Sun Research Yields Unexpected Results 197
Syberghost writes "There are two major theories about the composition of the Sun. One says that it has similar composition to the planets. The other, that it has enriched levels of oxygen-16. NASA has been doing research on the soil samples Neil Armstrong brought back from the moon, to determine which of those theories is correct. Today, we have the results; they're both wrong. It looks like we're going to have to look more closely at the composition of everything in the solar system to figure this one out."
Curious (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously there's got to be a lot of helium in there . .
Re:Curious (Score:5, Informative)
The stuff in the corona is injected from the photosphere: basically the Sun's visible "surface". There's a lot of convection in the upper layers of the Sun, so apart from the core (where helium "ash" builds up), it's probably reasonably well-mixed.
Re:Curious (Score:2)
Re:Curious (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Curious (Score:2)
Re:Curious (Score:2)
Re:Curious (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Curious (Score:2, Funny)
Well, yeah. How else did that giant flaming balloon get so far up in the sky?
Re:Curious (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Curious (Score:2)
Hmmm, let's see if I can guess your sign. Onager?
rj
Re:Curious (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Curious (Score:2)
Dr Nick (Score:2)
Ahh the burn! (Score:1, Interesting)
I doubt that the earth could sustain the same processes as the sun, or vice versa.
Any meteorologists in the house?
Re:Ahh the burn! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ahh the burn! (Score:3, Interesting)
-----------
* OK, almost no. I don't want to hear from any isotope-effects people. Anyway, you folks look for
Re:Ahh the burn! (Score:2)
It's a poorly worded article, actually. What they *mean* is that the Sun's relative amounts of oxygen-16 may be similar to one thing or another. Clearly the overall compositions are quite different. (Even the gas giants are not all that similar to the Sun's composition.)
Re:Ahh the burn! (Score:2)
What they *mean* is that their assumptions about how to discover the sun's composition need to be re-evaluated.
And WTF took them so long to evaluate those samples? They got 'em 37 years ago.
Re:Ahh the burn! (Score:2)
Solar System (Score:4, Funny)
"Our Sun is not the Sun that we thought it was."
Your children are never who you think they are until you've seen them out in the wild (or in Cabo).
Didnt everyone know? (Score:3, Funny)
I thought it was full of a bunch of unsold SPARCs?
Oh THAT sun. Nevermind.
Oxygen (Score:3, Funny)
Not enough oxygen?
Better plant some tree before it starts smouldering!
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like something my parents said...
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Shoddy science (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shoddy science (Score:2, Funny)
'Is Florida not hot and muggy enough for these people? They love heat. I mean if they ever decide to land men on the sun, I think these old retired guys would be the only ones that will be able to handle it. They'll just sit there on the sun, on the redwood benches, washcloth on the head going: "Close the door, you're letting all the heat off the sun. I'm trying to get a sweat going."
'
Re:Shoddy science (Score:2)
Re:Shoddy science (Score:2)
I think it was an old joke before Bush was born. But the old ones are the good ones.
Re:Shoddy science (Score:2)
Re:Shoddy science (Score:2)
Oh no... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh no... (Score:2)
Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Scientist has an idea.
2. Scientist checks out that idea with experiments.
3. Experiment refutes scientist's idea.
4. Scientist scratches head and says, "I guess I was wrong."
This pattern happens over and over and over again, and that's what people mean when they say science is not faith-based.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless of course a scientist is fudging his results to maintain a desired result. Science as a community product isn't faith based, but only a fool would extend that to mean that anyone in a lab coat is an impartial participant.
Not that you were explicitly suggesting otherwise, but I figured it was worth saying anyways.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
Religion has its share of charlatans too. They're usually in it for the same reason as the scientists who fudge their data: money or recognition.
