3 ms·

I wouldn't even say it's nonsense. Edit: just realized the precise word you used was in fact 'bollocks'. I wouldn't say it's that either. The logic behind the

I wouldn't even say it's nonsense. Edit: just realized the precise word you used was in fact 'bollocks'. I wouldn't say it's that either. The logic behind the sun not burning a fuel like coal is entirely sound. From there an alternate theory is proposed based on the limits of understanding of the time. Not as fact, but as a best guess theory that fits the evidence at that point. The theory was wrong of course, but it was a step in the right direction.

gerdesj 7y ago
"The logic behind the sun not burning a fuel like coal is entirely sound" That is precisely why I called it "reasoned bollocks" - perhaps a bit colourful for HN. As you say the theory was wrong but the article was describing current theory at the time and is of course ... science. I really am praising a long running science magazine as best I can. I am a massive fan.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  It seems very anachronistic to describe it like that. Like calling the Apple I a failure for selling a couple hundred and ridiculously underpowered for not even having a 1 GHz processor. People make comments like that now and then, and it's just odd.
- tempestn 7y ago
  Yeah, makes sense. Just a different way of describing the same thing. Sound logic that led in the right direction if not (yet) to the right destination. More generally, probably a useful distinction to keep in mind, between when science is offering us a direction and a theory vs when we really do have the evidence required to be fairly confident we're at the destination. Of course even then there are often deeper layers—floors within the destination building say, to torture the analogy. But that kind of distinction is different from the one between a guess that fits the evidence so far and something that is reasonably known.
- mirimir 7y ago
  You're still being too hard on it. There's a clear recognition that combustion isn't sufficient. And the only other option seemed to be gravitational accretion. And it remained an open question until at least 1920:[0] > Around 1920, [Arthur Eddington] anticipated the discovery and mechanism of nuclear fusion processes in stars, in his paper The Internal Constitution of the Stars. At that time, the source of stellar energy was a complete mystery; Eddington correctly speculated that the source was fusion of hydrogen into helium, liberating enormous energy according to Einstein's equation E = mc2. This was a particularly remarkable development since at that time fusion and thermonuclear energy, and even the fact that stars are largely composed of hydrogen (see metallicity), had not yet been discovered. 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington

gerdesj 7y ago

"The logic behind the sun not burning a fuel like coal is entirely sound" That is precisely why I called it "reasoned bollocks" - perhaps a bit colourful for HN. As you say the theory was wrong but the article was describing current theory at the time and is of course ... science. I really am praising a long running science magazine as best I can. I am a massive fan.

perl4ever 7y ago
It seems very anachronistic to describe it like that. Like calling the Apple I a failure for selling a couple hundred and ridiculously underpowered for not even having a 1 GHz processor. People make comments like that now and then, and it's just odd.
tempestn 7y ago
Yeah, makes sense. Just a different way of describing the same thing. Sound logic that led in the right direction if not (yet) to the right destination. More generally, probably a useful distinction to keep in mind, between when science is offering us a direction and a theory vs when we really do have the evidence required to be fairly confident we're at the destination. Of course even then there are often deeper layers—floors within the destination building say, to torture the analogy. But that kind of distinction is different from the one between a guess that fits the evidence so far and something that is reasonably known.
mirimir 7y ago
You're still being too hard on it. There's a clear recognition that combustion isn't sufficient. And the only other option seemed to be gravitational accretion. And it remained an open question until at least 1920:[0] > Around 1920, [Arthur Eddington] anticipated the discovery and mechanism of nuclear fusion processes in stars, in his paper The Internal Constitution of the Stars. At that time, the source of stellar energy was a complete mystery; Eddington correctly speculated that the source was fusion of hydrogen into helium, liberating enormous energy according to Einstein's equation E = mc2. This was a particularly remarkable development since at that time fusion and thermonuclear energy, and even the fact that stars are largely composed of hydrogen (see metallicity), had not yet been discovered. 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington