Re: Sun is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen, Professor Says (Forwarded)

Sarah Mc wrote:
> 
> The Small Kahuna (Another ZetaCult member)wrote in message <3C3F1AA6.49829F0@company.com>
> Only a Cult member would take a public press release and find Zetacult
> messages within it. And a PHD never kept anyone from joining or
> starting a cult. No one said that educated people can't join cults, or
> that they don't have other screws loose in the cabinet.

We will get to the cult issue in a bit, but my real point (which seems
to have escaped you) was that it is ironic that there is some "serious"
science being reported which would suggest that one of the statements
made by ZetaTalk is not quite as far-fetched and wacky as it might have
originally seemed. On this NG many of the postings simply lambaste the
"science" posted on ZetaTalk because none of the readers can look beyond
the language and see if there is anything behind the words, maybe a
grain of truth or a nugget.

So the typical posting goes something like this: "See Nancy is clueless
and ignorant because she claims the voices in her head say there is the
need for heavy metals in the Sun and everybody knows there is just
Hydrogen, Helium and a few other light elements in the Sun." Well,
well, now along comes this press release with seemingly good credentials
which claims that iron is critical, and gee whiz, isn't iron a heavy
metal.

> No one ever said *your* cult leader...

She is not my cult leader. I do not give money, I have no idea where
she lives, "we" (whatever definition of "we" you care to use that would
include TSK) do not meet in person, we do not have "a compound", house
in Beverly Hills, villa, ranch, small country, etc. Many on this NG use
the word "cult" as though the simple use of the word will make it so.


> On the other
> hand, your cult leader does anything she can to keep her TT-watch
> group "free" of non-Zetacult ideas or people with opposing views. A
> closed group that's free of opposition and the ability to discuss
> alternatives, is one that typifies a cult. Your ZetaCult.

This is simply wrong and bogus as Nancy has long ago lost "control" (as
if she ever had any) over TT-watch. There are many views expressed on
TT-watch, and many controversies raised. After all, Michael Cunningham
is a member too and he is not an idle lurker either. Frequently he
posts opinions, observations, facts and other material. Does this make
him a "cult" member?

No one has yet to put together data which shows ZetaTalk to be a cult
where the definition of cult is the same as that understood by the
mental health profession. Your basic worst case scenario is a loony
middle aged woman and a bunch of internet losers, but this does not make
a cult.

I'll be the first to admit that all of the "there was an earthquake in
XXX" or "a new record temperature was recorded for YYY" postings in
TT-watch DO get a bit boring. But supposedly that is the charter of the
group, so what do you expect?

For the rest of this posting, substitute the "I am not a cult member and
Nancy is not my leader" after each of your uses of the word cult.

> 
> I've read some of your posts
> before about astronomy and imaging. What's your answer to the CCD
> image posted recently? 

I do not have an "answer" but I have some observations.

1) you cannot look for a new astronomical object in a GIF image. While
GIF images are the standard web interchange for pictures because of
their compact size, the compression artifacts will cause nothing but
problems with detail, and that is what this is all about. NASA releases
some really pretty pictures from the Hubbell that are in GIFs and its
really impressive, but that's all they are: pretty pictures. If you
don't have the uncompressed (or lossless compressed) raw data, you don't
have anything.

2) mucking around with the contrast and brightness is bogus. If you
want to make it clear what is/is not there, contrast invert the
picture. Nice and simple. Nice and clear.

3) this is the first "picture" that I have seen posted near or about
sci.astro pointing to Nancy's coordinates, so she jumped on the chance
and put a circle around something that appears to be an already known
object. However at this point she could backpedal and say "my bad" or
she could cling to the point or just ignore it all and wait for the next
picture. If she retracts, posters in this NG will jump all over it, if
she clings to the point, posters in this news group will jump all over
it, and surely nobody will ignore it given the length of the "OK Nancy,
Where Is It?" thread. So the bottom line is, from Nancy's point of view
there is no winning here.

> Got an explanation of why your cult leader's
> mag 2/11 object is nowhere to be seen in a field of mag 20 objects?

Like maybe because it is not there? Would that be an explanation?

> Even in the red bandpass? 

I never said red band pass was important, in fact I have repeatedly gone
on record as saying it wasn't. In several forums.

> How do you explain the three prior "naked
> eye" sightings a year ago? 

Simple: often one sees what one wants to see. However I have seen some
pretty weird stuff myself so do not consider myself qualified to tell
somebody else what they did or did not see. If those people say they
saw PX, then fine, I'll not argue that they didn't, I'll wait for a
picture. However, the converse is also true, just because somebody said
they *didn't* see it, is equivalently ambiguous.

> What are you (or your cult leader) going to
> come up with as new images are posted over the next year, and nothing
> will be seen? 

