Hubble detects giant 'cannonballs' shooting from star

October 6, 2016 by Karl Hille
This four-panel graphic illustrates how the binary-star system V Hydrae is launching balls of plasma into space. Panel 1 shows the two stars orbiting each other. One of the stars is nearing the end of its life and has swelled in size, becoming a red giant. In panel 2, the smaller star's orbit carries the star into the red giant's expanded atmosphere. As the star moves through the atmosphere, it gobbles up material from the red giant, which settles into a disk around the star. The buildup of material reaches a tipping point and is eventually ejected as blobs of hot plasma along the star's spin axis, shown in panel 3. This ejection process is repeated every eight years, the time it takes for the orbiting star to make another pass through the bloated red giant's envelope, shown in panel 4. Credit: NASA, ESA, and A. Feild (STScI)

Great balls of fire! NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has detected superhot blobs of gas, each twice as massive as the planet Mars, being ejected near a dying star. The plasma balls are zooming so fast through space it would take only 30 minutes for them to travel from Earth to the moon. This stellar "cannon fire" has continued once every 8.5 years for at least the past 400 years, astronomers estimate.

The fireballs present a puzzle to astronomers, because the ejected material could not have been shot out by the host star, called V Hydrae. The star is a bloated red giant, residing 1,200 light-years away, which has probably shed at least half of its mass into space during its death throes. Red giants are dying in the late stages of life that are exhausting their nuclear fuel that makes them shine. They have expanded in size and are shedding their outer layers into space.

The current best explanation suggests the plasma balls were launched by an unseen companion star. According to this theory, the companion would have to be in an elliptical orbit that carries it close to the red giant's puffed-up atmosphere every 8.5 years. As the companion enters the bloated star's outer atmosphere, it gobbles up material. This material then settles into a disk around the companion, and serves as the launching pad for blobs of plasma, which travel at roughly a half-million miles per hour.

This star system could be the archetype to explain a dazzling variety of glowing shapes uncovered by Hubble that are seen around dying stars, called planetary nebulae, researchers say. A is an expanding shell of glowing gas expelled by a star late in its life.

"We knew this object had a high-speed outflow from previous data, but this is the first time we are seeing this process in action," said Raghvendra Sahai of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, lead author of the study. "We suggest that these gaseous blobs produced during this late phase of a star's life help make the structures seen in planetary nebulae."

Hubble observations over the past two decades have revealed an enormous complexity and diversity of structure in planetary nebulae. The telescope's high resolution captured knots of material in the glowing gas clouds surrounding the dying stars. Astronomers speculated that these knots were actually jets ejected by disks of material around companion stars that were not visible in the Hubble images. Most stars in our Milky Way galaxy are members of binary systems. But the details of how these jets were produced remained a mystery.

"We want to identify the process that causes these amazing transformations from a puffed-up red giant to a beautiful, glowing planetary nebula," Sahai said. "These dramatic changes occur over roughly 200 to 1,000 years, which is the blink of an eye in cosmic time."

Sahai's team used Hubble's Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) to conduct observations of V Hydrae and its surrounding region over an 11-year period, first from 2002 to 2004, and then from 2011 to 2013. Spectroscopy decodes light from an object, revealing information on its velocity, temperature, location, and motion.

The data showed a string of monstrous, super-hot blobs, each with a temperature of more than 17,000 degrees Fahrenheit - almost twice as hot as the surface of the sun.

The researchers compiled a detailed map of the blobs' location, allowing them to trace the first behemoth clumps back to 1986. "The observations show the blobs moving over time," Sahai said. "The STIS data show blobs that have just been ejected, blobs that have moved a little farther away, and blobs that are even farther away." STIS detected the giant structures as far away as 37 billion miles away from V Hydrae, more than eight times farther away than the Kuiper Belt of icy debris at the edge of our solar system is from the sun.

The blobs expand and cool as they move farther away, and are then not detectable in visible light. But observations taken at longer sub-millimeter wavelengths in 2004, by the Submillimeter Array in Hawaii, revealed fuzzy, knotty structures that may be blobs launched 400 years ago, the researchers said.

Based on the observations, Sahai and his colleagues Mark Morris of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Samantha Scibelli of the State University of New York at Stony Brook developed a model of a companion star with an to explain the ejection process.

"This model provides the most plausible explanation because we know that the engines that produce jets are accretion disks," Sahai explained. "Red giants don't have accretion disks, but many most likely have companion stars, which presumably have lower masses because they are evolving more slowly. The model we propose can help explain the presence of bipolar planetary nebulae, the presence of knotty jet-like structures in many of these objects, and even multipolar planetary nebulae. We think this model has very wide applicability."

A surprise from the STIS observation was that the disk does not fire the monster clumps in exactly the same direction every 8.5 years. The direction flip-flops slightly from side-to-side to back-and-forth due to a possible wobble in the accretion disk. "This discovery was quite surprising, but it is very pleasing as well because it helped explain some other mysterious things that had been observed about this star by others," Sahai said.

Astronomers have noted that V Hydrae is obscured every 17 years, as if something is blocking its light. Sahai and his colleagues suggest that due to the back-and-forth wobble of the jet direction, the blobs alternate between passing behind and in front of V Hydrae. When a blob passes in front of V Hydrae, it shields the red giant from view.

"This accretion disk engine is very stable because it has been able to launch these structures for hundreds of years without falling apart," Sahai said. "In many of these systems, the gravitational attraction can cause the companion to actually spiral into the core of the red giant star. Eventually, though, the orbit of V Hydrae's companion will continue to decay because it is losing energy in this frictional interaction. However, we do not know the ultimate fate of this companion."

The team hopes to use Hubble to conduct further observations of the V Hydrae system, including the most recent blob ejected in 2011. The astronomers also plan to use the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile to study blobs launched over the past few hundred years that are now too cool to be detected with Hubble.