Unlike most discredited scientists, not all religious fakers seem to lose their audience once they've been outed. Faith can be much much stronger than facts.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Then how is this practicing science? You can't say that someone is practicing science when they give up rational integrity. Science explicitly demands rational integrity. The communal process makes the growth of scientific knowledge more efficient. It exposes ideas to a greater number of criticisms. Assertions receive increased attempts at falsification; this quickly weeds out assertions that are not falsifiable. Weeding out non-falsifiable ideas is essential to maintaining rationalist integrity.
If one professes faith in a religion and then acts unconscientiously, against the explicit teachings of that faith, would you then claim the religion isn't really what it says it is? I'm curious as to how any of your ideal institutions or shared processes might deal with the fallibility of humans.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
You are still practicing 'science,' the only difference is you're practicing SELECTIVE SCIENCE that is based upon a person's unalterable beliefs (may be 'God,' may be 'Gaea,' may be anything, 'Intelligent Design,' for an example,) instead of practicing it upon pure science, which is very deeply rooted in mathematical equations based upon what we've been able to actually observe with our own eyes instead of our minds.
We (un-officially) call this the science of illog
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
Science discriminates against ideas that do not have the property of falsifiability. What you believe is irrelevant, science doesn't
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
and your sig:
Sounds like someone who's trying to wrap a political disagreement within a veneer of "scien
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Your comment is not a +5 Insighful. It is based on something you truly have no idea about, modded up by people who have no idea what is being talked about.
Every honest Ph.D. shares a common belief in the pursuit of impartial truth in everything. That is truly the point of being a scientist and the point of following the rigors of the scientific process. While t
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
Every honest Ph.D. shares a common belief in the pursuit of impartial truth in everything.
I don't really know the common beliefs of every PhD, and I don't really care. I do know that people can be partial and not even know it though. The most famous example of this is probbably n-rays [wikipedia.org]. The short story is that several scientists claimed to observe them, but they turned out to be an illusion. People were literally seeing something that wasn't their. Lesser known examples are Millikan's oil drop experimen
Global Warming Fraud (Score:3, Interesting)
The temperature of the Earth is increasing. Big deal. It has happened before, and it can and will happen again.
Slashdot had an article about temperatures on Mar increasing as well... must be those damn rovers eh?
Even when the science is impartial, the interpretation is not. I am not a fan of the current administration's policies towards the release of papers and research on climate change.
We need all sides on an issue.
Re:Global Warming Fraud (Score:2)
Excuse me? If anything, science should be open to anybody - maybe excluding some research with far reaching information on building weapons. If it's for or against measures against climate change - that should not matter.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
Then that person is no longer a scientist with respect to that research. With peer review this sort of thing is effectively limited.
Unfortunately in cases without peer review, pseudoscience and tradition can temporarily rule. Ex: Tetraethyl lead; antibiotics' effectiveness on certain cancers.
Science is, at its theoretical core, fact based. Religion is, at its theoretical core, faith based.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
Most people don't want THAT type of fame. I mean look at the electric universe people and the household fusion guy. There are plenty of people who publish opposing theories, and most if not all of them are heavily criticized by the community, laughed about at places like this, and have a much harder time getting research money.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
The other two cases you mention never experienced that kind of resistance and are inappropriate examples. To give a modern example, the so-called "alt-sp
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
Sure, many poeple claim that evolution is, but very few make that claim about science.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:4, Funny)
1. Religious guy has an idea.
2. Religious guy checks out that idea with oratory.
3. Inquisition refutes religious guy's idea.
4. Religious guy loses head and says, "You'll burn in hell, sinne--".
This pattern happens over and over and over again, until a scientist shows up that they can all persecute.
Bemopolis
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
Ask? Let me introduce you to the concept of a tithe [wikipedia.org]. And if that isn't compulsory enough for you, let me introduce you to the concept of and Established religion (see antidisestablishmentarianism [wikipedia.org]).
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
To all of you who say science is faith-based as much as any religion, this article is an example of why you're wrong.
And your post is an example of how twisting an opponent's argument into something he or she never claimed and then proudly refuting it is a good way to get modded up without actually adding anything to the discussion.
