Nature of astrophysics (6) - physics is quantitative

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid,

I have seen in several threads so far, that you are fond of commenting on TPOD articles and explaining that the original article is quantitative because the scientists in question will post observed data, and then cast aspersions on the interpretation of the data provided by one EU proponent or another by labeling said interpretation "subjective".

So by your own argument, the following is an entirely subjectve- and thereby equally dismissable(?)- interpretation of data regarding observation of a celestial phenomena:

A Pulsar's Hand

A Pulsar's Hand
Credit: P. Slane (Harvard-Smithsonian CfA) et al., CXC, NASA Explanation: As far as pulsars go, PSR B1509-58 appears young. Light from the supernova explosion that gave birth to it would have first reached Earth some 1,700 years ago. The magnetized, 20 kilometer-diameter neutron star spins 7 times per second, a cosmic dynamo that powers a wind of charged particles. The energetic wind creates the surrounding nebula's X-ray glow in this tantalizing image from the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Low energy X-rays are in red, medium energies in green, and high energies in blue. The pulsar itself is in the bright central region. Remarkably, the nebula's tantalizing, complicated structure resembles a hand. PSR B1509-58 is about 17,000 light-years away in the southern constellation Circinus. At that distance the Chandra image spans 100 light-years

My point being- why are we comparing subjective interpretations of data to quantitative posts of observation results? Do you take issue with APOD doing the same? If so- why? o.O

[Nereid]

mharratsc,

In one or other, possibly more, "Nature of astrophysics" threads, at least one other Thunderbolts Forum member makes a similar point.

Perhaps this points to a need for me to do a tenth thread, on the relationship between physics/astronomy and what is to be found in APODs, popular books (whether by the likes of Hawking or not), PRs (press releases), etc; certainly I perceive that you - and perhaps others - equate the content of such materials with physics/astronomy.

In brief, then, such material is not, repeat NOT, a reliable source!

Of course, such material may be based on papers, published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, which might make it a good place to start (especially if it cites its sources).

cast aspersions on the interpretation of the data provided by one EU proponent or another by labeling said interpretation "subjective".

If, in your subjective opinion, you perceive me as "casting aspersions", then you must be right; to you your subjective opinion is unquestionable.

However, if you read what I wrote carefully, you'll find (I hope!) that I defined what I meant by "subjective" (and "objective") ... and by my definition, the relevant parts of the relevant TPODs are subjective.

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid,

I'm not trying to test your patience, honestly. I understand the difference you are attempting to explain the difference between quantitative and subjective journalism.

I'm simply wondering why you are pointing out that these TPOD's aren't quantitatve? Obviously they're no more 'quantitatve' than other similar 'lay' articles (like APOD's for instance) as has been pointed out previously on the board. Where are you going with this point, I guess I'm asking?

[Goldminer]

However, if you read what I wrote carefully, you'll find (I hope!) that I defined what I meant by "subjective" (and "objective") ... and by my definition, the relevant parts of the relevant TPODs are subjective.

Of course Nereid, you won't mind if we lightening riddled "Thunderbolters" apply your carefully crafted definitions [a commendable pursuit for all writers!] to everything including "papers, published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals," and damned near everything we can find to review. Right? Including raw data even. Photos can be "photoshopped!"

[Nereid]

Ms. Nereid,

I'm not trying to test your patience, honestly. I understand the difference you are attempting to explain the difference between quantitative and subjective journalism.

I'm simply wondering why you are pointing out that these TPOD's aren't quantitatve? Obviously they're no more 'quantitatve' than other similar 'lay' articles (like APOD's for instance) as has been pointed out previously on the board. Where are you going with this point, I guess I'm asking?

You're right Mike, a bit of muddled thinking on my part; thanks for pointing it out.

Here's the point (well, one point) that I was trying to make (and this may not, yet, be as clear as it should be):

If you investigate the NASA/ESA/ESO/whatever PRs that (many of) the TPODs rely upon/provide a link to/reproduce images from/whatever, you'll fairly easily find a paper or two that the PR is (ostensibly) based on (and those papers themselves contain references to a dozen or so others, and so on).

In other words, with relatively little effort you can find, and follow, the physics/astronomy chain, back as far as you've got patience to take you.

Compare that with the EU/PC parts of the TPODs.

As far as I've been able to determine, there are very few 'electrical theorists', and they have published little (whether in peer-reviewed journals or not). The TPOD authors rarely (so it seems) provide even links to the EU/PC sources they surely must have relied/based their text upon; however, even when you go searching through the primary documents (by electrical theorists, for example), you nearly always come up blank! Perhaps even worse: almost none of the (very few) primary documents contain quantitative details!!

In short, there appears to be no way to check, independently, most of what's in the TPODs (the parts that seem to be derived from/rely upon/etc EU/PC theory).

Now way back when[quantification required] you[reference required] (among others)[citations required] pointed me to TPODs as an excellent source for pure EU/PC scientific work (or something like that). I took you at your word, spent a great many hours reading and researching TPODs, only to find the well is (almost completely) dry.

[Goldminer]

"In short, there appears to be no way to check, independently, most of what's in the TPODs (the parts that seem to be derived from/rely upon/etc EU/PC theory)."

Oh yes, that is definitely true! But then applying the same guidelines to consensus astronomy, the same is true. Hubble's redshift/distance formula has exactly the same problem, other that being accepted by consensus astronomers! Please provide at least ten independent ways to check the Hubble redshift/distance formula. Independent of consensus astronomers shouting, pointing, and stomping their feet, that is.

You might throw in your refutation of Robitaille's article while you are at it.

.