist measured the "convection zone" with an MRI.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3173

The comments regarding the Reynolds/Raleigh properties is another strawman developed by Timmy "The Tool" Thompson, it would seem the author of the blog simply copy/pasted arguments pro-offered by "The Tool" and claimed them as their own. BTW, those fallacious were dismantled here;
http://electric-c...nder.pdf
Reasoned? Fail!

Inverse square law- According to solar theory, the core is 15mil K, direct measurement of the photosphere is 6000K, and the corona is ~5mil K. This hardly follows the ISL, it is only linguistic gymnastics the blog author uses to "debunk" the obviousness.
Reasoned? LOL!

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2015
edit: *fallacious claims*

"Bag of plasma"- Well, it would be interesting to hear what this moron seems to think the Sun is made. By every single account, the Sun is 100% plasma. There is absolutely no aspects of the standard solar theory to explain the variable periodicity of processes in the Sun, whether the 2hr 40min fluctuations, the 11/22 year cycles, flipping of the fields, etc... These items are fully expected in electrical terms.
Proper reasoning? Hardly!

Solar wind/electric field- Once again were dealing with an argument pro-offered by "The Tool". The incorrect physics are being applied by the "debunkers", he is incorrectly using simple electrostatics. The correct physics that need to be applied are those of a low-pressure gas discharge, as such all claims by the "debunkers" are completely meaningless. They aren't even in the same ballpark, they may as well be using GR to describe how your belt holds your pants up.
Reasoned? So far from it, it is pathetic.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
"And then the wheels fell off…-

Hmmm. Towards the end of my research I found a notation on Wikipedia about why "Electric Universe Theory" had been removed."

Nice bullet point regarding the censorship going on at Wiki.
https://www.liber...nection/

It would seem this blogger Psygirl is nothing but a plagiarist, and a pathetic scientist at that! There is no reason, validity, or scientific accuracy in that blog which you claim as "well reasoned".

BIOYA

Nice. At least you present your real character!
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2015
...dark-matter IS itself a hypothesis... NOT "proven" ...remains a hypothesis until it can be directly observed
@nou
1- I never said DM was validated nor have i said it is anything but an observed phenomenon that has a placeholder name (of DM) to define the anomaly, so go whine about that elsewhere

2- there is far more evidence (observed anomalies) for DM than for the eu, which is debunked

3- there is no reason to continually repeat ad nauseum the exact same evidence over and over which refute eu (cross posting)

the eu never produces evidence supporting it, therefore, as it has no evidenciary support then it can be summarily dismissed without refute and acknowledged as pseudoscience (as i did above)

4- the plural of anecdote (or "looks like" evidence) is not data
http://phys.org/n...nce.html

Considering your voting/Sock practices, i find it interesting that you complain about being downrated at all - 1 for 1 exchange between you and i
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
@nou cont'd
... but deserves to be my victim when he engages in off topic anti-philosophy, troll-rating ones opinion blah blah.
this is where we have problems, you know
you call me a troll rater, and yet i always (except for the last 3 days- intentional) vote based upon content... until (important - please pay attention) you, repeat YOU, start your troll rating BS

then i simply apply YOUR tactics to YOU
In fact, i intentionally downrated a few of your better posts simply because you did the same, so i find it interesting that you haven't actually got that point yet, or learned that lesson

I track people/comments... don't you?

i thought you were much more intelligent than that

the rest?
sure, sometimes i DO get OT... and i've needed correction (just ask Blue)
but not when there is subjectivity, pseudoscience or delusion in said argument
i feel philo has no place in science except when the thread allows it

pseudoscience has no place in science
PERIOD
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2015
@nou
one last point (ALSO OT - apologies to everyone else)
Here is some evidence ... ----> jerry-springer argumentation is not working as a refutation
i know you hate it when i engage like i do at times

however - i have a specific mission here on PO that is not just about the science on the threads but about collecting data

i've also mentioned my tactics repeatedly in the past, and the reasoning behind it (had you been paying attention elsewhere)

with few exceptions, my posts are carefully crafted for a specific reason, and though you dislike them, they are necessary for a specific response or reason, and to gain insight

i suggest you actually take me up on the offer and PM me on sciforums because the discussion is not relevant to this thread/topic etc
baudrunner
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2015
here's a link to the image that should have been included with this article, http://blogs-imag...x698.png

Interestingly, after pulling the plug and getting up in the tub this morning I watched the water as it swirled down the drain. I was studying the Coriolis effect, and to my chagrin, and amazement, I could not put a finger on whether it spiraled down the drain in a clock-wise or counter-clock-wise motion, because it kept changing direction on me every few seconds!

I know that discovery of the large object in Centauri's field of view was an accident, because they are still staring at those three stars of the Centauri system. Stop it already, and see what else is out there. Cover the whole sky. Something's coming!
plasmasrevenge
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2015
Re: "Thanks for the link. I know that the EU society will never accept the bullet points of the author yet I think the arguments are well reasoned."

What is striking is the low level of review which seems to pass as sufficient for this group -- namely, a non-reviewed article on the Internet is enough to wipe out an entire cosmological hypothesis which points to (1) one of the few fundamental forces we have and (2) laboratory observations of a state of matter as its basis.

Is it really the case that an Internet article can do all of this? Much of the EU hypothesis is published in IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science. IEEE is the world's largest technical organization, and responsible for much of the semiconductor technology you're using right now to undermine these ideas.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 13, 2015
with few exceptions, my posts are carefully crafted for a specific reason, and though you dislike them, they are necessary for a specific response or reason
.............yeah, better understood as name calling & foul mouthed profanity. Just who do you imagine you're kidding. You wouldn't even 1 Star jijenkins who came here advocating torture, but you 1 Starred my post against his advocacy for such behavior.

Stumpo, you're just a charlatan. Just as jijenkins is a totally worthless piece of human debris in his advocacy for torture, your mentality is in the same classification. You're simply on PO here for social networking seeking friendships for those of like minds, & you find them ensconced in the mindsets of the "jijenkins".
plasmasrevenge
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2015
Benni, the point of Captain Stumpy's activism is easy enough to understand by simply looking up "media manipulation" on wikipedia ...

https://en.wikipe...pulation

"Media manipulation is a series of related techniques in which partisans create an image or argument that favours their particular interests.[1] Such tactics may include the use of logical fallacies and propaganda techniques, and OFTEN INVOLVE THE SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION OR POINTS OF VIEW BY CROWDING THEM OUT, BY INDUCING OTHER PEOPLE OR GROUPS OF PEOPLE TO STOP LISTENING TO CERTAIN ARGUMENTS, OR BY SIMPLY DIVERTING ATTENTION ELSEWHERE."

There is no need to make valid points when your purpose is to simply crowd out the points you are trying to obscure.

What is likely is that Captain Stumpy is simply one of a number of accounts that this person is using to divert from any discussion here which challenges textbook theory. Most likely a grad student, IMO.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
Much of the EU hypothesis is published in IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science
@plasmasdysentery
1- they publish in the engineering journal because it doesn't have astrophysics peer review where it would fail on numerous counts

2- hiding astrophysics in a non-impact journal is like publishing biology in the IEEE- there is no connection and the peer review is non existent

3- it isn't "media manipulation" when you cann't provide evidence supporting your claims or refuting the plasma astrophysics demonstrated in the SM

4- and most importantly: repeating a lie doesn't make it more true
it is the reason you are considered a pseudoscience advocate

if you could prove eu, we would be following the evidence, not talking about your "being suppressed" or " CROWDING THEM OUT" [sic]

in fact, if you had actual valid (and validated) evidence, i would be first in line to accept it
that is how the scientific method works

not by repetition and hand waving
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2015
2- hiding astrophysics in a non-impact journal is like publishing biology in the IEEE- there is no connection and the peer review is non existent
this suggest intentional deceit as well as more, considering the background of some of the eu crowd

especially considering the close working relationship between plasma physicists and astrophysicists (as repeatedly proven by places like PPPL.gov and more)
What is likely is that Captain Stumpy is simply one of a number of accounts that this person is using to divert from any discussion here which challenges textbook theory. Most likely a grad student, IMO
i AM a grad student but i have one, and only one account, unlike you and your cult members

if you had actual validated evidence, i would be first in line to accept it
that is how the scientific method works

not by repetition, misdirection, pseudoscience and hand waving
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2015
Second - do you not feel really pathetic - that all you have to do with your time - is complain about who gave who what score on an anonymous voting system - on an internet board?


@Greeno- On advocacy for torture? And all you want to babble on about is the "score"? The "score" is what tells everybody else here where you your heartfelt sympathies lie, everytime you click that 1-5 Stars, or none at all. You clicked 5's for jijenkins, & so did Stumpo, who you reverently refer to as "Captain".

