Free Republic

Sheeez people. If you wish to worship yourselves go for it but stop addressing me k?

I suppose that's the great thing about the interwebs, huh? You can insult people all you want, but when it comes to those crazy things called facts and logic, you can just cry foul and run away!

Thanks for letting us show everyone else how wrong you were. It was most helpful.

And what data are you using to compare the results found while using the spectrophotometer? Surely you are speculating that between here and the Sun there are no phenomena that could skew your results or perhaps you are speculating that there are no other gases or chemicals or ??? God only knows what that closely resembles the results junk-scientist claim to be fact isn't this correct?

Forgive me but I'm tired of egg-heads stating as fact "theories." Theories are nothing more than glorified hunches and until actual evidence (like a physical sample of the material burning on the Sun collected off the Sun) that's all this "hunch" will be.

You might be surprised what a bunch of "egg-heads" can do. If it wasn't for the "egg-heads" of this country, we'd probably be a Russian satellite state, as they would have gotten the atom bomb first (An man named Arthur Eddington figured that the Sun an off shoot of the atom bomb research is one of that ways how we know what reactions power the sun).

One of the things that chemists and astrochemists have been doing for the past 70 years is understanding chemical reactions. The idea that nucleosynthesis of elements in the universe comes naturally from the stellar lifecycle (and from the Big Bang) comes straight from observations that scientists have been gathering from laboratories right here on earth.

We can tell exactly the composition of the Sun and other stars from their spectra obtained through telescopes, and those observations are well known, having been directly observed in labs all over the planet back in the 1920's and 30s (indeed, they can now be verified in labs that are taught in Astro 101 class in every College and University on the planet, and in an exhibit in the Nat'l Air and Space Museum in DC). We know all about what exists between here and the sun because we have had satellites such as SOHO and other satellites observing the Sun and the planets at every concievable direction that you can think of. We can use physics and chemistry obtained experimentally along with basic observables (like density and temperature) to determine boundary conditions of the environment at the surface of the Sun. With that and a knowledge of what fusion reactions are possible at what range of temperatures (which are derived from theoretical physics and chemistry), it's pretty simple to understand what's going on inside a star, and much of the work was done in this field long before the development of the modern personal computer (i.e. before 1975). A Nobel Prize in Physics was given to Willam Fowler in 1983 for his work done in this field back in the 40's and 50's This stuff is about as well known as you can get without actually building a star in your backyard.

If you can't deal with deductive reasoning and logic, then don't ever set foot into a jury box, you wouldn't believe they things they try to sneak by you with that stuff in a trial.

What about that charge that one of Sternberg's Smithsonian colleagues was going around asking if he was an undercover priest? That seems surefire evidence of a hostile environment, though I cannot speak to its overall severity.

If you read the appendix after every bit of evidence that the report claims to show bias is counted, in the end, all the higher echelon of the Smithsonian ended up doing was next to nothing (except telling him to stop misusing his 'affiliation' with the Smithsonian in his creationist talks). Eugenie Scott(who is advising them about his status as a creationist) says very particularly:

"I guess the big question is whether he is a good enough scientist to remain there. If his non-creationist work is good, then I think he deserves the job. If not, and if others are let go under the same circumstances, then let the chips fall where they may. But none of us are after this guy's job. That isn't the point of this exercise, in my opinion."

and

">I'm sending you this info just so you know that low profile doesn't mean >inactive. On the other hand, his creationist views should not be the main >focus of the criticism. First, if he can do good standard science, that's >all we care about. Newton did pretty good science, and had some pretty >nutty additional ideas about reality, too. So if he keeps the nut stuff out >of his basically descriptive work, that's fine. His science should stand or >fall on its own. "

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I didn't see anything where they asked that particular question, but they certainly didn't act on it in any meaningful way, despite what this report and the report of the OSC might have you believe.

I like the way that you choose to begin in the latter third of the issue, and use the pranks that the authoritarians directed toward Sternberg in punishment for being honest and scientific, as evidence against him.

It's telling that your rebuttal is so insubstantitive and paper thin, with no actual substantive points against my arguments. It's obvious what's going on here. Sternberg's case against the Smithsonian is so paper thin that the Discovery Institute has to feed its work through its pet Congressmen in an effort to try to rehab its image as a group that has to lie and cheat instead of doing legitimate science. This work is meaningless.Don't you think that if this was a real investigation with real teeth, this report would be up in front of Congress for a vote? Instead, its a bone to the religious right to make it look like "your guys" are doing work on your behalf, when instead they are wasting government money on meaningless propoganda. Nice try.

Next time have a real rebuttal at hand, will you?

You should read the report and the appendix. There aren't many of the claims in the report that are borne out in the appendix. For example, the report claims that he was harassed by restricting his level of access, when it is apparent by the appendix that he had BETTER access that others of his rank, and that he needed to give up his keys not because of any harrassment, but because they were switching to a card access system which gave him access comparable to others of his rank. It's an atrocious report, and I doubt that this report will get any teeth by getting submitted to Congress for approval. It's as toothless as Santorum's Sense of the Senate report that was suppose to mean something a few years back.

Time for some fact-based evidence. Lets get away from the facts that this report is not been entered into Congressional record, so WNDs claim that this came from congress is far overblown. It came from two people who happens to be members of congress, and each have strong links to the Discovery Institute. So much for that 'independent report'! Biased report is more like it!

From this link comes this analysis(by a real honest-to-god biologist and everything!):

There's some am-a-a-a-a-zing stuff in the appendix to the Rep. Souder staff report that the Discovery Institute is talking up.

The DI spin and the Congressional report spin are each severely divorced from reality. When one looks at the content of the appendix of documents and emails, one learns a lot about the character of Richard von Sternberg that Sternberg probably would have preferred stay out of public sight. Here are some of the things that reading the emails and other documents provided tell us:

Sternberg "requested" a grant or "any funding vehicle" from the Smithsonian in the amount of $300,000 to compensate for his claimed year of lost work. (he was denied, as the Smithsonian doesn't disburse grants) [p.11]

Sternberg ignored requests to return hundreds of specimens in his office space to the collections. [pp.16,27]

Sternberg had failed to properly curate 10 to 12% of specimens in his possession by not replenishing alcohol as the preservative agent. [p.27]

Sternberg's space contained specimens that had not been checked out according to established procedures. [p.16]

Sternberg's office space contained specimens apparently from other institutions without records in the transaction management system. [pp.48-49]

Sternberg handled specimens in another person's office without permission. [p.16]

Sternberg ignored requests to return most of the over 50 books and periodicals he had checked out from the Smithsonian library. [pp.27,48]

Sternberg falsely told someone that he had notified library staff about his overdue materials. [p.28]

Sternberg had removed Smithsonian books from the premises, contrary to Smithsonian policy. [p.48]

Sternberg was simply confused when he thought that he had no Smithsonian sponsor. [p.11]

The issue about keys that Sternberg raised was a red herring; the Smithsonian had gone to a badge system to control physical access, and Sternberg received a badge. [pp.11-12]

Sternberg ignored requests that he return his keys even after the switchover to the badge system. [p.12]

Far from losing his research affiliation with the Smithsonian, Sternberg received another invitation for a three-year period to go from 2006 to 2009. [p.13]

The issues over moving offices that Sternberg raised are shown to be completely explained by the general and widespread movement of staff to accommodate physical renovation and departmental re-organization. [pp.36,38-39]

Sternberg was listed by his Smithsonian affiliation in promotional materials for a talk on ID scheduled in Helsinki in 2004, contrary to Smithsonian policy concerning research associates. [pp.16-17,41,44,48]

Sternberg had a prior history as an editor guiding research papers that were substandard into print in PBSW. [p.20]

Sternberg's prior editorial lapses included leaving a submitted manuscript overlong without action. [p.37]

Sternberg permitted the Meyer paper to be published even though it did not conform to the PBSW formatting standards. [p.37]

Sternberg made "calamitous and inaccurate" statements on his web site. [p.47]

Sternberg agreed in a meeting with his supervisor that his possession of a master key to Smithsonian facilities was "unnecessary and inappropriate". [p.48]

While Sternberg was the primary editor for PBSW, there was a year in which authors submitted complaints about the handling of 17 different manuscripts. [p.52]

Two Mexican authors believed the managing editor, Sternberg, was predisposed against Latin-American authors. [p.52]

Sternberg has a history of saying one thing and doing another. [p.57]

Sternberg's access to freshwater crabs in the collections was restricted due to his destruction of many specimens. [p.57]

Sternberg failed to utilize on-site Smithsonian expert on Cambrian period paleontology and PBSW Associate Editor Brian Erwin in selecting reviewers for Meyer 2004b. [p.73]

Sternberg made "bad judgment calls" in his editorship at PBSW. [p.74] ---

And this is all in a 'friendly' report that's supposed to DEFEND the man! Well done, Souder and Santorum, way to ensure that your martyr never gets a job in the field again (which, of course, is their desire all along, how else is he supposed to get martyrdom!).

Excellent post, sir. Kudos to you!

Great news! Thanks for the ping!

By the way, they accounted for dust by observing at multiple wavelengths. Dust usually preferentially obscures redder wavelengths, so they can account for the dust by observing 7 or 8 filters and modelling for the dust from the expected spectrum (of an O9 star in this case).

I remain unconvinced. We're dealing with a sample of one here. If they had gone through and hit all of the Cepheid variables in the galaxy, and then double checked them with this and perhaps one other distance indicator, then they might be on to something really interesting. This is merely a curiosity until more data is taken. The Hubble Distance Scale was done with far more checks and balances than this, so for them to overstate their case like this is a bit over the top, but to the alumni, I'm sure it sounds impressive. Those Buckeye alums are easily impressed (Go Blue!).

How much worse can it get?

How about those creationists that remain lose in the general election to their evolutionist competition? This was only the primary after all, the real election is yet to come.

"By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others ..."

So what you are telling me is that yet again, House Republicans have yet again failed to listen to the Christian Coalition and Gun Owners of America?

Also, FYI, Moveon.org is a big supporter of "net neutrality".

So are folks like the Christian Coalition, and Gun Owners of America. What's your point? It's definitely not a partisan issue.

A good way to describe a pulsar is a failed black hole. A pulsar is the end product of a process that wasn't massive enough to create a black hole. Both are created by supernovae, only that Pulsars are measured to have masses of a solar mass or two, while a black hole is something much more massive, 3 solar masses or larger.

Generally, if you add another sun's mass to a pulsar, chances are the end product has so much gravitational pull that light can't escape and the thing becomes a black hole.

There are parents who have devoted websites to their stillborn children. My wife (ever the cynical one) showed me one impressively sappy pink fluffy page with a midi file playing a melody over the top. Yikes! Seems to me that that's a little over the top.

Amongst a few other things, yep, but up until last year, I'd say that accounts for about 30% of cost increases. From first-hand experience, I think that there is a lot of middle management in the university setting that could be axed out...how much I couldn't say, but there is chaff there. This year, if you see a big tuition jumpespecially in the northern tier, it's going to be energy costs that drive it.

Most campuses do both. The local one I'm near has rebuilt a half dozen buildings and built about half dozen in the last decade. There are still buildings that date back to the 40s, and residence halls that date back to the 20's, so it's not like it's a shiny new campus or anything. Is it cheaper to build anew? I bet the answer is, "It depends."

It's because the feds and the state have jacked up the number of regulations that colleges have to comply with to get state and federal funding, and those take man hours to deal with. The amount of middle management at the university level to deal with financial add and research grants are staggering, you'd never believe it unless you saw the org charts. This past year, I understand that the local university has 30% cost increases on all heating and power costs. That's a couple of million just to power computing and keep the lights and heat on in all of the billion.. As most state governments are keeping costs the same, and adding regulations that need to be complied with and monitored, of course costs are going to increase.

There's a thread here that discusses some of that(with the professor taking part in the discussion):

http://telicthoughts.com/?p=634

See this website for details

I think you'll get a good idea of where the instructor is coming from here.

This link shows that the professor thinks modern day ID (the kind espoused by DI) is religion.

Those evil scientists. Software like this is obviously an invitation for terrorists to merge their own stars together for catastrophic consequences! We have to stop science from discussing such things!