Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 130
Like Tree62Likes

Thread: Are the various types of stars the same type but displaying different fluctuations?

  1. #1 Are the various types of stars the same type but displaying different fluctuations? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Our scientific observations of the universe seem to have been made in about .00000000000777 of a second in time comparitive to the history of the universe. Could the varying types of stars simply be fluctuations of the same basic type of star? Could earth's ice ages be result of fluctuations of our sun?


    Last edited by Aristarchus in Exile; November 8th, 2013 at 11:55 AM.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Our scientific observations of the universe seem to have been made in about .00000000000777 of a second in time comparitive to the history of the universe.
    That might be true, but as we look at other stars, then the further away they are, the older they get due to the time that their light took to get here. So we can look at a variety of different types of stars at various stages in their lifetimes. There are a variety of things to measure about stars, which then also affect their development.

    Read through this: Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Not mere assumption. We can measure a great many things about a star and understand quite a bit about how they develop based on current theories. So with that knowledge we can group and classify stars and compare our models to the actual behaviour of stars. The models do pretty well.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Not mere assumption. We can measure a great many things about a star and understand quite a bit about how they develop based on current theories. So with that knowledge we can group and classify stars and compare our models to the actual behaviour of stars. The models do pretty well.
    Yes, I keep hearing about these 'models.' But despite the huge computers in use not only computers but our ability to provide input to them are in their infancy .. as is our knowledge of what we can input.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life ...
    Isn't it rather unlikely that all the billions of stars we see, spread out over billions of light years all happen to be at the same "stage"?

    It seems far more likely that we see a representative sample of new, young, middle-aged and old, dying stars. In fact, the models of stellar nuclear chemistry match exactly this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life ...
    Isn't it rather unlikely that all the billions of stars we see, spread out over billions of light years all happen to be at the same "stage"?

    It seems far more likely that we see a representative sample of new, young, middle-aged and old, dying stars. In fact, the models of stellar nuclear chemistry match exactly this.
    I agree that there are various ages of stars as evidenced by observation .. but I think there are hundreds of millions of years or more or less in the life of a star in which they fluctuate so radically they may appear to be a different class of star. Radical new information is a steady reality of science. I don't have radical new information, just an interesting question.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    I think there are hundreds of millions of years or more or less in the life of a star in which they fluctuate so radically they may appear to be a different class of star.
    What is the evidence for this?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    First thing you need to learn is to post non-standard pet theories in the New Hypothesis or pseudoscience section.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I think there are hundreds of millions of years or more or less in the life of a star in which they fluctuate so radically they may appear to be a different class of star.
    What is the evidence for this?
    Well Strange, it seems you don't read posts completely. I already said I don't have information to support it.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    First thing you need to learn is to post non-standard pet theories in the New Hypothesis or pseudoscience section.
    So we bring up the old standar model 'pseudoscience' category eh? Einstein was pseudoscience. Quantum was the same. The earth is a sphere the same. Heavier than air flying machines were pseudoscience. Ice ages were lunatic pseudoscience. The idea that hospitals needed to be clean and have fresh air was heretic. etc. etc. etc. Sheesh.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Not mere assumption. We can measure a great many things about a star and understand quite a bit about how they develop based on current theories. So with that knowledge we can group and classify stars and compare our models to the actual behaviour of stars. The models do pretty well.

    Yes, I keep hearing about these 'models.' But despite the huge computers in use not only computers but our ability to provide input to them are in their infancy .. as is our knowledge of what we can input.
    Not sure what point you are making here. Models of stellar lifecycle considerably predate computers. The Russel-Hertzsprung diagram for example, which led to our understanding of the main sequence in a star's life, was published in 1910.

    "Models" in this context does not just mean computer simulations, but models of reality, like the others we use all the time in science. If a model of reality works, in the sense of correctly predicting what further observations might be expected, then it a good model - until something comes along that does not fit.

    There is always a number of "what if...?" alternative scenarios in science that one can imagine. However in most fields there is one that by far beats the others, in terms of explanatory and predictive power, and compatibility with the rest of science. And that's the one science will go for.

    Anyone putting forward an alternative needs to show how it first succeeds in explaining everything up to now, second can explain things that the current model can't explain and third make predictions that can be tested. Do you have something in mind?
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    [QUOTE=exchemist;482896]
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Not mere assumption. We can measure a great many things about a star and understand quite a bit about how they develop based on current theories. So with that knowledge we can group and classify stars and compare our models to the actual behaviour of stars. The models do pretty well.
    Anyone putting forward an alternative needs to show how it first succeeds in explaining everything up to now, second can explain things that the current model can't explain and third make predictions that can be tested. Do you have something in mind?
    Of course it is clearly understood that anyone putting forth a question or new idea should first have every detail of proof securely nailed down. Please forgive my sarcasm but comes from me gently. But it reminds me that I saw someone on this forum this morning saying moderators should be able to answer all questions with science, and then saying he considered himself to be qualified to moderator in several sciences as well as history. Seems a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Not mere assumption. We can measure a great many things about a star and understand quite a bit about how they develop based on current theories. So with that knowledge we can group and classify stars and compare our models to the actual behaviour of stars. The models do pretty well.
    Yes, I keep hearing about these 'models.' But despite the huge computers in use not only computers but our ability to provide input to them are in their infancy .. as is our knowledge of what we can input.
    Well, that is a very vague statement. I don't suppose you have much idea of how knowledge about stars are and have been aquired? How Models are constructed?

    One of the key aspect of a star is it's mass. The mass determines how long the star will burn for, how bright and what colour it will burn and also what will happen to it once it's fuel runs out. Looking out across the stars, our models are a good accord with what we actually see.

    Sure, star vary and go through cycles, but these are never so dramatic as to throw our base understanding out of whack. And while we have only been directly observing the sun at most thousands of years, we have various pieces of evidence to look at on the earth that gives us clues about how our sun behaved in the past. No radical misbehaviour pops out.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I already said I don't have information to support it.
    Then there's no need for it to be given consideration.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    [QUOTE=Aristarchus in Exile;482898]
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Not mere assumption. We can measure a great many things about a star and understand quite a bit about how they develop based on current theories. So with that knowledge we can group and classify stars and compare our models to the actual behaviour of stars. The models do pretty well.
    Anyone putting forward an alternative needs to show how it first succeeds in explaining everything up to now, second can explain things that the current model can't explain and third make predictions that can be tested. Do you have something in mind?
    Of course it is clearly understood that anyone putting forth a question or new idea should first have every detail of proof securely nailed down. Please forgive my sarcasm but comes from me gently. But it reminds me that I saw someone on this forum this morning saying moderators should be able to answer all questions with science, and then saying he considered himself to be qualified to moderator in several sciences as well as history. Seems a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?
    Did I say every detail nailed down? No, that's your exaggeration. But, by your own admission you have no evidence at all to support an alternative. So, frankly, it seems a bit premature to come along expecting people to take an interest in your ideas, don't you think?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Not mere assumption. We can measure a great many things about a star and understand quite a bit about how they develop based on current theories. So with that knowledge we can group and classify stars and compare our models to the actual behaviour of stars. The models do pretty well.
    Yes, I keep hearing about these 'models.' But despite the huge computers in use not only computers but our ability to provide input to them are in their infancy .. as is our knowledge of what we can input.
    Well, that is a very vague statement. I don't suppose you have much idea of how knowledge about stars are and have been aquired? How Models are constructed?

    One of the key aspect of a star is it's mass. The mass determines how long the star will burn for, how bright and what colour it will burn and also what will happen to it once it's fuel runs out. Looking out across the stars, our models are a good accord with what we actually see.

    Sure, star vary and go through cycles, but these are never so dramatic as to throw our base understanding out of whack. And while we have only been directly observing the sun at most thousands of years, we have various pieces of evidence to look at on the earth that gives us clues about how our sun behaved in the past. No radical misbehaviour pops out.
    No radical behaviour pops out of earth's history? I would call ice completely covering a once warm planet radical. I call the more minor ice ages radical.

