Reread my title, BorisTheSpider. I'm clearly talking to people like you. Your message showed exactly the unarguable hubris I'm talking about.

As for your challenges, if I'm allowed to make stuff up whenever I want to make my theory fit the model, I can do at least as well as the Lambda CDM. But then it'd be no better either. I don't want to make up dark energy when it calculations don't add up. I don't want to make up dark matter when my motions don't add up. I don't want to invent a cosmological constant that causes accelerating expansion because the timeline doesn't add up without it.

I do not assume that the universe must be expanding in the "expanding space" sense. I do not assume large scale electric charge imbalances are impossible. I do not assume dark matter exists. I do not assume that the universe must have had an identifiable beginning. I do not assume that it must fit with any religion's idea of "the moment of creation." I honestly believe that most scientists believe in the Big Bang as a religious litmus test akin to "do you believe in science?"

I do make a lot of assumptions, but when I take out the assumption of a Big Bang, I find that a lot of things don't necessarily follow supported by their own weight. And anyone who justifies one piece of the puzzle by saying it fits into the Lambda CDM, is I believe falling victim to circular logic. I remain unconvinced that Lambda CDM (or any previous Big Bang formulation) is anything more than an attempt to put a random formula together that ties together a number of different unfounded assumptions so they look like they reinforce each other.

You assume it's more than that, and I appreciate that you are working to validate aspects of the theory. Here's what I'd like you to ask yourself, even if you still think I'm an idiot: When you find something that disagrees with the theory, you try to figure out what variable needs to be tweaked to improve the agreement, but is there a point where you would ever consider reexamining the questions of the assumptions? Why haven't we reached that point yet?

--Jaborandy

Wow, these guys are way too certain of themselves. And this isn't direct evidence of anything except polarization. Anything beyond that, be it gravitational waves or what that says about the first moments after the Big Bang, are indirect.

Science is a process of discovery, and we need to be open to alternatives that are not disproven. The expansion of the universe is a great example of this. Everybody "knows" that the universe is expanding and that this indicates a Big Bang is the most likely origin story. But technically, all we have observed is that there is a correlation between distance and red shift, assuming that absorption spectra are constant over space/time and light doesn't chance frequency in travel. We have not actually observed that distant galaxies are actually moving away from us. We literally have no direct evidence that the universe is expanding. It's a theory. Not proven fact.

To put a more fine point on it, we know (can demonstrate experimentally) that relative motion is _a_ cause of red-shift, and we observe red-shift. We have not, in fact, observed this relative motion on scales large enough to demonstrate universal expansion. This is an indirect measurement believed to be reliable, but not proven. We can only observe relative motion on very close things via parallax, and we've found that some things are coming towards us, so relative motion locally is not dominated by expansion. We rely on the theory. It could be wrong.

A viable alternate theory is that light gives up some energy while traveling extremely long distances, which shows up as red-shift. Where does the energy go? It could be the source of energy for the CMBR. It could go somewhere else. In any case, as a theory, it explains the red-shift just as well as expansion. Another viable alternate theory is that the absorption/emission spectra of atoms differs with space/time. Perhaps atoms farther away or longer ago created and absorbed light at lower frequencies, this making older light appear red-shifted by current frequency comparisons. This theory is even harder to test, but just as good at explaining the observations.

As a scientist, remember the difference between theory and proof.

--Jaborandy

Alternate title: "Man Shot To Death After Striking Retired Police Officer In Dark Room"

When you put it that way, it's not ridiculous. Probably wouldn't have received national attention either. Yes, the fight started over texting, but it was finished when one of them hit the other. Violence in public is risky. You never know how the other guy plans to defend himself. Don't be an asshole and hit strangers, and you won't get shot by the tiny percentage who carry guns.

--Jaborandy

/me wants mod points so I can mod up this correct use of "begging the question." So rare. So incredibly rare, even on Slashdot. Where are my mod points when I need them?