The team's results appeared in the August 20, 2016, issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

Explore further: Hubble views a colorful demise of a sun-like star

More information: R. Sahai et al. HIGH-SPEED BULLET EJECTIONS DURING THE AGB-TO-PLANETARY NEBULA TRANSITION:OBSERVATIONS OF THE CARBON STAR, V HYDRAE, The Astrophysical Journal (2016). DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/92

Related Stories

Hubble views a colorful demise of a sun-like star

September 26, 2016

This image, taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, shows the colorful "last hurrah" of a star like our sun. The star is ending its life by casting off its outer layers of gas, which formed a cocoon around the star's ...

New Hubble image of the Twin Jet Nebula

August 26, 2015

The shimmering colours visible in this NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image show off the remarkable complexity of the Twin Jet Nebula. The new image highlights the nebula's shells and its knots of expanding gas in striking ...

Galactic fireworks illuminate monster hydrogen blob

September 21, 2016

An international team of researchers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) and other telescopes has discovered the power source illuminating a so-called Lyman-alpha Blob – a rare, brightly glowing, ...

Hubble gazes at R Sculptoris and its hidden companion

January 14, 2015

This NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows the region around a star known as R Sculptoris, a red giant located 1,500 light-years from Earth in the constellation of Sculptor. Recent observations have shown that the material ...

A celestial butterfly emerges from its dusty cocoon

June 10, 2015

Some of the sharpest images ever made with ESO's Very Large Telescope have, for the first time, revealed what appears to be an ageing star giving birth to a butterfly-like planetary nebula. These observations of the red giant ...

Recommended for you

Solar minimum surprisingly constant

November 17, 2017

Using more than a half-century of observations, Japanese astronomers have discovered that the microwaves coming from the sun at the minimums of the past five solar cycles have been the same each time, despite large differences ...

Lava or not, exoplanet 55 Cancri e likely to have atmosphere

November 16, 2017

Twice as big as Earth, the super-Earth 55 Cancri e was thought to have lava flows on its surface. The planet is so close to its star, the same side of the planet always faces the star, such that the planet has permanent day ...

91 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

multiman_dan
4.5 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2016
Stop using Fahrenheit and miles. They make absolutely no sense. The scientific world is METRIC.
Shootist
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 06, 2016
Stop using Fahrenheit and miles. They make absolutely no sense. The scientific world is METRIC.


There are two kinds of nations on the planet.

Those that sent men to the Moon and those that use metric.
Zorcon
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2016
Stop using Fahrenheit and miles.

Be thankful they do... most popular science writing uses units like "London buses," "football fields" and "20-story buildings" for length. And 2-dimensional measurements like "the size of Texas" for the volumes of asteroids!

They make absolutely no sense.

Fahrenheit and miles do make sense, they're just harder to use.

The scientific world is METRIC.

This part is true.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2016
Hi Shootist. :)
Stop using Fahrenheit and miles. They make absolutely no sense. The scientific world is METRIC.


There are two kinds of nations on the planet.

Those that sent men to the Moon and those that use metric.
Mate, take a moment out from your unwarranted boasting in order to realize that Werner Von Braun and his team of German/Nazi scientists and technicians were brought up in, and used the Metric system in all their scientific/engineering research/invention etc. :)

PS: Does anyone here know if their actual moon-program work was done using Metric or Imperial system and/or did they have to convert between the two depending on who was 'reading' their work/designs plans/instructions?
BartV
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2016
Shoot, you are funny!
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 06, 2016
Stars ejecting blobs of matter? They could very well be observing stellar or planetary birthing. The red giant could be a Mother star rather than a dying star.
Bigbangcon
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2016
"giant 'cannonballs' shooting from star!"

Star ejecting cannonballs by itself, without any presence of black hole, merger, collision etc.? What apostasy! blasphemy! sacrilege!
neiorah
1 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2016
*_dan get a life and interact with the world more. If you know anything of the world around you there is always more than one way to get the same task completed. You must not be that intelligent or worldly, poor baby.
clint420601
4 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2016
Stop using Fahrenheit and miles. They make absolutely no sense. The scientific world is METRIC.


There are two kinds of nations on the planet.

Those that sent men to the Moon and those that use metric.


There are two kinds of nations:
Those that hit Mars because of an English/Metric mixup and those who pull off successful Mars missions.

OH! Wait. They are the same nation.

100 kph sounds faster than 60 mph.
Hmmm, maybe you have a point; 20 mpg is only 9 km/ll.
barakn
4.5 / 5 (17) Oct 06, 2016
Stop using Fahrenheit and miles. They make absolutely no sense. The scientific world is METRIC.


There are two kinds of nations on the planet.

Those that sent men to the Moon and those that use metric.

Liberia and Myanmar sent men to the moon?
Chris_Reeve
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 06, 2016
@cantdrive85 - This article led me to re-read some portions of Wal Thornhill's short book, "The Electric Universe" ... and oh my!

We should be taking a closer look at what he says about the dwarf stars. It's a surprisingly detailed overview of the stellar "lifecycle" which seems to agree with these observations matching the birth of a planet/star.

It seems possible that these astronomers were robbed of recognition. The recognition will apparently only occur retrospectively.
JB85
4.5 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2016
It is interesting how the smaller body, accretion disk, L1 and L2 points move through the larger body at close approach.
Andrew Palfreyman
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2016
Goodness Gracious
FredJose
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2016
This is the long sought after alien star drive at work.........! The projectiles are space ships starting out on their interstellar missions. They need to be so big in order to provide the required acceleration for the tiny magnetically shielded capsule riding on the tip.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2016
This is the long sought after alien star drive at work

I've heard about long waiting times at airline terminals, but 8.5 years is ridiculous (and if you're unlucky the next flight will be going the wrong way)
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2016
@cantdrive85 - This article led me to re-read some portions of Wal Thornhill's short book, "The Electric Universe" ... and oh my!

We should be taking a closer look at what he says about the dwarf stars. It's a surprisingly detailed overview of the stellar "lifecycle" which seems to agree with these observations matching the birth of a planet/star.

It seems possible that these astronomers were robbed of recognition. The recognition will apparently only occur retrospectively.


