And yet more people in on the conspiracy

See http://arxivblog.com/?p=1239 . This research makes sense if the general cosmology is correct. It makes no sense is stars or the sun are little nearby objects.

See http://arxivblog.com/?p=1239 . This research makes sense if the general cosmology is correct. It makes no sense is stars or the sun are little nearby objects.

The data is correct. It's the scale and interpretation which is wrong.

The data is correct. It's the scale and interpretation which is wrong.

Tom that's interesting but for one serious problem: tiny stars won't make supernova. In fact tiny globs of hydrogen won't form stars at all. Unless one has stars about 90 or so Mj (that is about 10^29 kg) one won't have enough internal pressure to have fusion. If stars are small they aren't shining due to the standard mechanism in which case the entire explanation of supernova doesn't make sense so this sort of research shouldn't work.

Tom that's interesting but for one serious problem: tiny stars won't make supernova. In fact tiny globs of hydrogen won't form stars at all. Unless one has stars about 90 or so Mj (that is about 10^29 kg) one won't have enough internal pressure to have fusion. If stars are small they aren't shining due to the standard mechanism in which case the entire explanation of supernova doesn't make sense so this sort of research shouldn't work.

Right, so obviously their ideas about stars are wrong altogether.

Right, so obviously their ideas about stars are wrong altogether.

In which case this data that is perfectly in line the standard ideas for stars is faked. Right?

In which case this data that is perfectly in line the standard ideas for stars is faked. Right?

Like I said, the data is right, the interpretation is wrong.

Like I said, the data is right, the interpretation is wrong.

So it is a sheer coincidence that the data matched what was predicted by the standard theories?

So it is a sheer coincidence that the data matched what was predicted by the standard theories?

The standard theory didn't predict "Super Novas." Super Novas are an interpretation of the data and scale.

The standard theory didn't predict "Super Novas." Super Novas are an interpretation of the data and scale.

Um, did you read the article linked to? It relied on the prediction that supernova would produce certain types of gamma radiation. This is a prediction based on our star models. One of many which turned out to be correct.

Um, did you read the article linked to? It relied on the prediction that supernova would produce certain types of gamma radiation. This is a prediction based on our star models. One of many which turned out to be correct.

Considering that the word "predict" or "prediction" doesn't appear anywhere in that page, you're wrong.

Considering that the word "predict" or "prediction" doesn't appear anywhere in that page, you're wrong.

Tom. Ok. Let's try to break this down: Supernova were observed. In the middle of the 20th century a possible mechanism was proposed. That mechanism implied that supernova would also send off strong bursts of gamma radiation. That prediction has been observed in a few supernova since then. But you would likely assert that in those cases that NASA was involved in tainting the data. So here we have that same prediction- the burst of gamma radiation, verified by physicists using historical supernova.

And Tom, as to it not having the word "predict" there you might want to reread the paragraph that says "The gamma rays from nearby supernova ought to have a significant impact on our atmosphere, in particular by producing an excess of nitrogen oxide. This ought to have left its mark in the Earth?s ice history, so the team went looking for it in Antarctica."  Saying X ought to happen is a prediction.

Uh-oh tom, ctrl+f has failed you!

Uh-oh tom, ctrl+f has failed you!

Worse than that. If Tom had bothered reading beyond the summary he'd find that the word "predict" was directly in the full article which can be downloaded at http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3446

Tom is dedicated, but a troll can only do so much! You're overworking him 

Quote from: Vladtheimpaler on February 23, 2009, 08:54:10 PM

Uh-oh tom, ctrl+f has failed you!

Worse than that. If Tom had bothered reading beyond the summary he'd find that the word "predict" was directly in the full article which can be downloaded at http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3446

If there was a laughing emoticon I would be spamming it right now.

Worse than that. If Tom had bothered reading beyond the summary he'd find that the word "predict" was directly in the full article which can be downloaded at http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3446

It's a good thing that I wasn't talking about that pdf. I was talking about the news article you linked us to.

Tom. Ok. Let's try to break this down: Supernova were observed. In the middle of the 20th century a possible mechanism was proposed. That mechanism implied that supernova would also send off strong bursts of gamma radiation. That prediction has been observed in a few supernova since then. But you would likely assert that in those cases that NASA was involved in tainting the data. So here we have that same prediction- the burst of gamma radiation, verified by physicists using historical supernova.

