Hmm;
i) Supernova explosions:
Its interesting that they speak in hushed reverent tones about Solar Physicists and put their humbleness on the pedestal and then move onto astronomical empirical types:
Quote:
They are still shy of writing about electric fields …
..
those guys aren't observing off the back of a turnip truck …
…
Perhaps their lead theoreticians are way conservative, but the guys and gals in the astronomical trenches are anything but stupid, and know what gravity does and does not do on our star. It's a start.
|
… but its only a start.
They need a translator to turn their words into something which suits their own purpose:
Quote:
|
We need to learn to read through their code, such as hot gas, warm gas, stellar winds, magnetic fields, ripples, flux ropes, etc. and learn to equate them with our lingo.
|
ii) Jupiter:
Lets face it, Jupiter has big time
Magnetosphere impacts, both in the atmosphere (around the poles), and also beyond its immediate vicinity (via cyclotron maser mechanism, etc). So what they say does have a semblance of verifiable evidence behind it.
The dissertation morphs from using terms like, 'perhaps', suddenly into 'probably' in the final paragraph .. without any supporting evidence.
This is directly from the book 'How to 'Start Rumours, for Dummies', I think.
Cheers