Lol. Why would anyone read anything by the idiot Thornhill? Perhaps you could give us all a brief resume of his contribution to science, as it currently stands?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2016
Fahrenheit and miles do make sense, they're just harder to use
Computers have absolutely no problem using them.
Gigel
3 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2016
Stop using Fahrenheit and miles. They make absolutely no sense. The scientific world is METRIC.

That's nothing compared to quadrillions and quintillions. Luckily researchers don't use those.
Chris_Reeve
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2016
Re: "Lol. Why would anyone read anything by the idiot Thornhill? Perhaps you could give us all a brief resume of his contribution to science, as it currently stands?"

Here's a tip:

When a mainstream astronomer or theorist uses technical terms like "blob", "bubble" or "cannonball", it's oftentimes the case that there is a more appropriate term available from the plasma laboratory that they've decided to ignore.

(Realize that this will be a source of humor for people in the future)
MorganW
5 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2016
Do these plasma balls decay into matter, or do they just continue drifting as blobs of plasma forever? What happens when they hit something?
Gigel
5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2016
Chris & al., why don't you just leave scientists do science as they think fit, instead of trying to impose your worldview on them? And if you try to convince them otherwise, then at least bring evidence they can take into account. Not just some web pages or comments. Write articles and publish them in journals they read. Or else, as I said, leave them (and us) alone.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2016
Re: "Lol. Why would anyone read anything by the idiot Thornhill? Perhaps you could give us all a brief resume of his contribution to science, as it currently stands?"

Here's a tip:

When a mainstream astronomer or theorist uses technical terms like "blob", "bubble" or "cannonball", it's oftentimes the case that there is a more appropriate term available from the plasma laboratory that they've decided to ignore.

(Realize that this will be a source of humor for people in the future)


And what has that got to do with the nonentity Thornhill? Is he a leading plasma physicist? Last time I checked he was still a crank, with nothing of any note to his name in the scientific record.
Phys1
4 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2016
Fahrenheit and miles do make sense, they're just harder to use
Computers have absolutely no problem using them.

After converting them into metric units.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2016
After converting them into metric units.


Via binary :)
Bongstar420
3 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2016
Here is how you make a plasma gun
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2016
why don't you just leave scientists do science as they think fit

You don't let the insane run the asylum, and you don't let astrophysicists invent more unicorns.
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2016
Re: "And what has that got to do with the nonentity Thornhill? Is he a leading plasma physicist? Last time I checked he was still a crank, with nothing of any note to his name in the scientific record."

I wouldn't disagree that Thornhill is a crank. But, I'd disagree that crank is a pejorative term.

The Copernican Revolution was created by a crank. His name was Galileo. Modern accounts of Galileo show him frequently getting ahead of the data in his claims. He was rude. He pushed his beliefs aggressively.

The difference between Galileo and Thornhill, however, is that Thornhill has access to much more data and information, and is able to formulate more nuanced arguments.

Has it maybe occurred to you that science actually benefits from cranks?

These are basically divergent thinkers. They're not just reacting; they're also creating.

Galileo, of course, also faced peer review, and he had to come up with creative ways to get past it.
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2016
If your worldview makes questioning assumptions so rare that it basically never occurs, then what we can say is that the next big idea will not come from you.

If your worldview is based upon simplistic schemes for differentiating science from pseudoscience, what we know is that you will filter out any impending scientific revolution.

If your worldview is that ideas will flourish without promoters, it probably means you've never come up with a new idea yourself.

If what you're saying is that there is no need for people to challenge mainstream science, it seems to me that you're creating the possibility of perpetual stagnation.

If you would have us believe that there have been no mistakes in the textbooks at the fundamental level, then I would have to ask what effort you've put into trying to find them.
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2016
Re: "Chris & al., why don't you just leave scientists do science as they think fit, instead of trying to impose your worldview on them? ... Write articles and publish them in journals they read. Or else, as I said, leave them (and us) alone."

Martín López Corredoira: Cosmologist / Astrophysicist / Philosopher / Published 50 Academic Papers, Often as Lead

The Twilight of the Scientific Age

"Creativity is blocked. It seems that the system gives the message that no ideas are needed. It seems the system, through its higher authorities, is saying that science only needs to work out the details. It is accepted that the basis of what is now known is correct, that present-day theories are more or less correct and only manpower is needed to sort out some parameters of minor importance. A Copernican revolution is totally unthinkable within the current system."
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2016
[...]

"A superficial view may lead us to think that we live in the golden age of science but the fact is that the present-day results of science are mostly mean, unimportant, or just technical applications of ideas conceived in the past."

"There are several reasons to write about this topic. First of all, because I feel that things are not as they seem, and the apparent success of scientific research in our societies, announced with a lot of ballyhoo by the mass media, does not reflect the real state of things."

"People who dedicate great effort and time to thinking about new ideas in science are not paid enough attention."
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2016
[...]

"From my own experiences and those of others, I have observed that doors are opened and offers made to those who are servile and uncritical. A lot of work must be produced, but without any great aspiration towards saying something important. To obtain an academic position, to obtain tenure, to be successful in obtaining research funds, etc. it is necessary to conform."

So, to answer your question:

The reason why scientists should not be left to do science as they think fit is because some of these very scientists have spoken out very publicly on why science is broken.

It seems that the difference between me and you is that I have actively sought these people and their claims out. I've tried to understand what is wrong, by listening to the academic whistleblowers. And I incorporate their worldview into my own.

Not everybody that speaks out against the mainstream is an outsider.
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2016
@Gigel I think maybe you should explain why the public should just ignore academic whistleblowers. What's the thought process happening behind that approach?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2016
@CR/HA,
"People who dedicate great effort and time to thinking about new ideas in science are not paid enough attention."


That pretty much sums up what you've taken christ knows how many words to say. Pretty much sums up the Velikovskian EU delusionists; lots of meaningless prose, and zero science. People will actually take alternate ideas seriously when they start couching them in proper scientific language (i.e. maths, for the most part). They will take them seriously when they stop obfuscating, misrepresenting and just downright lying in their non-stop anti-science agenda. Take Thornhill's 'Electric Comet' crap as an example. Utter rubbish, based on lies and omissions, misrepresentation and obfuscation. Scientifically worthless. Purely designed to sell more books and DVDs to the gullible.
Do you really think anybody associated with that nonsense has a right to be taken seriously?

