Star ringing in new era.

[nebel]

<www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314141435.htm>.
star seismology the beat of stars influences the clouds in which they form, and in our solar system that might provide a clue to the spacings of the matter.

 

[exchemist]

<www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314141435.htm>.
star seismology the beat of stars influences the clouds in which they form, and in our solar system that might provide a clue to the spacings of the matter.

Nope.

The article is about the finding that the spins of stars in ancient galaxies, where the dust and gas has dispersed, are quite well aligned. They use the waves triggered by starquakes (analogous to the waves generated in the Earth by earthquakes) in the process of detected the spin alignment, that is all. The article, rather frustratingly, does not explain how this is done.

But:

- There is zero in this article about any notion of a "beat".

- There is zero in this article about "influencing the clouds in which [stars] form".

- There is zero in this article about the "spacing of matter."

That is all your mind.

 

[origin]

This is like the 3rd or 4th time you have tried to post this stuff in the science section, isn't it time to stop and just post it in the fringe section where it belongs instead of it being sent there later?

 

[nebel]

When the "Stars ring like bells" and there is a connection to "the conditions in the turbulent gas clouds" in which they formed, there might be more to the story's development.; after all, our Sun formed out of such a cloud, and it "rings like a bell" or sounds "like an organ pipe" as past articles headlined. so, is it a valid subject for discussion?

 

[exchemist]

When the "Stars ring like bells" and there is a connection to "the conditions in the turbulent gas clouds" in which they formed, there might be more to the story's development.; after all, our Sun formed out of such a cloud, and it "rings like a bell" or sounds "like an organ pipe" as past articles headlined. so, is it a valid subject for discussion?

No. There is nothing remarkable about it. People can model how waves propagate in stars, just as they do with earthquakes. Ringing" like a bell" is just journalese. And it was not even the subject of the article you linked to, which was in fact all about alignment of stellar spins.

Here is the abstract of the actual paper. http://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-017-0064
Read it and you will see that "asteroseismology" is discussed as a perfectly routine technique for obtaining information about stars.

If you don't get off your one-track obsession and introduce some science I am going to report this and ask for it to go to Alt Theories, where on present evidence it belongs.

 

[danshawen]

So, when paddoboy "correctly" references ringing of baryonic masses in the CMBR as evidence of the Big Bang, that's "real" science, and when nebel tries to understand a similar effect in stellar seismology, that is berated as "fringe", is that right?

You all understand Popper's model of the scientific method as analogous to natural selection, right?

Nebel, as far as I can tell, was not trying to resurrect something like Bode's law here; simply referencing a recent peer reviewed scientific paper and trying to relate the findings to a more local star. What, exactly, do you both (origin and exchemist) find wrong with that idea?

This post belongs right here, where I deliberately put it. But don't worry; I do not intend to run any of my ideas past either of you again. Not that I ever did. That's what a forum is supposed to be all about. If it were not, we could all of us just read the peer reviewed scientific papers, yes?

 

[origin]

So, when paddoboy "correctly" references ringing of baryonic masses in the CMBR as evidence of the Big Bang, that's "real" science, and when nebel tries to understand a similar effect in stellar seismology, that is berated as "fringe", is that right?

You all understand Popper's model of the scientific method as analogous to natural selection, right?

Nebel, as far as I can tell, was not trying to resurrect something like Bode's law here; simply referencing a recent peer reviewed scientific paper and trying to relate the findings to a more local star. What, exactly, do you both (origin and exchemist) find wrong with that idea?

This post belongs right here, where I deliberately put it. But don't worry; I do not intend to run any of my ideas past either of you again. Not that I ever did. That's what a forum is supposed to be all about. If it were not, we could all of us just read the peer reviewed scientific papers, yes?

Nebel thinks that oscillations in the sun somehow determines the spacing of the planets - that is not 'real' science, that is 'real' unevidenced speculation.

 

[danshawen]

Nebel thinks that oscillations in the sun somehow determines the spacing of the planets - that is not 'real' science, that is 'real' unevidenced speculation.

Nebel, is that your entire thought on the subject, or just a beginning to discuss the paper in connection with our own solar system? If it was, then I would simply refer you to google the discredited Bode's law, which has already been mentioned.

Periodic rotation (even retrograde rotation) of planets around a star can interact with stellar seismology. It can even "record" conserved angular momentum in exactly the manner this paper would suggest. But I don't want to put words into Nebel's argument either. You would only attack that as speculation as well. But this discussion belongs right HERE. Relegating it to "fringe" discussion is an inappropriate form of censorship.

 

[origin]

Nebel, is that your entire thought on the subject, or just a beginning to discuss the paper in connection with our own solar system? If it was, then I would simply refer you to google the discredited Bode's law, which has already been mentioned.