    Yes I undertand the basic star formation theories, hydrogen clouds condensing leading to nuclear reaction contained by gravity through mass.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Also, so little is known about 'Dark Matter' if it exists that there easily may be clouds of dense dark matter which could compress a sun's mass, there may be clouds of far less dense dark matter which might decrease pressue on a star, allowing its heat to escape more easily. For all we know there may be superdense clouds of dark matter which might snuff out a star or cause it to nova.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Also, so little is known about 'Dark Matter' if it exists that there easily may be clouds of dense dark matter which could compress a sun's mass, there may be clouds of far less dense dark matter which might decrease pressue on a star, allowing its heat to escape more easily. For all we know there may be superdense clouds of dark matter which might snuff out a star or cause it to nova.
    There might, but if what you say is true we should hope to see evidence of it, should we not? What should we look for?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Also, so little is known about 'Dark Matter' if it exists that there easily may be clouds of dense dark matter which could compress a sun's mass, there may be clouds of far less dense dark matter which might decrease pressue on a star, allowing its heat to escape more easily. For all we know there may be superdense clouds of dark matter which might snuff out a star or cause it to nova.
    There might, but if what you say is true we should hope to see evidence of it, should we not? What should we look for?
    We should look for stars which seem to be of the same class but really are not .. we should look for fluctuating stars which fit the idea .. we KNOW there are fluctuating stars becuase some stars fluctuate wildly, and that is firm evidence of the posibility of other stars fluctuating as well, but not so markedly.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Also, so little is known about 'Dark Matter' if it exists that there easily may be clouds of dense dark matter which could compress a sun's mass, there may be clouds of far less dense dark matter which might decrease pressue on a star, allowing its heat to escape more easily. For all we know there may be superdense clouds of dark matter which might snuff out a star or cause it to nova.
    There might, but if what you say is true we should hope to see evidence of it, should we not? What should we look for?
    We should look for stars which seem to be of the same class but really are not .. we should look for fluctuating stars which fit the idea .. we KNOW there are fluctuating stars becuase some stars fluctuate wildly, and that is firm evidence of the posibility of other stars fluctuating as well, but not so markedly.
    Seems fair enough to me, though I don't pretend to be an astronomer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I already said I don't have information to support it.
    Then there's no need for it to be given consideration.
    Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." He had no physical evidence to explain his ideas, but he put for the ideas then he and others pursued them. If you say, Duck, "well you are no Einstein" I will only say that whatever IQ a person has permits them to have original ideas. Mine was measured at 170 in High School. But I'm not bragging. Complaining actually. I wish it were far more.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Not mere assumption. We can measure a great many things about a star and understand quite a bit about how they develop based on current theories. So with that knowledge we can group and classify stars and compare our models to the actual behaviour of stars. The models do pretty well.
    Yes, I keep hearing about these 'models.' But despite the huge computers in use not only computers but our ability to provide input to them are in their infancy .. as is our knowledge of what we can input.
    Well, that is a very vague statement. I don't suppose you have much idea of how knowledge about stars are and have been aquired? How Models are constructed?

    One of the key aspect of a star is it's mass. The mass determines how long the star will burn for, how bright and what colour it will burn and also what will happen to it once it's fuel runs out. Looking out across the stars, our models are a good accord with what we actually see.

    Sure, star vary and go through cycles, but these are never so dramatic as to throw our base understanding out of whack. And while we have only been directly observing the sun at most thousands of years, we have various pieces of evidence to look at on the earth that gives us clues about how our sun behaved in the past. No radical misbehaviour pops out.
    No radical behaviour pops out of earth's history? I would call ice completely covering a once warm planet radical. I call the more minor ice ages radical.

    Yes I undertand the basic star formation theories, hydrogen clouds condensing leading to nuclear reaction contained by gravity through mass.
    The sun was less luminous earlier in it's history, which is understood. Plus, have you ever heard of Milankovitch cycles? There are many better explanations for the snowball earth and climate change in general than a fanciful notion you have no evidence for: Snowball Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Can't you see why you are not taken seriously?

    Also, so little is known about 'Dark Matter' if it exists that there easily may be clouds of dense dark matter which could compress a sun's mass, there may be clouds of far less dense dark matter which might decrease pressue on a star, allowing its heat to escape more easily. For all we know there may be superdense clouds of dark matter which might snuff out a star or cause it to nova.
    Dark matter only affects normal matter gravitationally and only markedly on large scales. There is no evidence for any of the things you mention here.

    Thing is, if there were serious and widespread anomalous behaviour of stars out there we would have seen it. Instead, the vast majority of stars behave pretty much how they should according to current models. There is simply no reason to suspect anything like you think might be going on. You don't have any evidence for it and neither has anyone else.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I already said I don't have information to support it.
    Then there's no need for it to be given consideration.
    Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." He had no physical evidence to explain his ideas, but he put for the ideas then he and others pursued them. If you say, Duck, "well you are no Einstein" I will only say that whatever IQ a person has permits them to have original ideas. Mine was measured at 170 in High School. But I'm not bragging. Complaining actually. I wish it were far more.
    1) Einstein could get away with such a facile comment because he had knowledge. Imagination without knowledge is worth sh*t.
    2) You're - mistakenly - conflating lack of physical evidence with a total lack of evidence.
    3) Yeah, and your IQ goes down as you age. Mine was 162 at age 44, which probably puts me ahead of you. (And, given the numerous errors in your posts in the last couple of hours, that could well be far ahead of you).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I already said I don't have information to support it.
    Then there's no need for it to be given consideration.
    Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." He had no physical evidence to explain his ideas, but he put for the ideas then he and others pursued them. If you say, Duck, "well you are no Einstein" I will only say that whatever IQ a person has permits them to have original ideas. Mine was measured at 170 in High School. But I'm not bragging. Complaining actually. I wish it were far more.
    On the contrary, Einstein put forward his theories when he was able to use them to explain phenomena that could not be explained using the models current at the time, and which were as a result widely acknowledged to be in trouble.

    It may be comforting to lazy people to think he just dreamt them up in isolation and took on a disbelieving world with them, and by extension that anyone clever enough could do the same, but it's bunk.
    KALSTER, Strange and DogLady like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life ...
    Isn't it rather unlikely that all the billions of stars we see, spread out over billions of light years all happen to be at the same "stage"?

    It seems far more likely that we see a representative sample of new, young, middle-aged and old, dying stars. In fact, the models of stellar nuclear chemistry match exactly this.
    I agree that there are various ages of stars as evidenced by observation .. but I think there are hundreds of millions of years or more or less in the life of a star in which they fluctuate so radically they may appear to be a different class of star. Radical new information is a steady reality of science. I don't have radical new information, just an interesting question.
    There are very simple reasons why the different classes of stars can't just be different stages of the same type of star.

    There are a multiple number of things we can determine about a star.

    From its spectrum, we can determine is makeup (metallicity, carbon content, etc.) and its surface temp,(from the broadening of the spectral lines).
    From its distance and brightness, we can determine its luminosity. And from this and its temp, we can get its size (a high luminosity star with a low temp has to be large)
    Since many stars are parts of binary pairs, from their orbits around each other we can determine their mass.

    One thing we determined from this is that massive stars are more luminous. But it not a linear function. The luminosity increases much faster than the mass does.
    For this to happen, a very massive star must use up its nuclear fuel very fast. So fast, that the entire lifetime of such a star could be measured in millions, not billions of years.

    Now you might be tempted to argue that as the star burns, its loses mass, and would just slowly become a smaller dimmer star. However, it doesn't work this way. While the star does lose some mass while burning, the vast majority remains. You never get to much smaller star.

    Even if you did, the smaller star would be high in "waste products" from the earlier part of the star's life, And we don't see this in stars spectra.

    At the other end, we see very small stars which are so dim, that they will continue to burn unchanged for 100's of billions of years. And these stars are the most common stars of all.

    Lastly, there just isn't any mechanism that allows for all the different classes of stars to just be different stages of the same type. And this is even if you restrict yourself to main sequence stars. Very simply put, as stars age, they leave the main sequence; they cannot become another class of main sequence star.

    Or to put it another way, different classes of stars differ in the way that different breeds of dogs do. A Toy Poodle can't grow into Great Dane. All the different breeds of dogs are not just representative of different stages of the same type of dog. All dogs change as they age from puppy to old age, but they never change into a different breed along the way.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Well Strange, it seems you don't read posts completely. I already said I don't have information to support it.
    I assumed I had misunderstood that sentence. What is the point of posting an idea on a science forum if you have no evidence to support it. You might as well say that stars are unicorn farts.
    KALSTER and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    So we bring up the old standar model 'pseudoscience' category eh?
    Proposing an idea that goes against well-tested science with absolutely no evidence is the very definition of pseudoscience.

    All the examples you cite were developed by people based on evidence, theory or both. You have neither: ergo pseudoscience.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Of course it is clearly understood that anyone putting forth a question or new idea should first have every detail of proof securely nailed down.
    Don't be ridiculous. It is not a matter of "having every detail nailed down", it is a matter of having any support at all. You have none.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    We should look for stars which seem to be of the same class but really are not .. we should look for fluctuating stars which fit the idea ..
    Go on then. There is a huge amount of observational data out there you can mine.

    Or are you one of the "Hey, I had the idea, it's up to someone else to do the hard work".
    John Galt, exchemist and DogLady like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Aristarchus, you claim a high IQ. I give you a challenge: how about you start using it.

