Comment Re:Bad Astronomy? (Score 1) 317
I believe Dr. Scott was pointing out the fact that we cannot see into the sun to gather data to compare anything to.
We can speculate and attempt to deduce, but using the empirical method, can it even satisfy the requirements to bring it from idea to hypothesis? (Observation)
That being the case, how do we know the core of a star is compacted 20 times the density of lead?
Have we observed the core of a star?
Have we done real experiments to reach these conclusions?
If anything below the photosphere cant be observed, wouldn't any deductions made be simply guesses?
It just makes sense to me that reguardless of the quality of our tiny reactors, if their data is bieng compared to what we ~guess~ is going on inside a star.
It must be difficult falsifying an idea if the information you need to do so is out of reach, & what good is a hypothesis if you cant falsify it.
I don't ask these things to be confrontational. I've been watching this debate for a bit, and want to know.
It would help if links with real answers were included in these posts.
Thankyou
We can speculate and attempt to deduce, but using the empirical method, can it even satisfy the requirements to bring it from idea to hypothesis? (Observation)
That being the case, how do we know the core of a star is compacted 20 times the density of lead?
Have we observed the core of a star?
Have we done real experiments to reach these conclusions?
If anything below the photosphere cant be observed, wouldn't any deductions made be simply guesses?
It just makes sense to me that reguardless of the quality of our tiny reactors, if their data is bieng compared to what we ~guess~ is going on inside a star.
It must be difficult falsifying an idea if the information you need to do so is out of reach, & what good is a hypothesis if you cant falsify it.
I don't ask these things to be confrontational. I've been watching this debate for a bit, and want to know.
It would help if links with real answers were included in these posts.
Thankyou