So, I'll summarise my post into a few words, too; do the science, or shut the hell up.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2016
science actually benefits from cranks?
@reeve/hannes
LOL
if you really believed this you would see a homeopath & a Voodoo practitioner to perform your next surgery because you think they can teach the doctors and medical practitioners how to "get it right" due to their long history on earth

the reason pseudoscience isn't beneficial to science is simple: it doesn't conform to the constraints of the scientific method
AND
it really can kill people when they ASSume that it has the same legitimacy as the science being promoted by peer reviewed journals

you don't even need a degree, although it helps you prevent stupid mistakes (like the eu cult bullsh*t EDM moon craters, etc)

what you DO need, though, is evidence... evidence that can be repeated, validated and doesn't violate the laws of physics

and that right there is why the eu cult isn't a science; it's a religion: lack of evidence and fanatical true believers regardless of the refuting evidence
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 08, 2016
@Capt,
Yep, plus inevitable reference to Gallileo! Difference is, he had proof for his claims. Demonstrable. Which is why it was accepted quickly outside of the catholic states of Europe.
On the other hand, we have:
"Comets are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history. Comets are similar to asteroids, and their composition varies. Most comets should be homogeneous – their interiors will have the same composition as their surfaces. They are simply "asteroids on eccentric orbits"."
http://aetherforc...talbott/

Which, of course, is scientifically illiterate nonsense, by somebody that doesn't have much of a clue about science. It's all to do with mythology. He believes comets were ejected from rocky planets by interplanetary lightning bolts (I kid you not), and is influenced by Velikovsky, as well as Talbott's drivel.
Nothing to do with science.
Chris_Reeve
1.3 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "People will actually take alternate ideas seriously when they start couching them in proper scientific language (i.e. maths, for the most part)"

You seem to not realize that when the heliocentric paradigm was initially presented, it offered no real technical advantage over the ptolemaic system ...

(1) The math was not simplified.

(2) There were the same number of circles in both.

(3) Neither was particularly more accurate than the other.

The reason it gained adherents is because it was useful for solving puzzles which were created by the former Ptolemaic worldview.

You've invented a narrative that the reason that new ideas become accepted is because they are mathematically attractive -- yet, most hypotheses start out as concepts or observations and the math slowly accumulates as adherents accumulate.

That's the pattern.
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "Yep, plus inevitable reference to Gallileo! Difference is, he had proof for his claims."

Sort of. The debate was hardly definitive at that time.

Further, Galileo tried to make his case to the Church by explaining how his theory was not incompatible with proper biblical exegesis.

And he claimed that the ocean tides were caused by the earth's rotation -- an idea that not even his own adherents bought.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2016
^^^None of which has anything to do with why EU proponents are totally (and rightly) ignored by real science.
It's mythology inspired woo. Start actually doing some science, and maybe it'll be read. As it stands, they have nothing to say, and are essentially an anti-science platform.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2016
Here is an example of what I am talking about; MOND, which is not currently thought to be a good explanation for what we see in the universe, as opposed to DM, has its adherents. So instead of just whining and setting up crank science websites to support their cause, they actually attempt to do real science, and get it published. Having done so, it will at least be looked at and assessed:
https://briankobe...-matter/
At least they (or that particular scientist) are doing science in an attempt to overturn the current view. That is not something you could say about EU.
yep
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2016
Capitain and jones are happy with their horse and buggy that new combustion engine is just a silly idea.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2016
Capitain and jones are happy with their horse and buggy that new combustion engine is just a silly idea.


Which is the sort of idiocy I expected. What new science are you talking about? Where is it? You are surely not talking about EU rubbish, which is mythology based crap, so what is it? Where can I see it published where it will actually challenge the status quo? Like the example I gave above, show me the peer reviewed literature, not some crap on a book sales website.
Gigel
5 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2016
Creativity is blocked. It seems that the system gives the message that no ideas are needed. It seems the system, through its higher authorities, is saying that science only needs to work out the details.

That's not true. Ideas are always welcomed, on condition that some evidence supporting them is brought. It's ideas+details that matter. New theoretical results appear all the time; just look on arxiv.org in the General relativity or Quantum mechanics sections. What is wrong however is to try to impose an idea as being the truth; no one knows the truth and without strong experimental evidence an idea cannot be supported as reflecting the truth. And since there are so many theories now, a new theory needs both evidence that it is valid and another evidence that it is better than other accepted theories.
Gigel
5 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2016
@Gigel I think maybe you should explain why the public should just ignore academic whistleblowers. What's the thought process happening behind that approach?

Because their endeavours have little to do with the academic environment or the scientific method? And I'm referring firstly to those who repeatedly post the same alternative theories here. Those scientists who support alternative explanations usually don't try to impose them.
Phys1
5 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2016
The Copernican Revolution was created by a crank. His name was Galileo.

I am surprised that you dare call Galileo a crank.
Only religious fundamentalists, mainstream in those days, would do that.
I'd rather expect you to call him a genius. Or are you trying to suggest all cranks are geniuses?
That would be weird.

Modern accounts of Galileo show him frequently getting ahead of the data in his claims. He was rude. He pushed his beliefs aggressively.