    Janus has given an excellent summary of why your idea is unecessary and contradicted by the evidence:
    Your idea is not being rejected because it is new.
    It is not being rejected because it is different.
    It is not being rejected because you are not part of the scientific establishment.

    It is being rejected because it offers no improvement in our understanding of stars.
    It is being rejected because it has not evidence to support it.
    It is being rejected because it is contradicted by well established observations and mutliply validated models.

    If you apply that high IQ then you will realise the rejection is valid; until and unless you come up with some supporting data. And as Strange pointed out, there are oodles of data you could mine to find support for your speculation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I already said I don't have information to support it.
    Then there's no need for it to be given consideration.
    Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." He had no physical evidence to explain his ideas, but he put for the ideas then he and others pursued them. If you say, Duck, "well you are no Einstein" I will only say that whatever IQ a person has permits them to have original ideas. Mine was measured at 170 in High School. But I'm not bragging. Complaining actually. I wish it were far more.
    On the contrary, Einstein put forward his theories when he was able to use them to explain phenomena that could not be explained using the models current at the time, and which were as a result widely acknowledged to be in trouble.

    It may be comforting to lazy people to think he just dreamt them up in isolation and took on a disbelieving world with them, and by extension that anyone clever enough could do the same, but it's bunk.
    Are you saying Einstein did not make that quote?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    We should look for stars which seem to be of the same class but really are not .. we should look for fluctuating stars which fit the idea ..
    Go on then. There is a huge amount of observational data out there you can mine.

    Or are you one of the "Hey, I had the idea, it's up to someone else to do the hard work".
    No .. I'm one of those who say 'here's an idea.' I do not say anyone has to believe it. But I know that SOME people will investigate new ideas, and SOMETIMES those new ideas work for those people, and it is normally THOSE people who are remembered in history and SOMETIMES rewarded very well fincially. People who denegrate new ideas are generally forgotten in history or worse, remembered as the people who resisted advancements.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Aristarchus, you claim a high IQ. I give you a challenge: how about you start using it.

    Janus has given an excellent summary of why your idea is unecessary and contradicted by the evidence:
    Your idea is not being rejected because it is new.
    It is not being rejected because it is different.
    It is not being rejected because you are not part of the scientific establishment.

    It is being rejected because it offers no improvement in our understanding of stars.
    It is being rejected because it has not evidence to support it.
    It is being rejected because it is contradicted by well established observations and mutliply validated models.

    If you apply that high IQ then you will realise the rejection is valid; until and unless you come up with some supporting data. And as Strange pointed out, there are oodles of data you could mine to find support for your speculation.
    The rejection may be valid to those rejecting it, but not to me because I maintain that there has not been enough time in our history to determine the answer to the question or data has been misinterpreted. I maintain that consensus ideas and power block the path to exploration. (Consensus idea and power exiled Aristarchus, let us not forget, and his truth was not accepted for about 2,000 years.) I don't care in the least if my ideas are not believed, but I do care about the quality of minds in science that ridicule new ideas. If anyone wants to reject it, they have that freedom, but none of their arguments can convince me that my ideas don't have value and are possibilities because there are too many bad, bad examples, and as in the case of hospitals for instance the resusal to accept that filth and filthy air cause disease resulted in many deaths .. I use that as a very clear example.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The people who came up with news ideas that proved out in the long run were people who had a very good understanding of the old ideas, who knew the weaknesses in them and saw the potential of a different explanation. Do you accept that as true?

    If so, please recognise that your proposal here does not fall into this category. It is evident you do not understand current models. You do not understand any weaknesses that may exist in them. And you are therefore very poorly placed to offer a possible improvement.

    Frankly, the process you are indulging in is analagous to claiming that regular masturbation will eventually produce a pregnancy. Not that I'm saying you are a wanker.....
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Of course it is clearly understood that anyone putting forth a question or new idea should first have every detail of proof securely nailed down.
    Don't be ridiculous. It is not a matter of "having every detail nailed down", it is a matter of having any support at all. You have none.
    That word "ridiculous" shows abuse of your priviledge on this forum and especially if you are a moderator. But also especially if you are a 'friend' of the moderators because then you are abusing your friendship with them.

    Yes I do have support. Some stars are recognized as being variable. Despite what consensus says causes the ice age there is still a possibility that our sun varies in intensity and might cause the ice age. Very simple.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life ...
    Isn't it rather unlikely that all the billions of stars we see, spread out over billions of light years all happen to be at the same "stage"?

    It seems far more likely that we see a representative sample of new, young, middle-aged and old, dying stars. In fact, the models of stellar nuclear chemistry match exactly this.
    I agree that there are various ages of stars as evidenced by observation .. but I think there are hundreds of millions of years or more or less in the life of a star in which they fluctuate so radically they may appear to be a different class of star. Radical new information is a steady reality of science. I don't have radical new information, just an interesting question.
    There are very simple reasons why the different classes of stars can't just be different stages of the same type of star.

    There are a multiple number of things we can determine about a star.

    From its spectrum, we can determine is makeup (metallicity, carbon content, etc.) and its surface temp,(from the broadening of the spectral lines).
    From its distance and brightness, we can determine its luminosity. And from this and its temp, we can get its size (a high luminosity star with a low temp has to be large)
    Since many stars are parts of binary pairs, from their orbits around each other we can determine their mass.

    One thing we determined from this is that massive stars are more luminous. But it not a linear function. The luminosity increases much faster than the mass does.
    For this to happen, a very massive star must use up its nuclear fuel very fast. So fast, that the entire lifetime of such a star could be measured in millions, not billions of years.

    Now you might be tempted to argue that as the star burns, its loses mass, and would just slowly become a smaller dimmer star. However, it doesn't work this way. While the star does lose some mass while burning, the vast majority remains. You never get to much smaller star.

    Even if you did, the smaller star would be high in "waste products" from the earlier part of the star's life, And we don't see this in stars spectra.

    At the other end, we see very small stars which are so dim, that they will continue to burn unchanged for 100's of billions of years. And these stars are the most common stars of all.

    Lastly, there just isn't any mechanism that allows for all the different classes of stars to just be different stages of the same type. And this is even if you restrict yourself to main sequence stars. Very simply put, as stars age, they leave the main sequence; they cannot become another class of main sequence star.

    Or to put it another way, different classes of stars differ in the way that different breeds of dogs do. A Toy Poodle can't grow into Great Dane. All the different breeds of dogs are not just representative of different stages of the same type of dog. All dogs change as they age from puppy to old age, but they never change into a different breed along the way.
    Variable star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Not mere assumption. We can measure a great many things about a star and understand quite a bit about how they develop based on current theories. So with that knowledge we can group and classify stars and compare our models to the actual behaviour of stars. The models do pretty well.
    Yes, I keep hearing about these 'models.' But despite the huge computers in use not only computers but our ability to provide input to them are in their infancy .. as is our knowledge of what we can input.
    Well, that is a very vague statement. I don't suppose you have much idea of how knowledge about stars are and have been aquired? How Models are constructed?

    One of the key aspect of a star is it's mass. The mass determines how long the star will burn for, how bright and what colour it will burn and also what will happen to it once it's fuel runs out. Looking out across the stars, our models are a good accord with what we actually see.

    Sure, star vary and go through cycles, but these are never so dramatic as to throw our base understanding out of whack. And while we have only been directly observing the sun at most thousands of years, we have various pieces of evidence to look at on the earth that gives us clues about how our sun behaved in the past. No radical misbehaviour pops out.
    No radical behaviour pops out of earth's history? I would call ice completely covering a once warm planet radical. I call the more minor ice ages radical.

    Yes I undertand the basic star formation theories, hydrogen clouds condensing leading to nuclear reaction contained by gravity through mass.
    The sun was less luminous earlier in it's history, which is understood. Plus, have you ever heard of Milankovitch cycles? There are many better explanations for the snowball earth and climate change in general than a fanciful notion you have no evidence for: Snowball Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Can't you see why you are not taken seriously?

    Also, so little is known about 'Dark Matter' if it exists that there easily may be clouds of dense dark matter which could compress a sun's mass, there may be clouds of far less dense dark matter which might decrease pressue on a star, allowing its heat to escape more easily. For all we know there may be superdense clouds of dark matter which might snuff out a star or cause it to nova.
    Dark matter only affects normal matter gravitationally and only markedly on large scales. There is no evidence for any of the things you mention here.

    Thing is, if there were serious and widespread anomalous behaviour of stars out there we would have seen it. Instead, the vast majority of stars behave pretty much how they should according to current models. There is simply no reason to suspect anything like you think might be going on. You don't have any evidence for it and neither has anyone else.
    I will post this again in case you missed it in my other reply.