The faith (thinking) people have in science doesn't cause them to believe that theories can never be falsified. That would be silly since the whole of the scientific method
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
I have never known any scientist to claim this. I have, however, known plenty of anti-science types to claim that scientists claim this.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
I have never known any scientist to claim this.
Agreed. Note that I didn't say scientists believe this, I said true believers in science believe this. Real scientists understand the limits of their work as well as its strengths (which are clearly undeniable).
I have, however, known plenty of anti-science types to claim that scientists claim this.
I have known plenty of atheistic, science groupie slashdotters who clearly believe science answers all, even if it's hard to get them to come right out and
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary article of faith of the true believers in science is that science can discover everything that matters. Or to put it another way, that if something cannot be studied via the scientific method, it either isn't important or doesn't exist.
This is actually an excellent litmus test that distinguishes those technicians, engineers, and educators who believe in a Supreme Scientific Authority from the true scientists. True scientists are persons 1) who do not believe in any authority at all but require that the empirical method be applied (and continually reapplied) to everything whereever it can be applied; and 2) who recognize that the most important questions any of us ever face cannot be addressed by the scientific method.
In short, the true scientist recognizes that although he can apply the scientific method to many things, he cannot successfully apply it to his own life.
One way of stating the Copenhagen interpretation is to say that human perception and cognition is such that there is no possible way we can comprehend the universe; the most we can do is build models that are somewhat useful in certain limited ways. This strongly implies that the scientist must learn to live with the discomfort of always being surrounded by impenetrable mysteries.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
Very well said, overall. Just one point of disagreement.
True scientists are persons 1) who do not believe in any authority at all but require that the empirical method be applied (and continually reapplied) to everything whereever it can be applied
I would add the caveat that a person may believe in an authority where the empirical method cannot be applied and is not applicable, and still be a true scientist. Indeed, there are many such.
This strongly implies that the scientist must learn to live wi
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
Yes, that needs to be added to the credo.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2)
While I agree with the sentiment here (There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy) I submit that the Copenhagen interpretation [washington.edu] is a poor example. There are more compelling interpretations [washington.edu] of the QM formalism that
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
> look, proof that fire is hot!"
Sure, it's obvious to you, and it's obvious to me, but there are some very vocal holdouts. They have power not because they're right, but because they're louder than the thoughtful among us. So I think it's important to keep declaring what I believe and why.
Re:Science is a religion because... (Score:2)
TODO list for tjstork:
1) Read about history 250 years ago, at dawn of scientific age.
2) Realize just how much life SUCKED back then by any imaginable measure.
3) Realize that without science, yo
Re:Science is a religion because... (Score:2)
And then you would catch "fever" and be dead in three weeks at the age of 43.
Re:Science is a religion because... (Score:2)
Science is a religion because science is done with the faith that knowing more about the world will make humanity better...
IMO you are confusing science with that particular kind of optimistic technology that led to the fantastic slogan of "better living through chemistry", among other things.
The remainder of your comments might apply, more or less, to the educators, technicians, and engineers who work with technology (which is often derived from knowledge gained through scientific inquiry). But it is
Re:Science is a religion because... (Score:2)
Outside of the Utilitarian-Narcissistic Church, do parent's assertions and postulates have any meaning?
I think not.
Oh, the star. (Score:5, Funny)
There are enough hormone-addled teenagers... (Score:2)
Wrong??? (Score:1)
Excellent! (Score:2)
jf
Since it kicks out all of that vitamin D.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Since it kicks out all of that vitamin D.... (Score:2)
(please don't ruin my image by telling me it's cows milk or something like that... let a man dream)
Obvious conclusion... (Score:3, Funny)
They are all wrong (Score:2)
It took how long? (Score:2)
Re:It took how long? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It took how long? (Score:2)
This is just guess, I've not RTFA
Re:It took how long? (Score:2)
Re:It took how long? (Score:2)
DoninIN (Score:4, Informative)
Too bad that satellite crashed on re-entry... (Score:5, Insightful)
A satellite was sent out and put into L-1 (I think) for 3 years or so. It had an area of shiny hexagonal materials, of quite a few different kinds like I think maybe gold covered sapphire was one of them. So bits of the Sun were carried out by solar wind and collided with the collectors at something like 200 miles per second... fast enough to bury little particles into the hard collectors.