Just like the Great Zwicky !
He must have lost patience with the (religious) ignoramissimi that surrounded him.
Losing patience with ignoramissimi, I can relate to that.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2016
@Gigel,
^^^^Absolutely true. There seems to be some strange belief within certain circles that there is a desire within science to suppress new findings or hypotheses. That new, surprising discoveries, are horrifying to scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you start your degree at 18yrs, the thought that nothing would change in your chosen field before you retired would be awful.
Science is about discovery. Why send missions millions, billions of kilometres, just in the hope of confirming what you already knew? New, unexpected discoveries are the lifeblood of science, such as the discovery of O2 at 67P. Horrified? No, because it tells us more than we previously knew about the formation of both comets and the solar system.
What we don't need is obvious woo being touted as somehow worthy of consideration on an equal footing as real science.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2016
Lest we forget, this exchange started because I questioned CR about why anybody would be reading anything that a crank like Thornhill wrote. CR later admitted that Thornhill was a crank. So my question still stands.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2016
After converting them into metric units
-Well ya that's the point? Doing calcs entails many different conversions, all of which are absolutely no problem for computers.
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "^^^None of which has anything to do with why EU proponents are totally (and rightly) ignored by real science.
It's mythology inspired woo. Start actually doing some science, and maybe it'll be read. As it stands, they have nothing to say, and are essentially an anti-science platform."

Scholars have been studying the astronomical content of mythology since before the advent of modern science.

Mythology is "woo" in the same way that epigenetics is "junk dna".

Although not everybody who follows mythology in detail agrees -- which is normal -- there is good reason to believe that the stories act as mnemonic devices. The part which confuses people -- the anthropomorphizing -- is also the very part which adds emotion to the stories, and therefore the part which ensured that the stories would be remembered.

But, the idea here is simple: People related things they didn't understand in the sky to human behavior.
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "Here is an example of what I am talking about; MOND, which is not currently thought to be a good explanation for what we see in the universe, as opposed to DM, has its adherents. So instead of just whining and setting up crank science websites to support their cause, they actually attempt to do real science, and get it published. Having done so, it will at least be looked at and assessed"

But, you're hand-waiving the fact that MOND is mathematics in search of a physical cause. It hasn't been connected to the real world, so why would anybody care about it? It's the same approach which was tried with string theory -- and notice how now that such an approach was encouraged, the particle physics community has become infected with string theorists, possibly beyond repair. Everybody wants to "study" the universe by playing with equations.

The proper approach is to start with observations and concepts, and formulate the math to suit those needs.
Chris_Reeve
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "Lest we forget, this exchange started because I questioned CR about why anybody would be reading anything that a crank like Thornhill wrote. CR later admitted that Thornhill was a crank. So my question still stands."

Professional opposition to outsiders crossing boundaries of specializations is one of the defining features of modern science, and one of the most powerful forces against heterodox thinkers. But combining insights from multiple fields is often the essential ingredient for making progress. This entrenched opposition to interdisciplinary synthesis ironically ensures that the next big revolution will come from an outsider.

This is why cranks matter.
Chris_Reeve
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "Or are you trying to suggest all cranks are geniuses?"

No, not at all. If you look carefully at the situation, the existence of "cranks" is simply a consequence of the features of modern science.

Over-specialization, peer reviews' gatekeeping effect, the positivistic philosophy, the trial-and-error approach taken by Big Science, and the fruitless muddling around on big questions like dark matter each act as a draw for against-the-mainstream theorists who understand the real role of cranks in the history of science.

Fact of the matter is that fan-boy pundits are never remembered by future generations; you have to actually diverge from the pack in some regard to make a diff. Nobody's going to remember how well behaved you were.

My own take is that we should create systems which help cranks to address their problems and get better at what they do -- because they serve a purpose.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2016
Just like the Great Zwicky !
He must have lost patience with the (religious) ignoramissimi that surrounded him.
Losing patience with ignoramissimi, I can relate to that.


Keep your zany family members out of discussions about science. Zwicky's two re-known hypotheses in the discredited Tired Light debacle & eighty years of unproven Dark Matter have never had a basis in science. For sure zany Zwicky has a track record & judging from your own posting track record you have traveled down the same road in your own proclivities for being zany.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 08, 2016
@CR/HA,
Sorry, but that is just more word salad that explains precisely nothing. My point with MOND is that it is at the table because they are doing recognisable science. EU are not. Thornhill is a crank who is not influencing science (never has, never will) precisely because he isn't any good at it. As I mentioned, you only have to look at his electric comet nonsense to see that it made no scientific sense. It was mythology inspired woo. The H2O he talked about had been unambiguously detected at 20+ comets at the time he wrote his nonsense. The mechanism he uses for H2O production is scientifically impossible. He criticises based on press releases, instead of papers. And then he cherry picks his causes. Ice excavated from Tempel 1? Ignore it, just concentrate on a non-existent electrical flash.
The guy is scientifically illiterate, and a conman to boot. It is all to fit in with the idiotic physics defying Velikovskian rubbish he believes in. Nobody will take that seriously.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2016
My own take is that we should create systems which help cranks to address their problems and get better at what they do -- because they serve a purpose.


No, they don't. Unless you count flogging books and DVDs to scientifically challenged fanboys as a purpose.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2016
My own take is that we should create systems which help cranks to address their problems and get better at what they do...


We already have those systems in place - it is called learning science, instead of making s**t up. Thanks to the genius Thornhill, we had people turning up on the Rosetta blog, with drive-by comments when MIRO first detected H2O at 67P, saying, "it's not H2O, you're mistaking it for OH!"
That is the damage that idiots like him can do to people who might actually have a genuine interest in science, but have unfortunately chosen to get their 'education' from somebody who a) doesn't have a clue, and b) will lie and obfuscate to shoehorn everything into his mythology based worldview.
Ignoring the likes of him is the kindest thing we can do - other methods come to mind, but are mostly illegal.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2016
No, they don't. Unless you count flogging books and DVDs to scientifically challenged fanboys as a purpose

You mean like this?
http://www.hawkin...oks.html
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2016
@cd,
Yes. The difference is that people like Hawking, Dawkins etc, etc, have actually a) contributed to science in not a small way, and b) have actually got something interesting to say.
You cannot say that about Thornhill & Talbott. Or Velikovsky. Or Von Daniken. Their contribution to science has been zero.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2016
Expounding on the physics of unicorns, such that which Hawking does, and the fawning of ignoramuses to pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo of the standard theory only hampers progress in science. These are indeed the "dark ages" of Cosmology where fanciful imaginings of astrophysicists are used to explain the blobs that pervade the Universe.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2016
Expounding on the physics of unicorns, such that which Hawking does, and the fawning of ignoramuses to pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo of the standard theory only hampers progress in science. These are indeed the "dark ages" of Cosmology where fanciful imaginings of astrophysicists are used to explain the blobs that pervade the Universe.