    Variable star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Of course it is clearly understood that anyone putting forth a question or new idea should first have every detail of proof securely nailed down.
    Don't be ridiculous. It is not a matter of "having every detail nailed down", it is a matter of having any support at all. You have none.
    That word "ridiculous" shows abuse of your priviledge on this forum and especially if you are a moderator. But also especially if you are a 'friend' of the moderators because then you are abusing your friendship with them.

    Yes I do have support. Some stars are recognized as being variable. Despite what consensus says causes the ice age there is still a possibility that our sun varies in intensity and might cause the ice age. Very simple.
    Moderator Comment: The use of the word ridiculous could be construed as an ad hominem. However, Strange appears to be applying it to what AinE has said, rather than to AinE himself. As such it is an acceptable statement, regardless of whether or not it is valid.

    Strange is not a moderator, so the comment about such usage by a moderator is irrelevant.
    Last edited by John Galt; November 7th, 2013 at 09:51 AM.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Not mere assumption. We can measure a great many things about a star and understand quite a bit about how they develop based on current theories. So with that knowledge we can group and classify stars and compare our models to the actual behaviour of stars. The models do pretty well.

    Yes, I keep hearing about these 'models.' But despite the huge computers in use not only computers but our ability to provide input to them are in their infancy .. as is our knowledge of what we can input.
    Not sure what point you are making here. Models of stellar lifecycle considerably predate computers. The Russel-Hertzsprung diagram for example, which led to our understanding of the main sequence in a star's life, was published in 1910.

    "Models" in this context does not just mean computer simulations, but models of reality, like the others we use all the time in science. If a model of reality works, in the sense of correctly predicting what further observations might be expected, then it a good model - until something comes along that does not fit.

    There is always a number of "what if...?" alternative scenarios in science that one can imagine. However in most fields there is one that by far beats the others, in terms of explanatory and predictive power, and compatibility with the rest of science. And that's the one science will go for.

    Anyone putting forward an alternative needs to show how it first succeeds in explaining everything up to now, second can explain things that the current model can't explain and third make predictions that can be tested. Do you have something in mind?
    You are speaking from an industrialist's profit and loss philosopy, not science. Science is a search for truth, not money, or at least it should be. However, new ideas ARE rejected because positions of power in science generally carry extra salary, so to allow a new idea to decrease that power is a threat to the strength of that salary .. 'damned upstart got promoted ahead of me!' Well, the upstart probably had a better idea, right?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I already said I don't have information to support it.
    Then there's no need for it to be given consideration.
    Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." He had no physical evidence to explain his ideas, but he put for the ideas then he and others pursued them. If you say, Duck, "well you are no Einstein" I will only say that whatever IQ a person has permits them to have original ideas. Mine was measured at 170 in High School. But I'm not bragging. Complaining actually. I wish it were far more.
    On the contrary, Einstein put forward his theories when he was able to use them to explain phenomena that could not be explained using the models current at the time, and which were as a result widely acknowledged to be in trouble.

    It may be comforting to lazy people to think he just dreamt them up in isolation and took on a disbelieving world with them, and by extension that anyone clever enough could do the same, but it's bunk.
    Are you saying Einstein did not make that quote?
    No (obviously).

    Are you saying Einstein meant that knowledge is unnecessary?

    Or, to generalise my question to you, is simplistic exaggeration an inherent part of the way you think, or is it just a tiresome rhetorical device that you favour?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post

    I will post this again in case you missed it in my other reply.

    Variable star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Did YOU read the article?

    Nowhere does it lend support to the kind of variability required for your idea to have any kind of validity. You have obviously also not bothered to read up on the various classifications of stars or apparently done any real research at all. Instead you keep going on and on with the same idea no matter what we say. In case you didn't realise, that is crank behaviour. You may not like being called that, but that is how you are behaving.
    Last edited by KALSTER; November 7th, 2013 at 03:52 PM.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Of course it is clearly understood that anyone putting forth a question or new idea should first have every detail of proof securely nailed down.
    Don't be ridiculous. It is not a matter of "having every detail nailed down", it is a matter of having any support at all. You have none.
    That word "ridiculous" shows abuse of your priviledge on this forum and especially if you are a moderator. But also especially if you are a 'friend' of the moderators because then you are abusing your friendship with them.

    Yes I do have support. Some stars are recognized as being variable. Despite what consensus says causes the ice age there is still a possibility that our sun varies in intensity and might cause the ice age. Very simple.
    Moderator Comment: The use of the word ridiculous could be construed as an ad hominem. However, Strange appears to be applying it to what AinE has said, rather than to AinE himself. As such it is an acceptable statement, regardless of whether or not it is valid.

    Strange is not a moderator, so the comment about such usage by a moderator is irrelevant.
    John you responded reasonably well here but a forum is a much friendlier, free, open and productive place without the use of such words.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    I'm not exactly following your theory, AIE...are you saying there's only one type of star?
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I already said I don't have information to support it.
    Then there's no need for it to be given consideration.
    Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." He had no physical evidence to explain his ideas, but he put for the ideas then he and others pursued them. If you say, Duck, "well you are no Einstein" I will only say that whatever IQ a person has permits them to have original ideas. Mine was measured at 170 in High School. But I'm not bragging. Complaining actually. I wish it were far more.
    On the contrary, Einstein put forward his theories when he was able to use them to explain phenomena that could not be explained using the models current at the time, and which were as a result widely acknowledged to be in trouble.

    It may be comforting to lazy people to think he just dreamt them up in isolation and took on a disbelieving world with them, and by extension that anyone clever enough could do the same, but it's bunk.
    Are you saying Einstein did not make that quote?
    No (obviously).

    Are you saying Einstein meant that knowledge is unnecessary?

    Or, to generalise my question to you, is simplistic exaggeration an inherent part of the way you think, or is it just a tiresome rhetorical device that you favour?
    I never intimated in the least that Einstein said knowledge was unimportant .. he said imagination was MORE important.

    Yes, simplistic exageration IS an inherent way I think, that is one of the basis of imagination. I do not mean to be tiresome.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    I'm not exactly following your theory, AIE...are you saying there's only one type of star?
    No.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Well...that clears things up.
    Strange likes this.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Did YOU read the article?

    Nowhere does it lend support to the kind of variability required for your idea to have any kind of validity. You have obviously also not bothered to read up on the various classifications of stars or apparently done any real research at all. Instead you keep going on and on with the same idea no matter what we say. In case you didn't realise, that is crank behaviour. You may not like being called that, but that is how you are behaving.
    Just because I do not believe as you do does not make me a crank EXCEPT that it makes other people cranky BECAUSE they are disagreed with, and that is a very common human trait, but it is not my intention.

    Kalster. What are your qualifications as a cosmologist or astronomer?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Well...that clears things up.
    I merely answered your question. To go further, I believe many or most stars fluctuate as a normal part of their life. I believe that the sun's fluctuations produce climate change on earth. I also believe there is more than one way planets are formed, and I've been condemned for that simple belief as well. But that's another story. I am NOT saying anyone here has to believe as I believe, and in fact my propostition was put in the form of a question, not a statement, but even then it aroused some strong emotions and insult. Silly, isn't it.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Did YOU read the article?

    Nowhere does it lend support to the kind of variability required for your idea to have any kind of validity. You have obviously also not bothered to read up on the various classifications of stars or apparently done any real research at all. Instead you keep going on and on with the same idea no matter what we say. In case you didn't realise, that is crank behaviour. You may not like being called that, but that is how you are behaving.
    Just because I do not believe as you do does not make me a crank EXCEPT that it makes other people cranky BECAUSE they are disagreed with, and that is a very common human trait, but it is not my intention.

    Kalster. What are your qualifications as a cosmologist or astronomer?
    Crank behaviour is sticking to a preconceived notion no matter what level of evidence is presented to refute it. That is what you are doing. Science isn't about belief. If you think it is, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

    Qualifications? Read the disclaimer in my signature.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Not mere assumption. We can measure a great many things about a star and understand quite a bit about how they develop based on current theories. So with that knowledge we can group and classify stars and compare our models to the actual behaviour of stars. The models do pretty well.

    Yes, I keep hearing about these 'models.' But despite the huge computers in use not only computers but our ability to provide input to them are in their infancy .. as is our knowledge of what we can input.
    Not sure what point you are making here. Models of stellar lifecycle considerably predate computers. The Russel-Hertzsprung diagram for example, which led to our understanding of the main sequence in a star's life, was published in 1910.

    "Models" in this context does not just mean computer simulations, but models of reality, like the others we use all the time in science. If a model of reality works, in the sense of correctly predicting what further observations might be expected, then it a good model - until something comes along that does not fit.

