Sun Sheds Skin And Flips

spacedaily.com ^ | 21 Nov 03 | staff

[Barnacle]

..one might say the suspicion is that the Sun is a "non-carbon-based life form"....

So, I suppose in no time at all, one will refer to fire as a "carbon-based life form."

[null and void]

My point was the "Mars lost it's atmosphere because it doesn't have a magnetic field" theory is CRAP...

[betty boop]

So, I suppose in no time at all, one will refer to fire as a "carbon-based life form."

That does not necessarily follow. Why do you jump to conclusions? You haven't heard the details of the hypothesis yet.

[betty boop]

p.s. to Barnacle: Look for the article by Attila Grandpierre in the Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy forthcoming early next year for details of the "living Sun" hypothesis.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for including me in your discussion!

The great omission in the Theory of Evolution is an answer to the question: "What is Life?"

From the article linked below:

"How, therefore, we must ask, is it possible for us to distinguish the living from the lifeless if we can describe both conceptually by the motion of inorganic corpuscles?"

Karl Pearson The Grammar of Science

Strangely, although physicists continue to try to answer this question it is not addressed by biology. For more information:

The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut

[Barnacle]

Why do you jump to conclusions? You haven't heard the details of the hypothesis yet.

Jump to conclusions? I’m really not interested in the details of a hypothesis with the premise that a fusion reaction is a “life form.” My analogy of fire as a life form is just as valid.

[RightWhale]

The Earth’s magnetic fieild is generated by the convection cells of molten magma within the mantel.

Say that enough times and it will be true.

[Barnacle]

Look for the article by Grandpierre in the Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy forthcoming early next year for details of the "living Sun" hypothesis.

With all due respect, I doubt very much that I’ll invest the time on Attila’s hypothesis that a fusion reaction is a life form while our culture continues to hypothesizes that an unborn human being is not life form.

When it comes to topic of life forms, I have to use my resources to their greatest benefit.

[RightWhale]

"Mars lost it's atmosphere because it doesn't have a magnetic field" theory

It's not much of a theory anyway. What might be interesting is to hypothesize that Mars has no magnetic field because it has lost its atmosphere.

[null and void]

It's not much of a theory anyway. What might be interesting is to hypothesize that Mars has no magnetic field because it has lost its atmosphere.

Then how would you explain Venus' lack of a strong magnetic field?

[RightWhale]

how would you explain Venus' lack of a strong magnetic field?

In the model, which apparently physics rebel RightWhale is the only one to have thought of, there must be an atmosphere, but it must also be rotating to produce the characteristic magnetic field. It might be that the atmosphere must also contain components that respond to nuclear magnetic resonance fields. Water vapor is one such component. One may experiment with various materials in the kitchen by putting various materials in the microwave oven. Those that are warmed by the microwaves may have the ability to generate magnetic fields in an atmosphere. In some cases the spousal unit may discourage such basic experimental science. Venus' atmosphere does not appear to be rotating vigorously.

[betty boop]

My analogy of fire as a life form is just as valid.

If you say so, Barnacle. There's no sense trying to interest you in a fascinating hypothesis you have already determined is impossible, based on what you already know. Your mind is "made up," sight unseen.

Myself, I find it best to keep an open mind. If the hypothesis is experimentally falsified, well, there's the end of it. The forthcoming Grandpierre article deals with proposed experimental tests. I'm content to let the astrophysicists do the science, and wait to see what they come up with.

[Alamo-Girl]

I agree that we must keep an open mind!

Perhaps the concern is that such a hypothesis is a type of mysticism rather than physics. I disagree.

From the Pattee article:

There are fundamental reasons why physics and biology require different levels of models, the most obvious one is that physical theory is described by rate-dependent dynamical laws that have no memory, while evolution depends, at least to some degree, on control of dynamics by rate-independent memory structures. A less obvious reason is that Pearson's "corpuscles" are now described by quantum theory while biological subjects require classical description in so far as they function as observers. This fact remains a fundamental problem for interpreting quantum measurement, and as I mention below, this may still turn out to be essential in distinguishing real life from macroscopic classical simulacra. I agree with Mayr that physics and biology require different models, but I do not agree that they are autonomous models.

[betty boop]

My analogy of fire as a life form is just as valid.

From what I understand, Dr. Grandpierre is not dealing in analogy here. He means it when he says the Sun may be a living system -- not just a vast fusion reactor, not just "a luminous ball of gas." He argues that new conceptual research, new theoretical approaches are needed in our understanding of solar dynamics that have become feasible with the advent of helioseismology, space-based neutrino detectors and other new technical tools, plus theoretical work that has been done in information science, etc.

Natch, the jury's still out; but I will be following the science as it evolves, and see what develops.

[Alamo-Girl]

And I shall be following right along with you, betty boop!

[Darksheare]

Wolves and bears are perfectly safe from me.
Women, children, and small animals fear me though.
I'm perfectly harmless though.

[Darksheare]

Got me wondering about other stars.
Our sun has an 11 year cycle, but we do not know what cycle other stars might follow.
(As far as I have heard)
Made me wonder what might happen when a Magnetar flips it's field, or how it might do so.

[Barnacle]

I'll stay tuned to Art Bell to hear more.

[betty boop]

Perhaps the concern is that such a hypothesis is a type of mysticism rather than physics.

A-G, I'm sure that is the case with many people who object to the suggestion that there is anything at all immaterial about our Universe. But it seems to me the objection just doesn't hold up.

I mean, think about it: Matter is universal, ubiquitous, and homogeneous, generally speaking. Everything in the world is made out of the same "stuff," to put it very crudely. It seems to me that what makes an entity the thing it is, given the ubiquity and "sameness" of matter, is how the matter is put together, how it is assembled -- its "instruction set." But now we are talking about an entity's information content -- and this is not a material thing.

Just a little speculation I've been thinking through lately....

Thanks so much for writing, A-G. Hugs!

[betty boop]

I'll stay tuned to Art Bell to hear more.

'Scuse me, but who is Art Bell? Should I stay tuned to him, too?