Solar Probe Found Unexplainable Things

[JudgeRightly]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...ound-things-near-the-sun-that-we-cant-explain

When one's model is constantly having issues explaining how things work, maybe the model being used is incorrect, and should be discarded or revised...

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://physicsworld.com/a/nasa-mission-touches-the-edge-of-the-sun/

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://www.popsci.com/story/space/parker-solar-probe-sun-first-results/

 

[Right Divider]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...ound-things-near-the-sun-that-we-cant-explain

When one's model is constantly having issues explaining how things work, maybe the model being used is incorrect, and should be discarded or revised...

Unless the model is sacred. :idunno:

 

[Right Divider]

...so we’re missing something really fundamental in our standard models of the Sun...

We don't even have a great understanding of our Sun and yet we are told by some here that we understand how the solar system formed from a dust cloud.

 

[Jonahdog]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...ound-things-near-the-sun-that-we-cant-explain

When one's model is constantly having issues explaining how things work, maybe the model being used is incorrect, and should be discarded or revised...

goodness some difficult science. So do we just say "godditit" and leave it with that? Cause that seems to be your fall back

 

[Right Divider]

goodness some difficult science. So do we just say "godditit" and leave it with that? Cause that seems to be your fall back

That beats your "nothing did it".

 

[JudgeRightly]

goodness some difficult science. So do we just say "godditit" and leave it with that? Cause that seems to be your fall back

You misread the article (if you even read it at all).

Try again:

"we’re missing something really fundamental in our standard models of the Sun"

:think:

It's amusing how you instantly start attacking God when the topic of discussion is your own position.

Knee-jerk reaction much?

 

[Jonahdog]

You misread the article (if you even read it at all).

Try again:

"we’re missing something really fundamental in our standard models of the Sun"

:think:

It's amusing how you instantly start attacking God when the topic of discussion is your own position.

Knee-jerk reaction much?

You mean the article that described new information from recent solar fly bys? The same article that briefly suggested while we all know where the sun is but it is not easy to study in detail etc?
The one that actually suggested what you suggested? That further study is needed? Yep that one.
You provided a simple binary choice in your first post---further study of throwing out the current model. Scientists are likely to take the first choice. Which is your choice?

 

[JudgeRightly]

You provided a simple binary choice in your first post---further study of throwing out the current model.

​​​​​There was a qualifier statement that you missed or ignored.

"When one's model is constantly having issues explaining how things work"

Which means that you taking this one instance and treating it as a standalone issue doesn't work for you.

The model being used (that the scientists in the article state quite clearly has a fundamental issue) has more problems than just the one we are discussing.

It was in THAT CONTEXT that I stated that one should discard or revise the model, instead of trying to force the data to fit the model, or to use ad hoc rescue devices.

The current model being used needs to be revised, or discarded and a new model formed.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You mean the article that described new information from recent solar fly bys? The same article that briefly suggested while we all know where the sun is but it is not easy to study in detail etc?
The one that actually suggested what you suggested? That further study is needed? Yep that one.
You provided a simple binary choice in your first post---further study of throwing out the current model. Scientists are likely to take the first choice. Which is your choice?

It's amusing how you instantly start attacking God when the topic of discussion is your own position.

Knee-jerk reaction much?

 

[Jonahdog]

​​​​​There was a qualifier statement that you missed or ignored.

"When one's model is constantly having issues explaining how things work"

Which means that you taking this one instance and treating it as a standalone issue doesn't work for you.

The model being used (that the scientists in the article state quite clearly has a fundamental issue) has more problems than just the one we are discussing.

It was in THAT CONTEXT that I stated that one should discard or revise the model, instead of trying to force the data to fit the model, or to use ad hoc rescue devices.

The current model being used needs to be revised, or discarded and a new model formed.

Simple then, get the crack physicists and cosmologists at Liberty University or the like to come up with the correct scientific model. Win a Nobel. Advance science. Defeat the devil.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Simple then, get the crack physicists and cosmologists at Liberty University or the like to come up with the correct scientific model. Win a Nobel. Advance science. Defeat the devil.

:yawn:

You done trolling?

 

[User Name]

https://www.popsci.com/story/space/parker-solar-probe-sun-first-results/

Rather than just posting a link, make a point about the referenced article.

lain:

 

[Right Divider]

lain:

So you still cannot handle making an actual comment about the article that you posted a link to?

 

[Stuu]

When one's model is constantly having issues explaining how things work, maybe the model being used is incorrect, and should be discarded or revised...

That would certainly apply to Mr. Brown's disproved claims of a recent global flood.

Stuart