So what do you imagine Stumpo is Captain of? The Vote Brigade clicking 5 Stars for jijenkins, a self avowed advocate for human torture?
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2015
Plasmarevenge
What is striking is the low level of review which seems to pass as sufficient for this group


So an anonymous comment posted on Physorg by someone named candrive - represents a high level of review - but a detailed web site - that deals with the claims of eu in a very deliberate, and scientific manner - is unacceptable. So neumenon declares that we must discuss the science - but when someone posts a link to a site that clearly does discuss the science - in a clearly informed manner - it is unacceptable.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2015
Beni
You clicked 5's for jijenkins,
No I did not - I already told you that. And you guys are the ones who are having pity parties because some anonymous person on the internet gave you a one

where you your heartfelt sympathies lie,


My sympathies lie with reasonable people - who support the scientific process. I down vote those that I perceive as jerks. I am very clear about this - and have been over it many times. You and Noumenon and others make reasoned debate pointless. I therefore fall back on avoiding the perpetual, circular, down the rabbit hole debates - and slap you a one. Feel free to return the favor - it will not bother me - and I won't have a pity party.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2015
@Greeno- On advocacy for torture? And all you want to babble on about is the "score"? The "score" is what tells everybody else here where you your heartfelt sympathies lie, everytime you click that 1-5 Stars, or none at all. You clicked 5's for jijenkins, & so did Stumpo, who you reverently refer to as "Captain".

So what do you imagine Stumpo is Captain of? The Vote Brigade clicking 5 Stars for jijenkins, a self avowed advocate for human torture?

Why do you care, Benni? You live on an "Estate" with ski trails and everything...:-)
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
@GO, WG
B. is only her to annoy people. He/she stated this on this blog.
It is a pathetic psycho. Drop it or be ignored along with the troll.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2015
Greeno, you have 7 posts below the post jijenkins made in his advocacy for human torture. Not a single one of those posts contains one word of condemnation from you even as you were being challenged to put your position into writing, and you still won't put your position into writing.

......so tell us o'follower of the revered Captain to whom you ascribe such salutary prestige, where is your condemnation of the jijenkins post?

Oh, by the way, while I'm thinking of it.......have you ever seen a Differential Equation in Einstein's GR that you could follow?
hurricane25
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2015
Hopefully within the next few years we will have enough snap shots of this object to do some math and find its distance + size.

I am rooting for the super earth theory as that would be really cool.
hurricane25
3 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2015
---deleted as it was double.
plasmasrevenge
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2015
Re: "they publish in the engineering journal because it doesn't have astrophysics peer review where it would fail on numerous counts"

But, what is "failure" in astrophysics? IEEE counts success by whether or not the device functions. The EU models are simply adaptations of laboratory plasma observations to the cosmological context. Any process which rejects that approach deserves to be questioned.

Neither dark matter nor dark energy are considered failures by astrophysical standards, and yet little-to-no progress has been made on them over the past two decades.

So, what is failure to these people?

It is increasingly clear to many that failure in the astrophysical domain encompasses those ideas which threaten their own preferred ideology. The astrophysical standards are the very problem which demand scrutiny.
greenonions
5 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2015
Benni
where is your condemnation of the jijenkins post?
So you think that you dictate to everyone else on this board - which comments they must, or must not respond to? Some ego huh?

.have you ever seen a Differential Equation in Einstein's GR that you could follow?
No I have not. I topped out in math at pre-calc. If the discussion is ever regarding calculus - I will certainly not pretend that I understand calculus - (well - I know it is about calculating the area under a curve - so you can figure the volume of unusual shaped containers, and acceleration curves and such) smile.

my2cts
Drop it or be ignored along with the troll.
OK - last post - I promise...

Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2015
Benni
where is your condemnation of the jijenkins post?
So you think that you dictate to everyone else on this board - which comments they must, or must not respond to? Some ego huh?


.....well after all Greeno it's you AGWs who care so much about what goes on here on planet Earth. I would think somewhere along the line that advocacy for such conduct, as has been posted here by jijenkins, would be something to ring some alarm bells in your brain, especially since you have given him 5 Stars.

Maybe your revered "Captain" will be stopping by for an obligatory salute from you before long. Or do you bow?

Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2015
@Benni

It's many a year since I was last in a bar but you remind of of the loud mouth know-it-all at the end of the bar. He's friendless so there is some sympathy but it's mainly scorn for his air of unsupported superiority. Basically he's a jerk and so are you.
koitsu
not rated yet Dec 13, 2015
"Some have even tweeted their opinions, insinuating that jumping on the Planet X bandwagon would be sheer folly."