    There is always a number of "what if...?" alternative scenarios in science that one can imagine. However in most fields there is one that by far beats the others, in terms of explanatory and predictive power, and compatibility with the rest of science. And that's the one science will go for.

    Anyone putting forward an alternative needs to show how it first succeeds in explaining everything up to now, second can explain things that the current model can't explain and third make predictions that can be tested. Do you have something in mind?
    You are speaking from an industrialist's profit and loss philosopy, not science. Science is a search for truth, not money, or at least it should be. However, new ideas ARE rejected because positions of power in science generally carry extra salary, so to allow a new idea to decrease that power is a threat to the strength of that salary .. 'damned upstart got promoted ahead of me!' Well, the upstart probably had a better idea, right?
    Balls. What I'm telling you is absolutely standard philosophy of science. Do you suppose science is compelled to take seriously the ravings of every madman on the street corner, or every charlatan or time-waster? No? Then what filter do we apply, do you suppose, in order to screen out the rubbish?

    Well, it's what I've told you. A new theory has to continue to explain the old, do better at explaining the new and, most of all, make testable predictions.

    Einstein's ideas did all of that, in spades. But then, he got off his arse and did some work to understand BOTH the available observations AND the current models, before bringing his new ideas forward.

    Of course, if you want to retreat to a paranoid conspiracy theory of "the establishment" being against you, that is your privilege entirely.
    KALSTER, Markus Hanke and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    No .. I'm one of those who say 'here's an idea.' I do not say anyone has to believe it. But I know that SOME people will investigate new ideas
    But there is no reason for anyone to think about spending any time on this idea because (a) it contradicts known science and (b) it has no support (theoretical or observational).

    I think people should investigate my idea that stars are unicorn farts first. After all, at least we know that unicorns exist.
    adelady likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    as in the case of hospitals for instance the resusal to accept that filth and filthy air cause disease resulted in many deaths .. I use that as a very clear example.
    Your graps of history seems to be slipping. It was actually the idea that it wasn't "bad air" (mal aria) that caused disease, but germs. and that these could be removed by washing.

    And, of course, like all successful new ideas THIS WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE.

    You have no evidence, so you don't have an idea worth considering.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    That word "ridiculous" shows abuse of your priviledge on this forum and especially if you are a moderator. But also especially if you are a 'friend' of the moderators because then you are abusing your friendship with them.
    I have no more privilege here than you. (Beyond any leniency that might be given to someone who talks sense over someone who talks complete and utter horseshit.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Not mere assumption. We can measure a great many things about a star and understand quite a bit about how they develop based on current theories. So with that knowledge we can group and classify stars and compare our models to the actual behaviour of stars. The models do pretty well.

    Yes, I keep hearing about these 'models.' But despite the huge computers in use not only computers but our ability to provide input to them are in their infancy .. as is our knowledge of what we can input.
    Not sure what point you are making here. Models of stellar lifecycle considerably predate computers. The Russel-Hertzsprung diagram for example, which led to our understanding of the main sequence in a star's life, was published in 1910.

    "Models" in this context does not just mean computer simulations, but models of reality, like the others we use all the time in science. If a model of reality works, in the sense of correctly predicting what further observations might be expected, then it a good model - until something comes along that does not fit.

    There is always a number of "what if...?" alternative scenarios in science that one can imagine. However in most fields there is one that by far beats the others, in terms of explanatory and predictive power, and compatibility with the rest of science. And that's the one science will go for.

    Anyone putting forward an alternative needs to show how it first succeeds in explaining everything up to now, second can explain things that the current model can't explain and third make predictions that can be tested. Do you have something in mind?
    You are speaking from an industrialist's profit and loss philosopy, not science. Science is a search for truth, not money, or at least it should be. However, new ideas ARE rejected because positions of power in science generally carry extra salary, so to allow a new idea to decrease that power is a threat to the strength of that salary .. 'damned upstart got promoted ahead of me!' Well, the upstart probably had a better idea, right?
    Balls. What I'm telling you is absolutely standard philosophy of science. Do you suppose science is compelled to take seriously the ravings of every madman on the street corner, or every charlatan or time-waster? No? Then what filter do we apply, do you suppose, in order to screen out the rubbish?

    Well, it's what I've told you. A new theory has to continue to explain the old, do better at explaining the new and, most of all, make testable predictions.

    Einstein's ideas did all of that, in spades. But then, he got off his arse and did some work to understand BOTH the available observations AND the current models, before bringing his new ideas forward.

    Of course, if you want to retreat to a paranoid conspiracy theory of "the establishment" being against you, that is your privilege entirely.
    Ah, Monsieur Ex Chemist. You may see in this link, and if not, then in his biography, that Lavoiseir was beheaded, and that the jealously insane French Chemist whose ideas Lavosier displanted had what amounted to a final say in Laoiseir's beheading. Also, I do not believe the establishment to be against me persoanlly, but against all of science. Antoine Lavoisier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Ah, Monsieur Ex Chemist. You may see in this link, and if not, then in his biography, that Lavoiseir was beheaded, and that the jealously insane French Chemist whose ideas Lavosier displanted had what amounted to a final say in Laoiseir's beheading. Also, I do not believe the establishment to be against me persoanlly, but against all of science. Antoine Lavoisier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Fancy that. A nobleman executed in the French Revolution. Who'da thunk it.
    RedPanda and PhDemon like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    as in the case of hospitals for instance the resusal to accept that filth and filthy air cause disease resulted in many deaths .. I use that as a very clear example.
    Your graps of history seems to be slipping. It was actually the idea that it wasn't "bad air" (mal aria) that caused disease, but germs. and that these could be removed by washing.

    And, of course, like all successful new ideas THIS WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE.

    Isn't air laden with disease causing germs bad air?

    You have no evidence, so you don't have an idea worth considering.
    From my recollection, the person who revolutionized hospital care did so from instinctual understanding of health. If you ask me to prove that statement I will ask you to prove yours.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Ah, Monsieur Ex Chemist. You may see in this link, and if not, then in his biography, that Lavoiseir was beheaded, and that the jealously insane French Chemist whose ideas Lavosier displanted had what amounted to a final say in Laoiseir's beheading. Also, I do not believe the establishment to be against me persoanlly, but against all of science. Antoine Lavoisier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Fancy that. A nobleman executed in the French Revolution. Who'da thunk it.
    It was a title purchased by Lavoisier's father for his son. The person who had him executed was, I think I recall, a true nobleman. So many facts from so many sciences, oh for a bigger brain.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Did YOU read the article?

    Nowhere does it lend support to the kind of variability required for your idea to have any kind of validity. You have obviously also not bothered to read up on the various classifications of stars or apparently done any real research at all. Instead you keep going on and on with the same idea no matter what we say. In case you didn't realise, that is crank behaviour. You may not like being called that, but that is how you are behaving.
    Just because I do not believe as you do does not make me a crank EXCEPT that it makes other people cranky BECAUSE they are disagreed with, and that is a very common human trait, but it is not my intention.

    Kalster. What are your qualifications as a cosmologist or astronomer?
    Crank behaviour is sticking to a preconceived notion no matter what level of evidence is presented to refute it. That is what you are doing. Science isn't about belief. If you think it is, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

    Qualifications? Read the disclaimer in my signature.
    Okay, then in most questions of science I shall be thankful to be known as a crank rather than be insulted by it.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    From my recollection, the person who revolutionized hospital care did so from instinctual understanding of health. If you ask me to prove that statement I will ask you to prove yours.
    I am not going to ask you to "prove it". This is, after all, a science forum so we don't deal in proof.

    Actually, I'm not even going to ask you to support it (ain't I kind). Instead I am going to make a guess at which partial concepts you have muddled up in your head.

    Firstly, there is the germ theory of disease.
    The germ theory was a scientific discovery of the late 19th century. It supplanted earlier explanations for disease, such as miasma theory.
    Germ theory of disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It was, of course, like all scientific ideas developed based on evidence.

    Then, you appear to be conflating this with medical hand-washing, which Semmelweis showed was effective in preventing disease in a hospital environment. This was, of course, based on observation and analysis of dat. (Do you begin to see a common theme here?)
    Ignaz Semmelweis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If you are, in fact, thinking of something else then feel free to provide some support for whatever it is.
    Last edited by Strange; November 7th, 2013 at 12:07 PM. Reason: spelling
    KALSTER likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    But, Kalster, no matter how old those stars are they are all at only one stage of their life .. 'in the moment' even if the moment is 20,0000,0000,000 light years away. Only by observing the SAME star for thousands of years, or millions of years, can we get a true history of that star. Anything else is mere asumption.
    Not mere assumption. We can measure a great many things about a star and understand quite a bit about how they develop based on current theories. So with that knowledge we can group and classify stars and compare our models to the actual behaviour of stars. The models do pretty well.