Then it folded itself up and headed back to Earth... unfortunately the parachute didn't open on re-entry. So it came tumbling into Earth and crashed somewhere in Utah I think. They managed to rescue a few good pieces though of the shattered collectors. And supposedly they didn't get too contaminated since the speed of the crash was much less than the speed that the solar particles were traveling at when they hit the collectors. So Utah dirt didn't get down as deep as the solar particles... and they're analyzing it.
I don't know how long ago this happened though... but I would think they would have as good or better data than studying moon samples.
Re:Too bad that satellite crashed on re-entry... (Score:3, Informative)
http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]
The probe crashed because an accelerometer was upside down, but the data was mostly unaffected. It was September 2004, so, not that long ago.
Bre
Re:Too bad that satellite crashed on re-entry... (Score:2)
The satellite that had aerogel to collect particles I think was collecting samples from a comet.
I'm talking about the satellite that was collecting bits of the sun on the solar wind (and then crashed), it did have many hard hexagonal shaped pieces to collect the particles in.
is vs of (Score:4, Insightful)
"Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what it is made of."
-- Voyage of the Dawn Treader (C.S. Lewis)
From memory, so please excuse the inaccuracies (Score:2)
"Well, then, Discworld would have only been illuminated by a flaming ball of gas."
-- Pyramids by Terry Pratchett
Re:is vs of (Score:2)
Interesting theory on planetary and SUN compositio (Score:2)
Hydridic Earth theory [wikipedia.org]:
Not Theories...Term Misuse Again (Score:2)
What happened is that two competing conjectures, maybe even hypothesis, were proven wrong. Okay, interesting, and we all learned something from it. But, conjecture and hypothesis are proven wrong all of the time, they are not very high on the scientific food chain. The misuse of the word theory by people is really, really ruining people's fundamental un
Here's a bizarre theory about theSun's composition (Score:2)
The animations /
So why's it still lit? (Score:2)
The problem, as previous generations discovered, is that no chemical energy-producing reaction whatsoever can produce enough energy for the Sun to still
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
It's common knowledge that the moon is made of cheese, and we all know that the sun is yellow.
What color is cheese?
There's your connection, right there.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
It spooky how for every colour of cheese, there's a corresponding star type.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Castles in the sky (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, you need to understand what a science is. It's not just a "lab science". Not all science rests on laboratory experients. Many require observations. Often, the observations are not exactly repeatable. (How often will you observe
Re:Castles in the sky (Score:2)
You sound like the sort of n
A joke..of sorts... (Score:2, Funny)
An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician are going to a conference in Edinburgh. None of them have been to Scotland before. As their train crosses the border into Scotland, the astronomer pots a black sheep on a hillside. "Look!" exclaims the astronomer, "the sheep in Scotland are black".
The physicist looks up and declares "No, not at all. At least ONE of the sheep in Scotland is black".
The mathematician looks u
Re:umm (Score:2)
Re:Where's the critical eye! This proves nothing! (Score:2)
Re:Good point, but... (Score:2)
On reflection, there is another generator of lunar soil - meteor impacts. Without seeing the paper, I assume particles tested by Trevor Ireland were non-meteoric and non-lunar.
I like your idea of drilling a core. Sounds like a worthwhile exercise to me. I'm not sure it will answer your question though.
Solar fluctuations should closely match earth orbital eccentricity (100,000 year cycles). Any other cycling might show the flux changes you are looking for. Resolution of the timing may be difficult if the