Are We Living In A Box?

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by The Boy Who Cried Worf, Dec 15, 2012.

  1. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    Science reporting and scientific THEORY are two extremely different things. "Dirty snowballs" is easier to explain to stupid people than "snowy dirtballs" which is the description that came out of the Deep Impact mission. NASA press releases will almost always use the former description, while sometimes explaining in later paragraphs "There's more dirt than snow, of course." They'd probably be better off coming up with a better phrase, like "frozen mudball" or something, but that's harder for stupid people to grasp.

    Don't forget, this is NASA we're talking about. A full third of its budget is dedicated to public outreach, and they cast an extremely wide net.

    There's no sign of SURFACE water. The jets are coming from reservoirs underneath the surface of the comet, but there's not much to dispute what the jets are actually made of.

    A simple excerpt will do, particularly if there's a part you think is relevant to the nature of comets/asteroids.

    Credit for posting a clip about neutron stars, but:

    Hard to tell from that single (couple of) paragraphs, but it sounds like he's laboring from a misunderstanding of what "neutronium" actually is. Or maybe I am, I don't know. But neutronium in theoretical neutron stars isn't an atomic structure so much as it is a superdense matter where nuclei are packed extremely close together by gravity. It's indeed true that the "normal laws of physics" don't apply because ABNORMAL ones apply in that case.

    He's extremely correct that the actual evidence for this premise is relatively flimsy -- I haven't thought about that in a long time -- and that the assumptions about the nature of neutron stars are based entirely on the pulse frequency and further assumptions about their cause. There are probably far more likely explanations that would be consistent with known (and testable) physics.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2013
  2. Metryq

    Metryq Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Stardust Shatters Comet Theory (3)

    Deep Impact—Where’s the Water? This is the first of a series of articles.

    Again, I am recommending Donald Scott's book as a primer to the "electric universe" (aka plasma cosmology). If you read one or two articles on waterless comets or electric stars without any foundation in the science that has been going on for the last century, then you are trying to form an opinion while walking into the middle of a conversation.
     
  3. Robert Maxwell

    Robert Maxwell Comfortably Numb Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Location:
    where it hurts
    Wait, so if mainstream scientists are wrong about comets, that means the electric universe idea is fact? You are too much. :lol:
     
  4. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    You linked those before. And it remains relevant, so I repeat: there is no dispute over what the JETS are made of. The halo and tail of the comets are both known to be composed of water and other volatiles, and WELL known at that, because for decades that was the only part of the comet we could even see and examine. They probes that studied Halley on its last pass confirmed as much.

    It's the surface composition of the COMET ITSELF that is (or was) up for debate. The present leading theory is that the comets are essentially very porous asteroids with vast water reservoirs beneath a stony surface (interestingly, Ceres and Vesta appear to have the same basic structure).