There is insufficient evidence to accept or reject the claim that a brown dwarf or large planet exists beyond Pluto. Therefore, I'm hoping that it is "sheer folly" to claim that it must be a large object for the same reason that it would be sheer folly to claim that it must be a random blip or noise.
Whydening Gyre
4.9 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2015
Oh, by the way, while I'm thinking of it.......have you ever seen a Differential Equation in Einstein's GR that you could follow?

By thw way while I"M thinking bout it - have you?
Would you even recognize one, if you saw it...
gculpex
not rated yet Dec 13, 2015
I wonder what our planet looks like to an alien race in a far away solar system using similar tech to discover other worlds?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2015
Why do you care, Benni? You live on an "Estate" with ski trails and everything...:-)
@Whyde
it all comes back to evidence, really
see, benji fancies herself an engineer and intellectual, but to date, all she can prove is that:
-she is an acerbic braggart who can't do the math she proclaims herself to be proficient at

-she wants us to think she has made money being an engineer

-somehow she is completely computer illiterate (something i've found to be odd... because i've seen reactors- on subs and sites. very tech heavy)

notice she never could do your ODE, and even questioned what ODE meant (which is even a term that my granddaughter knew, oddly enough, and she is only in 9th grade studying the bio-med prep program at her school)

PS- i am a Truck Captain from the fire department (KMCFD & Piney)
not that it actually matters one whit to anyone but my bank
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
what is "failure" in astrophysics?
@plasmasdysentery
this is where you get things backwards
an engineer who "counts success by whether or not the device functions"[sic] can't scale up the "adaptations of laboratory plasma observations to the cosmological context"[sic] because said engineer does NOT have the requisite background in physics and astrophysics to account for the KNOWN factors out there (like gravity)
whereas an astrophysicist would be able to take said "observation" and make note of it (maybe even use it and consider it) it still doesn't take into consideration certain known observed facts, because an ASTRO is trained in plasma physics, whereas an engineer is NOT trained in Astrophysics

this has been one single drilled point i've made for a long time, and even proved it more than a few times along with Thompson and a few others

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2015
@pdysentery cont'd
which leads us to your fallacious argument number two
Any process which rejects that approach deserves to be questioned
this is where you (again) fail to make a case
you see... it is the contention of almost every eu proponent that eu is ignored because it is engineers making the claims, and you can "prove" it is real because: labs
except that you FAIL (every time) to take into consideration that, again, as noted above, ASTRO's are trained in plasma physics and also work WITH plasma physics labs, like this one:
http://www.pppl.g...nnection

then there is the simple FACT that the bulk of the eu proponents also ignore empirical evidence (again, see last link) like magnetic reconnection, which most claim is "pseudoscience"

oddly enough, it is a plasma physics lab posting that, not an "astrophysics" lab... so i wonder where those engineers got it wrong?
PROTIP- they didn't

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
@pdysentery cont'd
Neither dark matter nor dark energy are considered failures by astrophysical standards, and yet little-to-no progress has been made on them over the past two decades
ah, the old standby of "if they don't have evidence now, it means it can't be true"... need i remind you about the Higgs? how about gravity? better yet, a round earth!

do you want to talk about your reasoning for the argument you used, commonly called "god of the Gaps", while insisting your cult like fanaticism is not "religious" and is based upon evidence?

then you go back to the old tired "galileo" argument
It is increasingly clear to many that failure in the astrophysical domain encompasses those ideas which threaten their own preferred ideology. The astrophysical standards are the very problem which demand scrutiny
your eu is not being punished because of ideology, but because of EVIDENCE (or your lack thereof, and violations of known physics)

need i continue?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2015
@pdysentery summation
...threaten their own preferred ideology
the argument against eu is one of evidence, not ideology, and in this, there is NO doubt by any learned or educated physicist who looks at all the data and follows the evidence

if your eu had followed the constraints of the scientific method, we would be having a completely different conversation and would be discussing the work being promoted in astrophysics

some questions you SHOULD be asking:
Why is an engineer trying to break into astrophysics? (is he that crappy at his chosen profession?)

Why isn't the astrophysicist community showing interest in his "plasma physics" when the astrophysicists have plasma physics training and work with plasma physics labs?
(thats a BIG one there, & should be making all your warning bells go off)

education is free: learn the truth
http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

THEN come back and talk
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2015
Enough is enough. Time to pass a few amps between each testicle of every "electrical cosmologist".