I have no idea what Nancy will do, but my plan is to do nothing if it
does not show up. If it does, I'll put out a few "rub it in" postings
but if if does, we all are going to be somewhat busy.

> In 5 or 6 more months, we aren't supposed to need
> "observatory grade" telescopes or CCD imaging to see it:
> 
> "Remember that OBSERVATORY grade scopes are required until
> mid-2002, as the distance away precludes reflecting sunlight until
> that time"

To me it is not the quality of the telescope that matters it is the
quality of the observation made with that telescope. It is the totality
of the result that is important, pointing accuracy, exposure, quality of
the image, freedom from artifacts, noise, etc.

> I can't wait to hear the reason why we can't. I don't recall reading
> what her idea of an "observatory" scope was (other than having zoom
> and magnitude knobs, which I have to admit - none of mine have those
> knobs, just lots of glass).

We are all quite familiar with Nancy's loose use of terminology and I
won't defend it. I will however occasionally attempt to point out what
I think she *means*. Much is made over the "magnitude knob" when she
never said such a thing. She did say "adjust for magnitude" but
"adjust" is ambiguous and could mean a variety of things. My
interpretation is to take it to mean "a sufficient exposure time". If I
tell you to adjust the color temperature of your TV in your living room
I could mean to adjust the tint control or I could mean to have your TV
professionally calibrated to the broadcast standard. However to just
concentrate on the terminology and *deliberately* miss the whole point
is annoying to me.

> I still find it amazing that your cult members find it absolutely
> neccesary to post in sci.astro when you have your own yahoo group to
> post in. Could it possibly be that you feel stiffled to post there?

not even a little.

> Afraid your Cult leader will find fault with you and ban you from the
> cult? Is that why posts are only about earthquakes and bad weather?
> Safe posts?

Have you even read the stuff on TT-watch?

Much is made of Nancy's science (or lack thereof) but while many insults
are thrown in her direction, nobody bothers to actually explain, in
detail, the alternative. I truly think it is because most of the
posters here don't even know themselves, but they are sure that what the
"scientists" have told them is true. After all, scientists don't lie,
its, well, science. This is the way IT IS. Oh, until a new discovery
is made and suddenly a theory has to be modified or goes out of vogue. 
Just recently NASA released the press announcement which showed that the
progress of star formation has not been uniform like was previously
believed. 

It is almost impossible to get people here to admit that science is just
another belief system. Sure it is a complicated one and one that has
many internal self consistency checks, and one that evolves over time,
but when you strip it all away, it comes down to a belief in something
that you cannot PROVE, you can only make a case for. There simply is no
difference between religion and science. A religion based on truth must
be scientificaly accurate and science will eventually be able to explain
the deepest religious truths once we figure out how to make certain
kinds of truly elusive measurements.

The bottom line is that what poses for argument here is nothing but
slander and insults. Very little "science" is ever discussed here in
sci.astro about PX. For example, when there was the whole magnitude
series of postings, one logical thing for someone to do would be to
explain the math behind magnitude. Explain exactly what is meant when
an astronomer says "magnitude X.Y" and explain how it differs to the
eyeball, a piece of film or a CCD array. However, none of this was ever
done, or if it was, my news server dropped the posting. (My news server
seems to lose postings and often I see a third generation RE: without
ever seeing the original posting). An opportunity to educate was avoided
and insults were in its place. Most of the posters here do not want
education and actual data, they are fine with the current state of
affairs where they get to "assert their obvious intellectual
superiority" (all the while using incoherent sentences and
unintelligible spelling).

Also, shouting matches are substituted for data. Nancy says somebody
saw it, and tholen says that it is impossible to see something that does
not exist so why even bother to look. The bottom line here is either it
does or does not exist and the single most effective way to prove the
point is to take regular pictures of the coordinates Nancy supplies, on
as high a quality piece of equipment as is possible, and provide the
results. Over time it will become obvious one way or another. If a
high quality posting is presented and Nancy puts a red circle on it, and
the following week, a new posting is presented and Nancy again puts a
different red circle on it, we have two pictures. It will be obvious if
Nancy is just putting red circles on pictures at random. It will be
obvious if week after week there is no difference between pictures. It
will be obvious if an object appears and can be tracked, and follows the
coordinates supplied (more or less, lets not focus on .00001% accuracy
again).

The bottom line is that the DATA will speak for itself. In this news
group are some rather well off amateurs with some serious equipment. 
(Some of it even says in big block letters on the side "Observatory
Grade", right next to the magnitude knob). Instead of insulting and
berating Nancy, perhaps they should simply post the images. Every
week. If nothing moves nothing is there. If you can account for all
the objects in the frame, nothing is there. But first the images. Real
ones.