Oh p*ss off with your rote learnt pseudoscientific prose. Did that come from Thornhill as well? Penny to a pound it did.
Show us the science. Where is it? How many times do we need to ask? How can we ignore something that doesn't exist? Like I say, your cult has nothing to do with science. Otherwise they'd be doing it. Who are these geniuses with these great ideas? Where are they expounding it?
Does it involve H+ ions combining with non-existent O- ions at 400 km/s? Lol.
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "Sorry, but that is just more word salad that explains precisely nothing. My point with MOND is that it is at the table because they are doing recognisable science. EU are not. Thornhill is a crank who is not influencing science (never has, never will) precisely because he isn't any good at it."

I beg to differ. I've seen Thornhill's paper on sn1987a and I personally compared it against Phil Plait's PhD thesis on sn1987a.

Phil Plait satisfies your criteria of "having influence". Thornhill does not (yet).

Yet, when I read those two papers, it was obvious who had written the better paper. I recommend that any technical-minded individual who wants to give the Electric Universe a spin go through that same process.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "Sorry, but that is just more word salad that explains precisely nothing. My point with MOND is that it is at the table because they are doing recognisable science. EU are not. Thornhill is a crank who is not influencing science (never has, never will) precisely because he isn't any good at it."

I beg to differ. I've seen Thornhill's paper on sn1987a and I personally compared it against Phil Plait's PhD thesis on sn1987a.

Phil Plait satisfies your criteria of "having influence". Thornhill does not (yet).

Yet, when I read those two papers, it was obvious who had written the better paper. I recommend that any technical-minded individual who wants to give the Electric Universe a spin go through that same process.


Thornhill never will, because he doesn't understand some very basic science. Please explain his method of creating H2O at comets. Scientifically. Or his misunderstanding about dust/ gas being collimated (gas is invisible). It's crap. He hasn't a clue.
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2016
I said: "My own take is that we should create systems which help cranks to address their problems and get better at what they do ..."

The response: "We already have those systems in place - it is called learning science ..."

What do the academic whistleblowers have to say on the topic?

Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives (p129, 2001)

"Beginning physics graduate students must devote an entire year or two of their lives to homework. Indeed, the first part of physics graduate school is well described as a boot camp based on homework. One characteristic of any boot camp is that the subject matter the instructors present in their day-to-day work is not really the main thing they are teaching. Teaching the subject matter is certainly one goal, but it is not the main one ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2016
(cont'd)

"... In military boot camp, for example, drill instructors make recruits spend large amounts of time learning to dress to regulation, march in precise formation, chant ditties, disassemble and reassemble rifles, carry heavy backpacks, and so on, yet the main goal of all this is something much more profound: to create soldiers who will follow orders, even to their deaths. Similarly, the most apparent goal of graduate physics courses is to indoctrinate the students into the dominant paradigms, or theoretical frameworks, of physics. But the primary goal is to train physicists who will maintain tremendous discipline on assigned problems."
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2016
^^^Actually, the above should read "creating OH at comets." He denied that they were seeing H2O. Despite 20+ unambiguous detections between 1986 & 2006. How did that manage to pass by his genius? Perhaps it didn't, and perhaps the solid ice ejected at Tempel 1 also escaped his attention. Or more likely didn't fit his book selling woo agenda. The guy is a crank, pure and simple.
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "Please explain his method of creating H2O at comets. Scientifically. Or his misunderstanding about dust/ gas being collimated (gas is invisible). It's crap. He hasn't a clue."

I honestly don't see why it's so controversial. Astrophysicists will eagerly model plasmas as fluids, but when somebody suggests that there is electrochemistry happening within the plasma, the same people get really worked up.

I suppose it's only a fluid insofar as modeling them as such removes their EMF. It cannot -- apparently -- be like a fluid in any other manner.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2016
(cont'd)

"... In military boot camp, for example, drill instructors make recruits spend large amounts of time learning to dress to regulation, march in precise formation, chant ditties, disassemble and reassemble rifles, carry heavy backpacks, and so on, yet the main goal of all this is something much more profound: to create soldiers who will follow orders, even to their deaths. Similarly, the most apparent goal of graduate physics courses is to indoctrinate the students into the dominant paradigms, or theoretical frameworks, of physics. But the primary goal is to train physicists who will maintain tremendous discipline on assigned problems."


Blah, blah, blah. Certainly not in my experience, nor that of anyone I know. Why not go on an actual physics forum and ask the question? Instead of coming out with this interminable anti-science crap on here? Just own up; you are inspired by physics defying Velikovskian nonsense, and that is the same crap that Thornhill is selling.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "Please explain his method of creating H2O at comets. Scientifically. Or his misunderstanding about dust/ gas being collimated (gas is invisible). It's crap. He hasn't a clue."

I honestly don't see why it's so controversial. Astrophysicists will eagerly model plasmas as fluids, but when somebody suggests that there is electrochemistry happening within the plasma, the same people get really worked up.

I suppose it's only a fluid insofar as modeling them as such removes their EMF. It cannot -- apparently -- be like a fluid in any other manner.


No, I said specifically how do you explain his method of creating OH? It certainly isn't from O- - not been seen. The solar wind won't combine with anything at 400 km/s!!!!!! It is utter drivel. As proven by the Rosetta mission. I have no doubt that he will try to put some spin on it, just like he did with Tempel 1; and I have no doubt that his scientifically illiterate followers will buy it. Along with the books.
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "Blah, blah, blah. Certainly not in my experience, nor that of anyone I know. Why not go on an actual physics forum and ask the question? Instead of coming out with this interminable anti-science crap on here?"

Jeff Schmidt's remarks led to the largest freedom-of-speech case in the history of North American physics (And he won that case against the AIP).