..........to date what has become poignant, is the refusal of the AGW/Dark Matter Enclave who live on this site, to downvote the "jijenkins" post as quoted above. However, their MIT guy will come onto this site & demand the removal of Docile who never once used foul mouthed profanity or made an advocacy post for human torture.

@ Axemaster- again I implore you to reinstate your puritanical ambition for the "science" content by those posting on PO. You need to downvote this guy & restate your position for "science" only content on this site, that is unless you think advocacy for torture should be included as "progressive dialogue as an inclusive means of promoting communications within the science community".

We'll see how you do Axemaster, your MIT reputation is being sullied with your continual silence.

Ultron
3 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2015
Why do you care, Benni? You live on an "Estate" with ski trails and everything...:-)
@Whyde
it all comes back to evidence, really
see, benji fancies herself an engineer and intellectual, but to date, all she can prove is that:
-she is an acerbic braggart who can't do the math she proclaims herself to be proficient at

-she wants us to think she has made money being an engineer

-somehow she is completely computer illiterate (something i've found to be odd... because i've seen reactors- on subs and sites. very tech heavy)

notice she never could do your ODE, and even questioned what ODE meant (which is even a term that my granddaughter knew, oddly enough, and she is only in 9th grade studying the bio-med prep program at her school)

PS- i am a Truck Captain from the fire department (KMCFD & Piney)
not that it actually matters one whit to anyone but my bank


I was always thinking, that Benni is male, Im surprised that she is female.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2015

I was always thinking, that Benni is male, Im surprised that she is female.

Ultron@
I believe that is just the Cap'ns way of teasing...
SuperThunder
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2015
Oh, so now I'm coming to grok that the reason the European Universe theorists (EU, what a weird name for it) hate Einstein is that some how Euroverse is against Relativity. I can only imagine what levels of Final Fantasy magic level up system of pseudoscience must be required to explain time dilation with electricity. Like, maybe there's only one time traveling photon in the universe, so the faster you travel the more you're crossing its timeline, so time happens more at once for you? Am I close? I'm hardly trying.
ForFreeMinds
3 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2015
Not being a physicist or astronomer, it would have been helpful if the article mentioned how we see a planet with radio waves. My limited research suggests that hot enough or big enough (which would imply a molten core) planets give off radio waves which suggest that's why they believe it's a "large object." Now I wonder how large enough a planet like object has to be to have a molten core or to give off radio waves.

I find this very cool.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2015
it would have been helpful if the article mentioned how we see a planet with radio waves
@forFree
these might help you
http://www.thenak...=41359.0

http://science.hq...dio.html

http://missionsci...ves.html

http://missionsci...omy.html

http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

that last link is to MIT for free classes without credit (open course ware) and has some great stuff & you don't have to limit yourself to astrophysics, but can explore the various courses

just remember that radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, like light, x-rays, infrared, and more

enjoy
binra
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2015
I read quite a few comments and invite another criteria for discerning signal from noise. Whenever a poster resorts to attempts to invalidate or attack or denigrate others - there is an unwillingness or incapacity to actually communicate.
There is more than 'factual data', there is the interpretation of that data - which is never without agenda. Self-honesty seeks to an openness without merely conforming to pre-existing known or hidden bias. But human beings are not given to self-honesty when they have investment of identity, status, and security at stake. And so the competing of asserted 'realities, models or paradigms' operates like any war, in a world predicated on war - because self-honesty is met with ridicule, demonisation and denial.
The undercurrent emotional conditionings that rule the mind of those who must be perceived to be in conformance to be credible, respectable or acceptable operates a kind of scientism that is presenting itself as a form of coercive agenda
my2cts
4 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2015

The undercurrent emotional conditionings that rule the mind of those who must be perceived to be in conformance to be credible, respectable or acceptable operates a kind of scientism that is presenting itself as a form of coercive agenda

Huh ?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2015
The undercurrent emotional conditionings that rule the mind of those who must be perceived to be in conformance to be credible, respectable or acceptable operates a kind of scientism that is presenting itself as a form of coercive agenda

Huh ?
@My2
it means: "if you believe in mainstream you have a vested interest in protecting the "dogma" presented by authority because of the emotional need to seek validation and maintain firm foundations for belief"

(IOW - science is a religion)

I disagree with your assessment, binra, and i challenge you to support your conclusions with evidence OR (at the very least) some sort of analysis of the data that people are posting

the whole "incapacity to actually communicate" depends heavily on the poster and their historical trends

you CAN research this yourself by tracking the persons posts via the ratings page on the profile of said user

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.