And Tom, as to it not having the word "predict" there you might want to reread the paragraph that says "The gamma rays from nearby supernova ought to have a significant impact on our atmosphere, in particular by producing an excess of nitrogen oxide. This ought to have left its mark in the Earth?s ice history, so the team went looking for it in Antarctica."  Saying X ought to happen is a prediction.

Did you even read your link? It's talking about some Nitrogen Oxide traces in drilled Antarctic ice cores. The amount of Nitrogen Oxide in some ancient ice cores does nothing at all to prove that the stars are light years away, or are thousands of miles in diameter. Nor does it prove anything about the size or proximity of Supernovas.

Another RE nonsense thread.

Quote from: JoshuaZ on February 23, 2009, 08:56:29 PM

Worse than that. If Tom had bothered reading beyond the summary he'd find that the word "predict" was directly in the full article which can be downloaded at http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3446

It's a good thing that I wasn't talking about that pdf. I was talking about the news article you linked us to.

Quote

Tom. Ok. Let's try to break this down: Supernova were observed. In the middle of the 20th century a possible mechanism was proposed. That mechanism implied that supernova would also send off strong bursts of gamma radiation. That prediction has been observed in a few supernova since then. But you would likely assert that in those cases that NASA was involved in tainting the data. So here we have that same prediction- the burst of gamma radiation, verified by physicists using historical supernova.

And Tom, as to it not having the word "predict" there you might want to reread the paragraph that says "The gamma rays from nearby supernova ought to have a significant impact on our atmosphere, in particular by producing an excess of nitrogen oxide. This ought to have left its mark in the Earth?s ice history, so the team went looking for it in Antarctica."  Saying X ought to happen is a prediction.

Did you even read your link? It's talking about some Nitrogen Oxide traces in drilled Ice Cores in Antarctica. The amount of Nitrogen Oxide in some ancient ice cores does nothing at all to prove that the stars are light years away, or are thousands of miles in diameter. Nor does it prove anything about the size of Supernovas.

Another RE nonsense thread.

Deny, deny deny. It must be fun living in tom's world.

This is almost as funny as the last time he had "cutting proof" of FE.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were making a point there. Carry on; if you post enough inane babble someone might assume you know what you're talking about on the basis that you couldn't possibly be so arrogant otherwise. You just might pull it off.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were making a point there. Carry on; if you post enough inane babble someone might assume you know what you're talking about on the basis that you couldn't possibly be so arrogant otherwise. You just might pull it off.

Seems to work OK for Tom.

Quote from: JoshuaZ on February 23, 2009, 08:56:29 PM

Worse than that. If Tom had bothered reading beyond the summary he'd find that the word "predict" was directly in the full article which can be downloaded at http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3446

It's a good thing that I wasn't talking about that pdf. I was talking about the news article you linked us to.

Quote

Tom. Ok. Let's try to break this down: Supernova were observed. In the middle of the 20th century a possible mechanism was proposed. That mechanism implied that supernova would also send off strong bursts of gamma radiation. That prediction has been observed in a few supernova since then. But you would likely assert that in those cases that NASA was involved in tainting the data. So here we have that same prediction- the burst of gamma radiation, verified by physicists using historical supernova.

And Tom, as to it not having the word "predict" there you might want to reread the paragraph that says "The gamma rays from nearby supernova ought to have a significant impact on our atmosphere, in particular by producing an excess of nitrogen oxide. This ought to have left its mark in the Earth?s ice history, so the team went looking for it in Antarctica."  Saying X ought to happen is a prediction.

Did you even read your link?

Tom, you know the saying about glass houses and stones?  (I take it incidentally this means that you agree it is making a prediction?)

It's talking about some Nitrogen Oxide traces in drilled Antarctic ice cores. The amount of Nitrogen Oxide in some ancient ice cores does nothing at all to prove that the stars are light years away, or are thousands of miles in diameter. Nor does it prove anything about the size or proximity of Supernovas.

Another RE nonsense thread.

Except it does. The levels of nitrogen oxide were predicted to vary with supernova. This makes sense if supernova are light years away and stars are exactly what scientists think they are. That prediction turned out to be correct. It is an example of the mainstream scientific theories making a correct prediction.