quote:Originally posted by steven: I don't know if you'll ever stop posting crazy scientific theories that make no sense (like the one from the sci-fi author who believed that the Moon craters were from giant lightning bolts between celestial bodies...the guy even said he thought Venus was created from Jupiter...didja think that one through?)
Space is replete with electrically charged plasmas.
posted
The article that Lisa linked is pure, unadulterated insanity. It actually mentions the "capture of the EArth by the Sun". They just don't make an eyeroll smilie big enough to express my feelings here.
"It allows us to verify that prehistoric mankind cut into solid rock their view of the last spectacular and frightening chapter in the history of the solar system — the capture of Earth by the Sun."
What in Holy FRICK?! I admit that we don't know for sure what went down billions of years ago, but...that was hilariously stupid. It implied that the Earth captured the Sun when humans were around.
posted
Oh dear. It was actually a fairly promising article for the first five or six paragraphs; the isotope-ratio stuff is really rather interesting. Although usually one would quote someone who thinks he has a conventional explanation for it, and then try to show a problem with that. Cherry-picking only people who say "This is amazing, I can't explain it" is not a sign of good-faith argument. (Speaking of confirmation bias...) Then, alas, it goes off the deep end. Prehistoric mega-auroras, indeed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Professor of electrical engineering Donald Scott systematically unravels the myths of “Big Bang” cosmology, and he does so without resorting to black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, magnetic “reconnection,” or any other fictions needed to prop up a failed theory.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
oh my god that site
quote:Black holes are spoken of as scientific facts
posted
That article is extraordinarily amusing. They engage in so much double speak that it gets hard at many points to even start to explain why they're wrong, the arguments are so contorted . . . and then they say doozies like this that demonstrate complete intellectual bankruptcy:
quote:The Sun is about 1,000 times the mass of Jupiter, although mass is not a measure of the amount of matter in a body—another major spanner in the works for stellar astrophysics.
Yes, mass is a measure of the amount of matter (/energy, but there's an equivalency) in a body.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: yeah, especially as black holes were predicted by theory before we had observations that matched the predictions. They're confirmed by observation after the fact, not something come up with to deal with something unexplained.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Sun is about 1,000 times the mass of Jupiter, although mass is not a measure of the amount of matter in a body—another major spanner in the works for stellar astrophysics.
OMG! That must have been after I started skimming.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love the way stellar astrophysics is "debunked" by the redefining of a measurement term, not by something more complex. It's like, I deny the moon is far away because metres aren't really a measure of distance.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:mass is not a measure of the amount of matter in a body—another major spanner in the works for stellar astrophysics.
This guy is too dumb to know there are 4 different simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intergalactic plasmas are not proof of plasmas in between planets. Also, I'm not so sure that lightning bolts could travel through a plasma in a vacuum. I'm not saying they can't, I just am not sure how they'd do so.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, by definition, where you have a plasma you don't have a vacuum. Of course, it could be a quite thin plasma.
An electric discharge does not, in any case, require a medium to travel through; it's nothing more than electrons moving, after all, which they can do quite nicely through a vacuum. Where there's a voltage difference you can get electric discharges. However, to get the characteristic lightning bolt, you do need a medium. Electrons find it easier to travel through an already-ionised path; where there is nothing to ionise, you won't get them all following such a path. The flip side of this is that vacuum won't impede their travel at all. So instead of the single streak of lightning you get in the Earth's atmosphere, in a vacuum you would probably see something closer to sheet lightning, with electrons leaving an entire charged surface all at once. I'm not sure how dense things have to be for the bolt configuration to be preferred.
Disclaimer: I am not an astrophysicist, I'm just thinking out loud from my memory of long-ago electromagnetism classes here. But basically, our intuitive expectations of how things work Do Not Apply outside the Earth's atmosphere and scale.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, to the extent that there's a binding energy keeping the electrons on the first surface, the dynamics might be such that once they are ripped from one point, it's easier for the others to leave from that point as well. In that case you'd get back the lightning bolt, although it would start diffusing on its journey as the electrons repelled each other. (Doesn't happen much on Earth because the distance is short and the air is an insulator.) But whether such dynamics actually exist anywhere is anyone's guess. I would hate to assert anything either way.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Nonetheless, plasmas do exist in space. And there are a few scientificly interesting papers exploring the possible roles of electric fields in eg the creation of cosmic rays and current flows in eg the formation of large scale structures.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Samp: yeah, especially as black holes were predicted by theory before we had observations that matched the predictions. They're confirmed by observation after the fact, not something come up with to deal with something unexplained.
yes. i mean, wow, seriously. lensing. We predicted gravitational lensing using calculations long before it was ever testably observable. They don't even seem to realize the implications.
This is great stuff, though. this 'science' is essentially one of those haven works that people like young earth creationists would latch onto since they are infinitely inclined through preconclusive bias to lend their belief to anyone else who asserts that 'big bang cosmology' is all a big lie.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, back in the good old days, these people would just send badly-typed letters to Astronomy professionals saying they've discovered the next Big Thing and everything we know is Wrong. These letters are called "crackpot letters". Some people I knew have a special drawer for them and take them out when they need a good laugh. It's nice to know that the internet is allowing them to share their discoveries with the rest of the world.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just fyi this is the most high quality thread.
op: here is some SCIENCE for you. READ AND LEARN. link: black holes are spoken of as though they were not the mythological creations of a monolithic CONSPIRACY OF LIES. forum: lol, ffs
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
That must have been after I started skimming.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