Re: "Just own up; you are inspired by physics defying Velikovskian nonsense, and that is the same crap that Thornhill is selling."

No, gravity is the weakest force known.

It does not adequately describe the nature of observations at the interstellar scale. In other words, logically, it is a localized force.

The force exerted between two typically adjacent stars is too small for the stars to gravitationally influence one another.

And in fact, simulations of plasmas that permit the plasmas to conduct (as laboratory plasmas), produce proper galactic rotation curves.
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "The solar wind won't combine with anything at 400 km/s!!!!!!"

I would imagine that -- like all other science -- what is possible depends upon one's assumptions.
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "Or are you trying to suggest all cranks are geniuses?"

No, not at all.

Then why _did_ you call Galileo a "crank" ?
Do you adhere to catholicism anno 1600?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "The solar wind won't combine with anything at 400 km/s!!!!!!"

I would imagine that -- like all other science -- what is possible depends upon one's assumptions.


Oh don't be thick! Look at the energetics involved! What about the numbers? What is the solar wind flux at 1 AU? How many molecules in 1000 litres of water, at peak production? How is the solar wind impossibly combining with anything, when we'd known since '86 that it is getting nowhere near the comet at high production rates?
He made it up! It's rubbish. Non-science. To fit his woo agenda.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2016
And in fact, simulations of plasmas that permit the plasmas to conduct (as laboratory plasmas), produce proper galactic rotation curves.


And have never been seen. And would be. Why do you think Peratt's model fails? By his own prediction of the microwave emission that would be seen? And still failed to predict the formation of other types of galaxies, etc, etc. It's a dead hypothesis. If somebody would like to revive it, there is another couple of decades worth of data out there to leaf through to look for the EM signatures that you need.

optical
Oct 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2016
Re: "Lol. Why would anyone read anything by the idiot Thornhill? Perhaps you could give us all a brief resume of his contribution to science, as it currently stands?"

Here's a tip:

When a mainstream astronomer or theorist uses technical terms like "blob", "bubble" or "cannonball", it's oftentimes the case that there is a more appropriate term available from the plasma laboratory that they've decided to ignore.

(Realize that this will be a source of humor for people in the future)

Here's a real tip: science articles written for lay people often utilize imaginative descriptions of concepts so that those same lay people can imagine they understand what the scientists are actually saying.

Here's another; when your entire scientific understanding comes from the imaginative fantasy of a person who sees giant lightning bolts in the paintings found on cave walls, then you should recognize that you have been duped and spend time learning about real science.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2016
The Copernican Revolution was created by a crank. His name was Galileo. Modern accounts of Galileo show him frequently getting ahead of the data in his claims. He was rude. He pushed his beliefs aggressively.
I find it interesting that you continually try to re-write history.. Or, more precisely, pigeonhole it to match your perverse world view.

The difference between Galileo and Thornhill, however, is that Thornhill has access to much more data and information, and is able to formulate more nuanced arguments.
thereby using pseudo-sciency catch phrases to dupe fools and the gullible into buying his fictional sciency-sounding gibberish

Has it maybe occurred to you that science actually benefits from cranks?

These are basically divergent thinkers. They're not just reacting; they're also creating.
Has it occurred to you that no scientist, anywhere, believes your tripe and foolishness?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2016
"A superficial view may lead us to think that we live in the golden age of science but the fact is that the present-day results of science are mostly mean, unimportant, or just technical applications of ideas conceived in the past."

"There are several reasons to write about this topic. First of all, because I feel that things are not as they seem, and the apparent success of scientific research in our societies, announced with a lot of ballyhoo by the mass media, does not reflect the real state of things."

"People who dedicate great effort and time to thinking about new ideas in science are not paid enough attention."
People who bastardize science and the scientific method to promote fantastical and pseudo-scientific tripe are given too much weight by the gullible and uninformed. Critical thinking and the use of common sense are too often waylaid by such, who are then taken in by the unscientific and often fraudulent commentary of those who would gull the simple.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2016
@Gigel I think maybe you should explain why the public should just ignore academic whistleblowers. What's the thought process happening behind that approach?
A nice strawman you are trying to build here. Academic whistleblowers are those who step forward to expose the false, unscientific meanderings of those who would use sciency-sounding gibberish and dubious claims of equivalency to gull the public. The meanderings of those like Thornhill or D Scott, whose only purpose in promoting their false, unscientific, fantastical and canonical gibberish is self enrichment.

That your gullibleness and utter lack of critical thinking skills, combined with your deep misunderstanding of that which we call science, leaves you open to such utter foolishness is not a testiment to your divergent thinking. Rather it is evidence of your irrationality and your desire for theological idolization. You want to BELIEVE, and damn any evidence that suggests your belief is delusional.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2016
to create soldiers who will follow orders, even to their deaths.
@reeve/hannes
1- those tactics you specifically mentioned are utilised to teach "attention to detail"

2- epic lie: you can't create a robotic soldier with those tactics, you moron... if you want an automatic response for a situation you must train said situation realistically over and over until they no longer think but rather respond with what has been taught - and that just isn't done in basic with the exception of responding to a nuke/bio attack or customs and courtesies (as in: learning to salute officers)

your comment just proved you're incapable of basic research and lied about being a researcher because a call to any Drill sergeat (a real one) or to the Training Command of any branch of service will give you the exact same answer
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2016
The excellent wikipedia article on the Galileo affair makes no mention of scientific opposition, let alone of it playing a role in his trial. Note that whatever a scientist says, there is always some opposition and debate.
Interesting story.
https://en.wikipe...o_affair
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2016
@reeves/alfven cont'd
Throughout their training, trainees are given jobs that require them to develop an attitude of constantly paying attention to detail and precisely following simple instructions. Examples include: setting up their wall lockers and clothing drawers; giving specific reporting statements when they speak; setting up their dorm a precise way; and wearing the uniform properly. When they leave training, they may not have to line up the beds in their dorms but there are a lot of tasks that demand attention to detail and the discipline to properly execute instructions. Torqueing a bolt on a jet engine, loading weapons on an airplane and looking for improvised explosive devices in Iraq require this discipline, officials said.

http://www.milita....00.html
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2016
@optical
I mean your link tells an interesting story.
Apparently, leading astronomers in those days were unable to estimate the inaccuracy of their measurements of stellar positions.
Giordano Bruno already knew that the stars were similar to the sun.
https://en.wikipe...no_Bruno
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2016
@CR/HA,
I honestly don't see why it's so controversial. Astrophysicists will eagerly model plasmas as fluids, but when somebody suggests that there is electrochemistry happening within the plasma, the same people get really worked up.


