User talk:Anr
Opaskoira[change source]
Excerpt from NO, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SOLAR MICRONOVA:
- To be clear, a micronova isn't a thing.
I guess they don't call themselves SyFy for no reason. Try DuckDuckGo. Modanung (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
You may also be interested in the liquid metallic hydrogen model of the sun. If the building block is wrong, how can the puzzle be correct? Modanung (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- "If you ask where the border goes between the first approach and the second approach today, an approximate answer is that it is given by the reach of spacecrafts. This means that in every region where it is possible to explore the state of the plasma by magnetometers, electric field probes and particle analyzers, we find that in spite of all their elegance, the first approach theories have very little to do with reality."
- — Hannes Alfvén, 1970 Nobel lecture
- "Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory."
- — Hannes Alfvén, as quoted by Anthony L. Peratt in 1988
Modanung (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. [...]" — Open Letter on Cosmology, 2004, New Scientist