Periodic rotation (even retrograde rotation) of planets around a star can interact with stellar seismology. It can even "record" conserved angular momentum in exactly the manner this paper would suggest. But I don't want to put words into Nebel's argument either. You would only attack that as speculation as well. But this discussion belongs right HERE. Relegating it to "fringe" discussion is an inappropriate form of censorship.

If he wants to talk science in the science section that's great, however his past history on this subject does not bode (pun intended) well for this staying in the science section.

 

[danshawen]

If he wants to talk science in the science section that's great, however his past history on this subject does not bode (pun intended) well for this staying in the science section.

I will concede your point about nebel, and also concede, neither does my own past posting history. I learned here. So has nebel. That's what it's aupposed to be all about on a science forum, unless you are a cyberbully or a troll, or some individual with another agenda.

This is the way science actually works, if it is done properly:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170328-why-you-should-mostly-trust-what-science-tells-you

NOT ONE of those scientists / astronomers has had the last word on how celestial mechanics actually works to the last decimal point. Neither do you. Neither do I. That's "science", nebel. Don't let anyone tell you that it works differently. Academics, properly taught, only teaches you how and what to read, and in particular how to read about other's ideas, and to dutifully quote ideas that are not original. That's not how science works. It is, at best, only a means to an end, to avoid a lot of needless and wasteful duplication of scientific and research effort. Even if all you studied was holy scripture, it would be no different in terms of procedural formality. That isn't science either, even if some folks here seem to think it is. Peer review only means that someone other than yourself has glanced at what you wrote. It's not "science". That's why Peter Higgs recently said that he would have had exactly no chance of proposing the existence of the Higgs boson in a submitted paper in today's academic environment. I for one agree with his assessment.

 

[exchemist]

I will concede your point about nebel, and also concede, neither does my own past posting history. I learned here. So has nebel. That's what it's aupposed to be all about on a science forum, unless you are a cyberbully or a troll, or some individual with another agenda.

This is the way science actually works, if it is done properly:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170328-why-you-should-mostly-trust-what-science-tells-you

NOT ONE of those scientists / astronomers has had the last word on how celestial mechanics actually works to the last decimal point. Neither do you. Neither do I. That's "science", nebel. Don't let anyone tell you that it works differently. Academics, properly taught, only teaches you how and what to read, and in particular how to read about other's ideas, and to dutifully quote ideas that are not original. That's not how science works. It is, at best, only a means to an end, to avoid a lot of needless and wasteful duplication of scientific and research effort. Even if all you studied was holy scripture, it would be no different in terms of procedural formality. That isn't science either, even if some folks here seem to think it is. Peer review only means that someone other than yourself has glanced at what you wrote. It's not "science". That's why Peter Higgs recently said that he would have had exactly no chance of proposing the existence of the Higgs boson in a submitted paper in today's academic environment. I for one agree with his assessment.

Dan, if you read the thread, nebel was completely misrepresenting the research he cited. So for you to suggest that there some kind of censorship of novel ideas going here is ballocks. There is my objection to his or her misrepresentation going on, that is all. That is not "cyberbullying".

 

[danshawen]

Dan, if you read the thread, nebel was completely misrepresenting the research he cited. So for you to suggest that there some kind of censorship of novel ideas going here is ballocks. There is my objection to his or her misrepresentation going on, that is all. That is not "cyberbullying".

We have yet to hear from nebel. It is possible, I was reading something else between the lines he actually wrote.

 

[exchemist]

We have yet to hear from nebel. It is possible, I was reading something else between the lines he actually wrote.

This was all settled weeks ago. There is no reason for us to "hear from nebel".

All you have to do is read the article he quoted and see for yourself what it is about.

 

[danshawen]

This was all settled weeks ago. There is no reason for us to "hear from nebel".

All you have to do is read the article he quoted and see for yourself what it is about.

Already did that. That is where I got the distinct impression, he might have been after the answer to a more cogent and pertinent scientific question about solar dynamics, given a chance to ask it.

 

[exchemist]

Already did that. That is where I got the distinct impression, he might have been after the answer to a more cogent and pertinent scientific question about solar dynamics, given a chance to ask it.

He or she has every chance to ask any question. But not to grossly misrepresent science papers without challenge.

 

[nebel]

He or she has every chance to ask any question. But not to grossly misrepresent science papers without challenge.

The main theme of the paper, or the article about it, might have been the detection of spin of stars, but the origin of it, touches on resonances that merit attention imo.

 

[exchemist]

The main theme of the paper, or the article about it, might have been the detection of spin of stars, but the origin of it, touches on resonances that merit attention imo.

Fine. Then make that point without misrepresenting science papers.