--Jaborandy

With so many excellent value priced entrants to the console gaming market, the big names (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) should be worried. It is becoming harder and harder to justify high price points with this kind of low priced competition.

Steam's entry seems more likely to get market share over the longer term, but all these options together make it clear that a TV-connected computer is available to run whatever you want, to any market that will pay. The financial barriers to entry are disappearing, and I think that's wonderful.

--Jaborandy

When I want to physically destroy my hard drives, I use bullets. Here's why it works:

The surface of the platters is covered in magnetic data, but in order to read it you have to be able to pass a head over it. If you bend the platters, put a few jagged holes in them, and destroy the bearing center, there is no technology that can run a read head reliably over a data track. If the platters are bent, you can't install them in a new drive or mount new heads. You also can't flatten them to the original tolerances without destroying the magnetic surface coating.

The biggest hand-waving magic people fear is the electon microscope techinques which have been shown to dig up even erased data by looking at the edges of the latest written data to see what was there before. While this is technically possible in ideal conditions, it requires that you can move the platter under the tip of the microscope with incredible precision. Without the platters in perfect physical shape, you'd risk destroying the electron microscope's fragile tip.

Pistol rounds generally dent the platters pretty seriously. Rifle rounds generally punch through leaving jagged holes. A combination of both is a fun day at the range, makes great desk art, and securely pretects your drives from ever being decoded again.

--Jaborandy

Yeah, I'm not convinced that's accurate. It's a logic thing.
We know:
      1 - Red shift is observed in proportion to distance
      2 - Relative velocity (away from us) causes red shift

Based on these two facts, it cannot be proven that relative velocity depends on distance. That's why it's just a theory.

Relative motion is one possible cause of the observed red shift, but that does not mean it is the only possible cause. I think it is more likely that light loses energy in some form over thousands of years, and this energy loss is reflected as a red shift. This is perfectly consistent with observations, is simple, is consistent with every other physical process in nature (which cannot in general maintain perfect energy conservation over infinite time periods), and has the unfortunate side effect of causing a complete re-evaluation of everything we think we know about the universe.

Those younger than forty will probably live to see the fall of the Big Bang Theory.

Remember this mocking when that time comes. You'll have plenty of company in your camp of people who didn't see it coming, but you'll forever lose your geek cred when you find that you've been the flat-earther, mocking the true scientists who based their theories on observations, not mathematical models.

Sounds like a job for the Institude of Justice.

For those who understand plasma universe theory already, this makes perfect sense. The energy output of the sun is tied to the electric field strength of the surrounding galactic neighborhood, which fluctuates over time. The energy output of the sun has huge impacts on historical biodiversity and how well the biosphere thrives. Supernovae are events caused (at least in part) by stars exceeding their surface output capacity and blowing off their outer charged layer or dividing into smaller stars, which happens when the electric differential is higher than previously.

The fact that a correlation has been found between nearby supernovae and a highly sucessful biosphere on Earth is excellent news. It helps prove that solar output is tied to events outside our solar system, in our galactic neighborhood. Fascinating stuff.

(For those of you who haven't been convinced of the validity of the plasma universe theory, you are behind the times and need to get cracking. Be a scientist and stop supporting the dead Big Bang theory.)

--Jaborandy

You totally rock.

As for the parent, you also totally rock. Climate predictions and this "discovery" are not scientific result, but theories that have yet to be verified with significant supporting evidence.
I am concerned that the climate scientists haven't demonstrated a peer reviewed model of warming that stands up to even a 5 year span of time.
I am concerned that the astrophysicysts haven't properly understood the nature of the pulsar or the body orbiting it, and are assuming far too much to give useful results.
Both of them may be good theories from honest scientists, but theories are just the start.

Science is an imprecise art of choosing a winner from competing theories and weighing them based on how well the predictions are useful. If a theory fails to predict the future, it's basically useless.