Sorry, completely forgot about this piece of nonsense. I keep asking CD; what 'electrochemistry'? Please spell it out. Scientifically. What reactions are taking place? Where are the constituents coming from? What is the evidence for such?
And yes, they model the plasma as a fluid, using MHD. Which even CDs hero Alfven says is perfectly fine. Although that had to be pointed out to him, as he'd only bothered to read the parts of Alfven's work that are included in the EU book of standard quotes. Do they give you one of those at the annual EU conference? After you've coughed up the requisite $395? Shysters.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2016
People who bastardize science and the scientific method to promote fantastical and pseudo-scientific tripe are given too much weight by the gullible and uninformed. Critical thinking and the use of common sense are too often waylaid by such, who are then taken in by the unscientific and often fraudulent commentary of those who would gull the simple
I suspect you could say this with far fewer words. Why don't you give it a try?

Brevity is next to brevis you know. At least in the dictionary.

'ars longa, vita brevis'
That your gullibleness and utter lack of critical thinking skills, combined with your deep misunderstanding of that which we call science, leaves you open to such utter foolishness is not a testiment to your divergent thinking. Rather it is evidence of your irrationality and your desire for theological idolization. You want to BELIEVE, and damn any evidence that suggests your belief is delusional
-Ditto.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2016
@TGOO,
^^^^Maybe so, but it is infinitely preferable to Chris Reeve going on for half a page about five-eighths of sod all, including whistleblowers(???), the value of cranks, and 'assumptions', when all we want to know is - why the hell can't they get even basic science right? Why the need to lie and obfuscate? Why all the mythology? And, most pertinently, why would anybody take them the least bit seriously?
All questions which have yet to be answered in a meaningful way.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2016
@optical
I mean your link tells an interesting story.
Apparently, leading astronomers in those days were unable to estimate the inaccuracy of their measurements of stellar positions.

Follow up: they believed the disks that they saw in their telescopes when looking at a star was the real stellar disk. Later it became clear that this was an optical effect. It would be interesting to know if Galileo himself had the insight to understand that the disks were not real.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2016
@jd
Indeed. CR, stop complaining.
Show something tangible.
I will review it here on the spot.
Keep it simple and pointy.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2016
People who bastardize science and the scientific method to promote fantastical and pseudo-scientific tripe are given too much weight by the gullible and uninformed. Critical thinking and the use of common sense are too often waylaid by such, who are then taken in by the unscientific and often fraudulent commentary of those who would gull the simple
I suspect you could say this with far fewer words. Why don't you give it a try?

Brevity is next to brevis you know. At least in the dictionary.

'ars longa, vita brevis'
That your gullibleness and utter lack of critical thinking skills, combined with your deep misunderstanding of that which we call science, leaves you open to such utter foolishness is not a testiment to your divergent thinking. Rather it is evidence of your irrationality and your desire for theological idolization. You want to BELIEVE, and damn any evidence that suggests your belief is delusional
-Ditto.

Nope.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2016
Here's a real tip: science articles written for lay people often utilize imaginative descriptions of concepts so that those same lay people can imagine they understand what the scientists are actually saying.

And in this instance, scientists use "imaginative descriptions of concepts" so that the scientists performing the peer-review can imagine they understand the concepts. Read the paper maggnuts, the "scientists" use the highly technical terminology of "blob" about 100 times to describe these phenomena in this "peer-reviewed" paper. At least both the "scientist" and his "peers" are equally ignorant.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2016
At least both the "scientist" and his "peers" are equally ignorant.


And, almost certainly, far more highly qualified in astrophysics that anyone associated with the EU cult. Not that that would be hard to achieve.

https://science.j...e/Sahai/
https://science.j...e/Sahai/sahai_cv_2015.pdf

Perhaps you could tell us what Wallace & Gromit's qualifications, experience and publications are?
Always amuses me how the followers of the Invisible Lightning Bolt cult have the cheek to call anyone ignorant, given their continued inability to do any sort of science, nor offer explanations of such when pressed. People in glass houses, and all that.

To be honest, they describe the phenomena, and then use the word 'blob' to describe it, probably for the sake of convenience. 'Amorphous mass of stellar plasma', might get a bit tiresome after a while.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2016
^^^^By the way, Sahai, like most lead authors these days, has his e-mail address on the paper. Do EU cultists ever contact these authors for clarification, or to point out their alternative views? I've done it. They're usually only too happy to help.
Or perhaps they haven't got any alternative views that can actually be expressed scientifically? It's all just about their usual anti-science agenda, where they offer no proposals of their own (other than the stock "it's electric" BS).
Perhaps you could come up with an alternative term for the ejected stellar material, and e-mail your suggestion to the good Professor?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2016
People who bastardize science and the scientific method to promote fantastical and pseudo-scientific tripe are given too much weight by the gullible and uninformed. Critical thinking and the use of common sense are too often waylaid by such, who are then taken in by the unscientific and often fraudulent commentary of those who would gull the simple
I suspect you could say this with far fewer words. Why don't you give it a try?

Brevity is next to brevis you know. At least in the dictionary.

'ars longa, vita brevis'
That your gullibleness and utter lack of critical thinking skills, combined with your deep misunderstanding of that which we call science, leaves you open to such utter foolishness is not a testiment to your divergent thinking. Rather it is evidence of your irrationality and your desire for theological idolization. You want to BELIEVE, and damn any evidence that suggests your belief is delusional
-Ditto.

Nope.
Brava.

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.