    Yes, I keep hearing about these 'models.' But despite the huge computers in use not only computers but our ability to provide input to them are in their infancy .. as is our knowledge of what we can input.
    Not sure what point you are making here. Models of stellar lifecycle considerably predate computers. The Russel-Hertzsprung diagram for example, which led to our understanding of the main sequence in a star's life, was published in 1910.

    "Models" in this context does not just mean computer simulations, but models of reality, like the others we use all the time in science. If a model of reality works, in the sense of correctly predicting what further observations might be expected, then it a good model - until something comes along that does not fit.

    There is always a number of "what if...?" alternative scenarios in science that one can imagine. However in most fields there is one that by far beats the others, in terms of explanatory and predictive power, and compatibility with the rest of science. And that's the one science will go for.

    Anyone putting forward an alternative needs to show how it first succeeds in explaining everything up to now, second can explain things that the current model can't explain and third make predictions that can be tested. Do you have something in mind?
    You are speaking from an industrialist's profit and loss philosopy, not science. Science is a search for truth, not money, or at least it should be. However, new ideas ARE rejected because positions of power in science generally carry extra salary, so to allow a new idea to decrease that power is a threat to the strength of that salary .. 'damned upstart got promoted ahead of me!' Well, the upstart probably had a better idea, right?
    Balls. What I'm telling you is absolutely standard philosophy of science. Do you suppose science is compelled to take seriously the ravings of every madman on the street corner, or every charlatan or time-waster? No? Then what filter do we apply, do you suppose, in order to screen out the rubbish?

    Well, it's what I've told you. A new theory has to continue to explain the old, do better at explaining the new and, most of all, make testable predictions.

    Einstein's ideas did all of that, in spades. But then, he got off his arse and did some work to understand BOTH the available observations AND the current models, before bringing his new ideas forward.

    Of course, if you want to retreat to a paranoid conspiracy theory of "the establishment" being against you, that is your privilege entirely.
    Ah, Monsieur Ex Chemist. You may see in this link, and if not, then in his biography, that Lavoiseir was beheaded, and that the jealously insane French Chemist whose ideas Lavosier displanted had what amounted to a final say in Laoiseir's beheading. Also, I do not believe the establishment to be against me persoanlly, but against all of science. Antoine Lavoisier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Bon, M. Aristarche. Mais c'est à dire quoi, exactement? Parce que je pense qu'on a parlé d'Einstein et ses théories, pas de Lavoisier, n'est ce pas?
    KALSTER and Strange like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    This does not address any of the issues in my post. The vast majority of variable stars fall outside the main sequence and many are on the massive end. Many of them have regular periods of variability (the Cephieds periods are so predictable that they are used as means of measuring distances). A variable star does not change its make-up, ( one of things that distinguish classes of stars) nor its mass.

    There is nothing about the behavior of variable stars that even hints at the idea that a A2V white star(like Sirius) could ever go through any type of variable change to make it a G2V yellow star(Like our Sun).
    KALSTER and Markus Hanke like this.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Bon, M. Aristarche. Mais c'est à dire quoi, exactement? Parce que je pense qu'on a parlé d'Einstein et ses théories, pas de Lavoisier, n'est ce pas?
    You must get an extra kick out of Eddie Izzard's standup performances.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Well...that clears things up.
    I merely answered your question. To go further, I believe many or most stars fluctuate as a normal part of their life. I believe that the sun's fluctuations produce climate change on earth. I also believe there is more than one way planets are formed, and I've been condemned for that simple belief as well. But that's another story. I am NOT saying anyone here has to believe as I believe, and in fact my propostition was put in the form of a question, not a statement, but even then it aroused some strong emotions and insult. Silly, isn't it.
    Actually, if you review this thread, I believe you will find that is not quite true. Your question elicited a polite and thoughtful response. I think you'll find it was some of your subsequent assertions that drew adverse reaction.

    Which is slightly less silly.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I believe that the sun's fluctuations produce climate change on earth.
    You've got a lovely cart...

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I don't have information to support it.
    ...but no horse to pull it.

    Good luck with that.
    KALSTER, Markus Hanke and adelady like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Bon, M. Aristarche. Mais c'est à dire quoi, exactement? Parce que je pense qu'on a parlé d'Einstein et ses théories, pas de Lavoisier, n'est ce pas?
    AinE : Je me moque du monde entier...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Let's start again: AiE offered two speculations:

    Could the varying types of stars simply be fluctuations of the same basic type of star?
    Could Earth's ice ages be result of fluctuations of our sun?


    Let me deal with them in reverse order. Ice ages are almost certainly are partly the result of fluctuations of our sun. This is hardly a ground breaking proposal. Indeed, I find it hard to imagine anything more conventional in science than that. I can expand on this if required, but it is so basic I shall simply write Maunder Minimum and allow google to do its work.

    Now, if you thought solar variations were the primary cause of ice ages, then you have really no reason to think so. We do know that ice ages are the result of a complex interplay of, at least, the following variables:

    • Distribution of land masses
    • Global pattern of oceans currents
    • Atmospheric circulation patterns
    • Planetary albedo and its distribution
    • Greenhouse gas content of atmosphere
    • Volcanic activity
    • Balance of geochemical cycles

    For the last few tens of millions of years the Earth has been predisposed to an ice age. Fluctuations in the distribution of ice have been greatly influenced by the Milankovitch cycles, a consequence in long term variations in the Earth's obliquity, orbital eccentricity and axial precession.

    Adding variations in solar output naturally produce variations in the extent of the ice. The broad outlines of the ice age, however, are quite well explained through the aspects I have listed above. If you seriously wish to afford solar variations a greater, or primary role, then it is wholly insufficient to say "it might be so, but there is no supporting data".

    That is not science. And frankly, it is considerably more impolite, insidious and unacceptable than characterising an idea as ridiculous.

    As for the first point, Janus continues to address this with more concision and authority than I can. I look forward to seeing your response to him.
    Strange, adelady, Ascended and 1 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    He was executed for his role as a tax farmer NOT his science.
    The person who had authority to executed or not was the scientist whose ideas he overthrew, that scientist's name has been forgotten by me, as 'the name of the evil person shall be forgotten.'

    Lavosieur could easily have been forgiven his role as a tax farmer because he used a great deal of his wealth to benefit poorer communities, and as his science made France a world leader in production of high quality gunpowder. It can easily be said that France's gunpowder contribution allowed the Americans to win their revolutionary war.

    Lavosieur's wife also had power to influence the scientist Lavosieur exceeded, but she was having an affair with Dupont, and used her interview with the scientist to insult him. It seems she wanted Lavosieur dead so she could marry Dupont.

    His biography, which I read a few weeks ago, was very interesting, full of good science as well as history.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Let's start again: AiE offered two speculations:

    Could the varying types of stars simply be fluctuations of the same basic type of star?
    Could Earth's ice ages be result of fluctuations of our sun?


    Let me deal with them in reverse order. Ice ages are almost certainly are partly the result of fluctuations of our sun. This is hardly a ground breaking proposal. Indeed, I find it hard to imagine anything more conventional in science than that. I can expand on this if required, but it is so basic I shall simply write Maunder Minimum and allow google to do its work.

    Now, if you thought solar variations were the primary cause of ice ages, then you have really no reason to think so. We do know that ice ages are the result of a complex interplay of, at least, the following variables:
    • Distribution of land masses
    • Global pattern of oceans currents
    • Atmospheric circulation patterns
    • Planetary albedo and its distribution
    • Greenhouse gas content of atmosphere
    • Volcanic activity
    • Balance of geochemical cycles
    For the last few tens of millions of years the Earth has been predisposed to an ice age. Fluctuations in the distribution of ice have been greatly influenced by the Milankovitch cycles, a consequence in long term variations in the Earth's obliquity, orbital eccentricity and axial precession.

    Adding variations in solar output naturally produce variations in the extent of the ice. The broad outlines of the ice age, however, are quite well explained through the aspects I have listed above. If you seriously wish to afford solar variations a greater, or primary role, then it is wholly insufficient to say "it might be so, but there is no supporting data".

    That is not science. And frankly, it is considerably more impolite, insidious and unacceptable than characterising an idea as ridiculous.

    As for the first point, Janus continues to address this with more concision and authority than I can. I look forward to seeing your response to him.
    John, signing into this site today was well worth the time. Your response is one of the best I have ever seen on any forum, especially as you don't hide probability that solar fluctuations are involved in ice age formation.
    However, I don't understand what you are referring to by, "That is not science. And frankly, it is considerably more impolite, insidious and unacceptable than characterising an idea as ridiculous." Even before you answer though I will say in my opinion as a human being and as a science fan that the word "ridiculous" has no place in any discussion.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I believe that the sun's fluctuations produce climate change on earth.
    You've got a lovely cart...