The problem with climate science is that it has in the past, many times, made predictions about the future regarding global warming trends and rates based on greenhouse gas concentrations, and they've been totally wrong. Despite the greenhouse gas predictions being accurate, the warming numbers have never agreed with models. Therefore we have yet to find a theoretical model that accurately predict the future. Our latest and greatest model is claimed to be wonderful, but until it is proven accurate, it's just a theory competing for attention and validation.

The further problem with climate science is that those weak theories are siezed upon to justify very very expensive policy choices, that are only worth it if the models are accurate. In the mean time, we will have some people who believe the scary predictions and choose to pay ridiculous proces to attempt to solve the supposed problem, and other people who don't believe the scary predictions and continue to consume the cheapest energy they can, spoiling any effort of the first group to accomplish change.

It's a crappy situation, but it won't improve until some climate scientist can create and popularize a theory that accurately predicts future events well enough to be useful as a policy guide, and prove it with years of successful model validation. Today we have mostly climate scientists who update the model every year to postpone the point in their theories where verifiable results are demonstrable.

Looking back 20 years, the sorts of predictions from that time that agree with the last 20 years of history are the theories that show carbon dioxide has only a minor impact on overall climate. No climate model that predicted catastrophic warming has ever been shown to be accurate when put up against the cold hard observational data. I am a scientist, and I do not believe global warming is a catastrophe, a tipping point, or a crisis in need of policy solutions. But I'm open to evidence as it comes in.

In the nuclear model for stellar lifecycle, only large stars can form without heavier elements like this star. It does not allow small stars to form (and be an active/bright/visible star) without an abundance of heavier elements.

In the Electric model for stellar lifecycle, stars such as this an be visible in an area with higher-than-usual charge differential. Smaller lighter stars have a lower escape velocity, so there is a smaller difference between the escape rates of electrons and protons, so there is a corespondingly lower positive charge on the star as a whole. This means they are less likely to cause enough electric current to be bright/visible. This small star is visible, so according to the Electric Sun theory, the ambient galactic environment around that star must have a stronger negative charge than usual.

Just another piece of evidence that the Big Bang and Nuclear Star theories fail to account for real-word observations, and should be considered falsified.

--Jaborandy

It seems the Creationists are the ones clinging to the Big Bang theory as proof that science agrees with their ancient book of truths. They would be the last to claim it's been disproven.

You, a non-religious pedant who believes that faith in the Big Bang makes you scientifically literate, are no scientist. Scientists are open to new theories and will evaluate any theory against observation. If you still believe in the Big Bang after all the observations that falsify it, then you have some catching up to do if you want to be a good scientist.

I am a man with a scientific mind, and in my investigations I have seen sufficient evidence that the Big Bang is an obsolete theory that fails to fit the observations accurately enough. It is based on assumptions and circular logic, supported by the popular belief (both religious and secular) that we must know how the universe began. Too many things, like this article, show that our models for stellar lifecycles are inaccurate. According to standard stellar theory, this star shouldn't exist. According to the Big Bang theory, this start shouldn't exist. It does. We observe it. Now let's work together to update the theory, and let's start by evaluating our assumptions for anything that we can throw out and reconsider.

--Jaborandy

My parents took me to see the first shuttle launch in person, which is one of my earliest clear memories. I went with them again to this final launch, and I brought the oldest two of my own children. I am honored to have been witness to the beginning and end of a great era in human spaceflight, and I know I gave my children a very meaningful memory to hold on to.

My personal feelings are mixed. I know that the huge government space program is cost inefficient and wasteful, but it's also so expensive that nobody else is willing to throw that kind of money away. I simultaneously want to see human spaceflight continue in grand style and I don't want taxpayers to have to pay for something that we could do cheaper and better with private spaceflight. I hope the government can find a way to meet its launch needs with things like SpaceX, and I hope launch costs can fall, but I fear the grand adventures of wasteful spending and glory may be over now.

--Jaborandy