Res Ipsa vs Res Ipsa. Two people trapped in the same body

[Res Ipsa]

The changes in crazed Kirk and just too abrupt.

I think Shatner was tapping into his character seeing gremlins on the wing of an airplane in an earlier Twilight Zone episode. Method acting, or something like it.

... middle age stars are quieter than younger stars...

None of that hip hop for them. Wait, did I miss the context? Where's my maths?

Under your left flipper.

[doubtingthomas]

If you will show me where I made a mistake, I'll happily fess up to it. But the "mistakes" you've posited so far are based of your own misunderstandings of Kipping, Reinhold 2020, or me.

"As for titles, I dunno. " - Res Ipsa
Also Res Ipsa, "Once you understand how the paper's authors define their terms, the title of the paper is not misleading in the slightest."

One of your biggest mistakes is your claim that I misunderstood what both Kipping and the authors concluded. Kipping concluded, "we really do seem to have a quiet home star" and the authors concluded, "[2nd interpretation] the Sun did not exhibit its full range of activity over the last 140 years", meaning that the sun is currently unusual.

It doesn't matter who is right about the methods and the small details, what matters is the conclusion, which I never misrepresented.

You keep ignoring that and will never admit your mistake.

[doubtingthomas]

I think the first step in reconciling who is right and who is wrong is for you to read the entire paper. Wouldn’t you agree?

- Doc

Read this and tell me who's right.

If you will show me where I made a mistake, I'll happily fess up to it. But the "mistakes" you've posited so far are based of your own misunderstandings of Kipping, Reinhold 2020, or me.

"As for titles, I dunno. " - Res Ipsa
Also Res Ipsa, "Once you understand how the paper's authors define their terms, the title of the paper is not misleading in the slightest."

One of your biggest mistakes is your claim that I misunderstood what both Kipping and the authors concluded. Kipping concluded, "we really do seem to have a quiet home star" and the authors concluded, "[2nd interpretation] the Sun did not exhibit its full range of activity over the last 140 years", meaning that the sun is currently unusual.

It doesn't matter who is right about the methods and the small details, what matters is the conclusion, which I never misrepresented.

You keep ignoring that and will never admit your mistake.

[doubtingthomas]

I'm pretty sure that Thomas won't have understood the paper had he read it.

I've read it, but not all of it.

Here's what I said

3. Only about five percent of stars are solar-like. To make things crazier, "The Sun is less active than other solar-like stars".
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020S ... R/abstract'

Here's what Kipping concluded, "we really do seem to have a quiet home star"

Here's what the authors concluded, "[2nd interpretation] the Sun did not exhibit its full range of activity over the last 140 years", meaning that the sun is currently unusual.

How am I badly misrepresenting Kipping or the authors?

I'm basing that on other discussions that he's been involved in here.

I don't claim to be perfect.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm pretty sure that Thomas won't have understood the paper had he read it. I'm basing that on other discussions that he's been involved in here.

I've read it, but not all of it. What makes you think that?

Here's what I said

3. Only about five percent of stars are solar-like. To make things crazier, "The Sun is less active than other solar-like stars".
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020S ... R/abstract'

Here's what Kipping concluded, "we really do seem to have a quiet home star"

Here's what the authors concluded, "[2nd interpretation] the Sun did not exhibit its full range of activity over the last 140 years", meaning that the sun is currently unusual.

How am I badly misrepresenting Kipping or the authors?

No, that's not what you said. Now you're falsifying your own quotes.

3. Only about five percent of stars are solar-like. To make things crazier, "The Sun is less active than other solar-like stars". That means only about 0.5% of stars are truly sun-like.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020S ... R/abstract'

viewtopic.php?p=2817614#p2817614

You omitted the boldface sentence from what you actually said without using ellipses. To do so, you had to intentionally delete the sentence you don't want to talk about. That's flat out dishonest.

[doubtingthomas]

You omitted the boldface sentence from what you actually said without using ellipses. To do so, you had to intentionally delete the sentence you don't want to talk about. That's flat out dishonest.

It's a minor detail, but I have been consistent, "The Sun is [currently] unusually quiet compared to other type G2 stars[with a known rotation period]. There are many stars out there, but how many stars are a quiet type G2 star with a Jupiter-like planet, but no super Earth [a mini Neptune] in the inner orbit?" Side note: you accused me of misunderstanding the other paper for saying "super earth" instead of mini Neptune.

Here's how you responded, " It suggests that our sun could also go through periods of variability similar to those of other solar-type stars."

I think you simply have some bias against me. You praised Marcus for using a bad analogy when you know damned well it was not a good analogy because we have no idea what the odds of life are. And the analogy used by Marcus completely missed the point I was trying to make.

[doubtingthomas]

By the way, Kipping said that other stars have solar flares thousands of times more powerful than the super flares of the Sun.

[doubtingthomas]

But there is nothing inherently contradictory between the description of the sun as a "rather normal" member of a group and a description of it being in the bottom third of that group.

Seriously, we could have avoided like ten pages had you said that earlier.

[Res Ipsa]

You omitted the boldface sentence from what you actually said without using ellipses. To do so, you had to intentionally delete the sentence you don't want to talk about. That's flat out dishonest.

It's a minor detail, but I have been consistent, "The Sun is [currently] unusually quiet compared to other type G2 stars[with a known rotation period]. There are many stars out there, but how many stars are a quiet type G2 star with a Jupiter-like planet, but no super Earth [a mini Neptune] in the inner orbit?" Side note: you accused me of misunderstanding the other paper for saying "super earth" instead of mini Neptune.

Here's how you responded, " It suggests that our sun could also go through periods of variability similar to those of other solar-type stars."

I think you simply have some bias against me. You praised Marcus for using a bad analogy when you know damned well it was not a good analogy because we have no idea what the odds of life are.

You're getting worse and worse. My entire argument involving the paper was that you were misrepresenting what the paper said because you hadn't read it or understood it. What you deleted from your quote is clear evidence that I was correct. It's not a minor detail -- it's key evidence that supports my argument.

You asked the quoted question to Physics Guy, not to me. I didn't respond to it at all.

My response that you quote was in response to the quote you altered. In particular it refutes the part of your statement that you dishonestly omitted. The boldface sentence completely contradicts what the paper concludes, yet you cited the paper as if it supported what you said. The snippet you lifted is part of me explaining to you what the paper itself actually says. You cited the paper as concluding that was different from other sun-like stars. The paper absolutely did not conclude that.

Your claim of what I criticized you for with regard to the other paper is flat-ass wrong.

It's very clear now why you started a new thread based on nothing but out of context snippets without ever linking to the originals. You're being dishonest and you know it.

[Res Ipsa]

But there is nothing inherently contradictory between the description of the sun as a "rather normal" member of a group and a description of it being in the bottom third of that group.

Seriously, we could have avoided like ten pages had you said that earlier.

Seriously, we could have avoided the entire discussion had you understood this before you posted.