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I don't have information to support it.
    ...but no horse to pull it.

    Good luck with that.
    Ah, but a cart is such a useful invention that if you place a cart without a horse almost anywhere and leave it there long enough someone will, eventually, hitch a horse, mule, donkey, camel, dog, lion, or human to it, as John Galt has done. Of course if the cart is left standing alone long enough it will decay or be destroyed in some way, sooner in some climates than others. That is why any scienfitic idea no matter how unscientific it seems should be explored.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Bon, M. Aristarche. Mais c'est à dire quoi, exactement? Parce que je pense qu'on a parlé d'Einstein et ses théories, pas de Lavoisier, n'est ce pas?
    AinE : Je me moque du monde entier...
    Ah but may we parlay vous in Anglais see voo play as moi comprehendeth non la France lankwatch?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Well...that clears things up.
    I merely answered your question. To go further, I believe many or most stars fluctuate as a normal part of their life. I believe that the sun's fluctuations produce climate change on earth. I also believe there is more than one way planets are formed, and I've been condemned for that simple belief as well. But that's another story. I am NOT saying anyone here has to believe as I believe, and in fact my propostition was put in the form of a question, not a statement, but even then it aroused some strong emotions and insult. Silly, isn't it.
    Actually, if you review this thread, I believe you will find that is not quite true. Your question elicited a polite and thoughtful response. I think you'll find it was some of your subsequent assertions that drew adverse reaction.

    Which is slightly less silly.
    You may be correct, ex chem, but without reviewing every post I can't substantiate your view. However, your response is polite and thoughtful so it has value.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Bon, M. Aristarche. Mais c'est à dire quoi, exactement? Parce que je pense qu'on a parlé d'Einstein et ses théories, pas de Lavoisier, n'est ce pas?
    You must get an extra kick out of Eddie Izzard's standup performances.
    I don't watch television, if that is where Eddie Izzard is found, although I was watching a bit of t.v several years ago and can highly recommend Red Green.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    This does not address any of the issues in my post. The vast majority of variable stars fall outside the main sequence and many are on the massive end. Many of them have regular periods of variability (the Cephieds periods are so predictable that they are used as means of measuring distances). A variable star does not change its make-up, ( one of things that distinguish classes of stars) nor its mass.

    There is nothing about the behavior of variable stars that even hints at the idea that a A2V white star(like Sirius) could ever go through any type of variable change to make it a G2V yellow star(Like our Sun).
    I can only repeat that while we can examine stars which are very young through to stars which are very old we have only been closely examing those stars for the past century, and have only become intimate with some stars in the past few decades. I don't consider the Olmec and Aztec etc. observations close observations of individual stars even though they were brilliant observations. For heaven's sake, we only in the past (two?) decades learrned that there is a third human race .. the Denisovans. (Modern Human, Neanderthal, Denisovan.) If we can overlook something so close at hand as our own species how can we expect to know much about something as distant as the sun and stars?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    No .. I'm one of those who say 'here's an idea.' I do not say anyone has to believe it. But I know that SOME people will investigate new ideas
    But there is no reason for anyone to think about spending any time on this idea because (a) it contradicts known science and (b) it has no support (theoretical or observational).

    I think people should investigate my idea that stars are unicorn farts first. After all, at least we know that unicorns exist.
    Stars are said to form from gas, Strange, so you might have a point.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    The funniest man ever to wear a dress on stage:

    KALSTER likes this.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    The funniest man ever to wear a dress on stage:

    Sorry MacGyver, but my sensitivities preclude thinking a man in a dress is funny.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Sorry MacGyver, but my sensitivities preclude thinking a man in a dress is funny.
    So, no matter what he says, the dress will prevent him from being funny?
    Those are weird 'sensitivities' that you have.

    Well, your loss.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Sorry MacGyver, but my sensitivities preclude thinking a man in a dress is funny.
    So, no matter what he says, the dress will prevent him from being funny?
    Those are weird 'sensitivities' that you have.

    Well, your loss.
    Thanks for your quote from Revelation, Panda. Here's one from the law. 'It is an abomination for a man to dress as a woman.'
    While we are no longer under law but under grace should we sin? I also don't think George Carlin or the results of his 'humour' are funny because now we generally can't sit in a family restaruant without hearing obsenities. I think my sensitivies are fine.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Thanks for your quote from Revelation, Panda. Here's one from the law. 'It is an abomination for a man to dress as a woman.'
    "from the law"?
    What law?


    While we are no longer under law but under grace should we sin?
    Bwahaha.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Thanks for your quote from Revelation, Panda. Here's one from the law. 'It is an abomination for a man to dress as a woman.'
    While we are no longer under law but under grace should we sin? I also don't think George Carlin or the results of his 'humour' are funny because now we generally can't sit in a family restaruant without hearing obsenities. I think my sensitivies are fine.
    Another nutcase to add to my ignore-list.
    PhDemon likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Thanks for your quote from Revelation, Panda. Here's one from the law. 'It is an abomination for a man to dress as a woman.'
    While we are no longer under law but under grace should we sin?
    So is your whole "variable stars" bollocks based on something in your bible then? That might explain a lot.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Thanks for your quote from Revelation, Panda. Here's one from the law. 'It is an abomination for a man to dress as a woman.'
    While we are no longer under law but under grace should we sin?
    So is your whole "variable stars" bollocks based on something in your bible then? That might explain a lot.
    Well, the Revelation does say that "power will be given to the sun to scorch men with great heat." But that only planted the seed of the idea, I didn't set out to propound the bible. However, I will answer questions when asked.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Thanks for your quote from Revelation, Panda. Here's one from the law. 'It is an abomination for a man to dress as a woman.'
    While we are no longer under law but under grace should we sin? I also don't think George Carlin or the results of his 'humour' are funny because now we generally can't sit in a family restaruant without hearing obsenities. I think my sensitivies are fine.
    Another nutcase to add to my ignore-list.
    Well, I won't ignore hypocrites, Panda. If you need some help living your faith I'll be happy to provide any advice I can, but only if asked.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Thanks for your quote from Revelation, Panda. Here's one from the law. 'It is an abomination for a man to dress as a woman.'
    "from the law"?
    What law?


    While we are no longer under law but under grace should we sin?
    Bwahaha.
    The Law of the Lord. Bwahaha. Ha!
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Sorry MacGyver, but my sensitivities preclude thinking a man in a dress is funny.
    So, no matter what he says, the dress will prevent him from being funny?
    Those are weird 'sensitivities' that you have.

    Well, your loss.
    I like them just fine.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    The Law of the Lord. Bwahaha. Ha!
    So you've given up on any pretence at science then?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Well, the Revelation does say that "power will be given to the sun to scorch men with great heat." But that only planted the seed of the idea
    You don't seem to have either (a) taken it further by finding support for it or (b) dropped it because it is contradicted by evidence.

    This is the reason for John's (and others') comments that it isn't science; it is pseudoscience.
    exchemist likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    "Cake or Death!!"

    "Cake please"
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Sorry MacGyver, but my sensitivities preclude thinking a man in a dress is funny.
    So, no matter what he says, the dress will prevent him from being funny?
    Those are weird 'sensitivities' that you have.

    Well, your loss.
    Thanks for your quote from Revelation, Panda. Here's one from the law. 'It is an abomination for a man to dress as a woman.'
    While we are no longer under law but under grace should we sin? I also don't think George Carlin or the results of his 'humour' are funny because now we generally can't sit in a family restaruant without hearing obsenities. I think my sensitivies are fine.
    Another Bible-thumper found his way onto the science forum? Seriously, why are you even here? I'd love to get a straight answer from one of you guys. Are you a missionary?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    What a waste of bandwidth.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I already said I don't have information to support it.
    Then there's no need for it to be given consideration.
    Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." He had no physical evidence to explain his ideas, but he put for the ideas then he and others pursued them. If you say, Duck, "well you are no Einstein" I will only say that whatever IQ a person has permits them to have original ideas. Mine was measured at 170 in High School. But I'm not bragging. Complaining actually. I wish it were far more.
    Is there an IQ test that scores similarly to golf?
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    John, signing into this site today was well worth the time. Your response is one of the best I have ever seen on any forum, especially as you don't hide probability that solar fluctuations are involved in ice age formation.
    Since you were so impressed by my response it is a great pity that you failed to understand at least one important element in it. Let me try to make it clearer:

    There is absolutely no need to try to hide the role of solar fluctuations in ice age formation because this role is a part of established science.

    My provisional deduction is that you still think that a) the scientific community does not recognise that role b) the solar fluctuations are a major influence.

    The first view is completely wrong. The second view has no evidential support.

    However, I don't understand what you are referring to by, "That is not science."
    You appear to wish to afford solar variations a greater, or primary role in ice ages. If that is not the case, then you need to write with much greater clarity. However, if that is your intent, then it is wholly insufficient to say "it might be so, but there is no supporting data". It is that statement that is decidedly not science.

    That, frankly, is the worst kind of pseudo-science. It is anti-science. It not only ignores the scientific methodology, but actively attempt to undermine it. At the same time it discards the work of thousands of dedicated experts, tens of thousands of peer reviewed research papers and millions of carefully made observations. Such an act is not just ridiculous, it is an abomination and has no place in science, or even in a science forum. You seem to think such reckless, illogical behaviour is acceptable. I don't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    The Law of the Lord. Bwahaha. Ha!
    So you've given up on any pretence at science then?
    Not at all, but I've given up on patience with people like you who fabricate ideas like you just did to suit your inability to read.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Sorry MacGyver, but my sensitivities preclude thinking a man in a dress is funny.
    So, no matter what he says, the dress will prevent him from being funny?
    Those are weird 'sensitivities' that you have.

    Well, your loss.
    Thanks for your quote from Revelation, Panda. Here's one from the law. 'It is an abomination for a man to dress as a woman.'
    While we are no longer under law but under grace should we sin? I also don't think George Carlin or the results of his 'humour' are funny because now we generally can't sit in a family restaruant without hearing obsenities. I think my sensitivies are fine.
    Another Bible-thumper found his way onto the science forum? Seriously, why are you even here? I'd love to get a straight answer from one of you guys. Are you a missionary?
    Flick, You get lots of straight answers from bible thumpers but the devil tells you they're bent. Some of them might BE bent as the bible says wolves will come in sheep's clothing; but if their answers come from the King James Version they're straight answers. So if you want to know the difference between straight and bent get a copy of that book and read it. No I'm not a missionary. And I'm not hijacking my own thread for Christ, but I will be polite and answer questions put to me. My purpose in being on this forum is science. Anything else is an offshoot. But that is my answer as to why I am here .. for science. Many bible thumpers are interested in HOW God does what he does with the physical world because we're curious.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    What a waste of bandwidth.
    Thanks for your avatar (or whatever the Christ image is) Alex
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    John, signing into this site today was well worth the time. Your response is one of the best I have ever seen on any forum, especially as you don't hide probability that solar fluctuations are involved in ice age formation.
    Since you were so impressed by my response it is a great pity that you failed to understand at least one important element in it. Let me try to make it clearer:

    There is absolutely no need to try to hide the role of solar fluctuations in ice age formation because this role is a part of established science.

    My provisional deduction is that you still think that a) the scientific community does not recognise that role b) the solar fluctuations are a major influence.

    The first view is completely wrong. The second view has no evidential support.

    However, I don't understand what you are referring to by, "That is not science."
    You appear to wish to afford solar variations a greater, or primary role in ice ages. If that is not the case, then you need to write with much greater clarity. However, if that is your intent, then it is wholly insufficient to say "it might be so, but there is no supporting data". It is that statement that is decidedly not science.

    That, frankly, is the worst kind of pseudo-science. It is anti-science. It not only ignores the scientific methodology, but actively attempt to undermine it. At the same time it discards the work of thousands of dedicated experts, tens of thousands of peer reviewed research papers and millions of carefully made observations. Such an act is not just ridiculous, it is an abomination and has no place in science, or even in a science forum. You seem to think such reckless, illogical behaviour is acceptable. I don't.
    John, once again I thank you sincerely for your information. I will say that your great imagination might make you a great friend of Einstein if you use harness it to a proper cart, if I might use a borrowed example, but your imagination ascribes to me improperly .. your personal view of what I write should not deviate from what I write, and I think I write fairly clearly. I merely asked if anyone has suggested that stars fluctuate, and if that might contribute to the large variance in star types. Then I believe I asked if our sun's possible fluctuation might have something to do with the ice ages. I did not ascribe anything to anything or exaggerated anything, I asked questions, to which you are doing the unusual internet forum thing of answering questions with some science. I will repeat though that your use of the word 'ridiculous' and 'pseudo science' do not belong in a scientific discussion of science as they both have derogatory meanings, with 'pseudo science' at its best meaning that some people simply will not accept the opinion of others no matter what evidence they present. In the many books I've read by PHDs I can't remember any of them using the word pseudo science. They have ALL been very open to new ideas no matter how fantastical they might seem. Please remember Aristarchus of Samos.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Sorry MacGyver, but my sensitivities preclude thinking a man in a dress is funny.
    So, no matter what he says, the dress will prevent him from being funny?
    Those are weird 'sensitivities' that you have.

    Well, your loss.
    Thanks for your quote from Revelation, Panda. Here's one from the law. 'It is an abomination for a man to dress as a woman.'
    While we are no longer under law but under grace should we sin? I also don't think George Carlin or the results of his 'humour' are funny because now we generally can't sit in a family restaruant without hearing obsenities. I think my sensitivies are fine.
    Another Bible-thumper found his way onto the science forum? Seriously, why are you even here? I'd love to get a straight answer from one of you guys. Are you a missionary?
    Flick, You get lots of straight answers from bible thumpers but the devil tells you they're bent. Some of them might BE bent as the bible says wolves will come in sheep's clothing; but if their answers come from the King James Version they're straight answers. So if you want to know the difference between straight and bent get a copy of that book and read it. No I'm not a missionary. And I'm not hijacking my own thread for Christ, but I will be polite and answer questions put to me. My purpose in being on this forum is science. Anything else is an offshoot. But that is my answer as to why I am here .. for science. Many bible thumpers are interested in HOW God does what he does with the physical world because we're curious.
    Ah. But for some reason, said bible thumpers seem determined NOT to learn what natural science has to say on the matter. And determined to reject anything that appears not to agree with a literal reading of one, arbitrarily chosen, translation of the bible into English.

    Very odd people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    In the many books I've read by PHDs I can't remember any of them using the word pseudo science. They have ALL been very open to new ideas no matter how fantastical they might seem.
    I have a PhD and I say all you have done is spout pseudoscience. In order for me to be interested in a new idea there has to be a least some evidence for it. Ideas (including yours) are not worth bothering with if they contradict observations.
    I'm sure you will never be well known. It's a pity you're wasting your education.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Sorry MacGyver, but my sensitivities preclude thinking a man in a dress is funny.
    So, no matter what he says, the dress will prevent him from being funny?
    Those are weird 'sensitivities' that you have.

    Well, your loss.
    Thanks for your quote from Revelation, Panda. Here's one from the law. 'It is an abomination for a man to dress as a woman.'
    While we are no longer under law but under grace should we sin? I also don't think George Carlin or the results of his 'humour' are funny because now we generally can't sit in a family restaruant without hearing obsenities. I think my sensitivies are fine.
    Another Bible-thumper found his way onto the science forum? Seriously, why are you even here? I'd love to get a straight answer from one of you guys. Are you a missionary?
    Flick, You get lots of straight answers from bible thumpers but the devil tells you they're bent. Some of them might BE bent as the bible says wolves will come in sheep's clothing; but if their answers come from the King James Version they're straight answers. So if you want to know the difference between straight and bent get a copy of that book and read it. No I'm not a missionary. And I'm not hijacking my own thread for Christ, but I will be polite and answer questions put to me. My purpose in being on this forum is science. Anything else is an offshoot. But that is my answer as to why I am here .. for science. Many bible thumpers are interested in HOW God does what he does with the physical world because we're curious.
    Ah. But for some reason, said bible thumpers seem determined NOT to learn what natural science has to say on the matter. And determined to reject anything that appears not to agree with a literal reading of one, arbitrarily chosen, translation of the bible into English.

    Very odd people.
    ExChem .. science history shows plainly in very clear words that most of the major science discoveries were made by people who believe in God, and many of them people who believed in the Bible. Einstein believed in a Creator, and so do many of today's top physicists .. why do they think it's called The God Particle. I doubt if you personally know any or many Bible Thumpers, or you would know many of us believe in the natural sciences. I'm not an oddball .. except to those scientists who do not believe, for instance, in Non Locality, which I believe in, which seems to have been found in hard science, which explains a great many scientific puzzles, and which will have a relatively simple scientific explanation
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. How do we know quantum fluctuations exist?
    By RamenNoodles in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 27th, 2013, 06:58 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 9th, 2011, 10:04 PM
  3. Naturally Fluctuations?
    By JDC in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 4th, 2010, 07:10 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 14th, 2009, 08:43 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •