Slashdot Mirror
Sun Research Yields Unexpected Results
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."
I know the Sun is constantly tossing out charged particles in the form of solar winds and solar flares, but isn't most of that material from the corona? What about material deeper inside the Sun itself?
Obviously there's got to be a lot of helium in there . .
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.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how could the sun have similar composition to the planets, as in the first theory? I think of Earth compared to the sun, which seems to be a pretty big difference. Or is Earth extraordinary for a planet (besides water and life that wanders and wonders)?
I doubt that the earth could sustain the same processes as the sun, or vice versa.
Any meteorologists in the house?
The Moon has no significant protection from an atmosphere or electromagnetic field as does the Earth. As result, it gets hammered by everything from space junk to charged particles kicked out in solar flares. Or, instead of listening to me, you could just go read the article.
"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).
I thought it was full of a bunch of unsold SPARCs?
Oh THAT sun. Nevermind.
There is truth in humor.
...it has lower levels of oxygen-16 than expected.
Not enough oxygen?
Better plant some tree before it starts smouldering!
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
Sounds like something my parents said...
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
Getting information about the Sun by looking at the moon? How stupid. I propose we send a mission to the Sun to find out first hand what the Sun is like. I can hear the scoffers whine "But it is to hauuuuuuuut to land on the Suuuuuuun". This is what you pay geniuses like me for. We land at night. Problem solved.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
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.
From the article: "...the results of a study of oxygen isotopes on the surface of soil grains returned to Earth by the 1969 Apollo 11 mission."
It took them 37 years to figure this out??
Science progresses by being able to do repeatable experiments to test hypotheses. Much of astronomy seems to be pure conjecture. Our whole concept of the universe can be brought down by one inconvenient piece of data. Until: 1-We invent time travel and can go back and see how the solar system really started, or 2-We discover something that can be the basis of a repeatable experiment, the whole of astronomy is still conjecture. OK, so I'm exaggerating for emphasis a bit but a lot of things make it into astronomy texts that are proven wrong not too long after (more so than other sciences it seems to me). In that regard, this story just seems like more of the same old same old.
I read the topic and I thought "What? They're turning a profit?"
*blinking cursor*
Wouldn't we have to get to the moon first before we can have a moon rock sample?
You mean to tell me scientists were wrong in their assumptions, calculations, theory's? Well at least they had the guts to tell us about it. I know some people act like science is a religion and not as well...science. It can be wrong and it changes as we learn.
It's obvious that this conclusion will further prove that the moon landing was in a sound stage!
From the dawn of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun. Hopefully this research will bring us one step closer.
jf
There are two major theories about the composition of the Sun. One says that it has similar composition to the planets.
The Sun has the same composition as the planets? That's ridiculous. It should read: "similar oxygen isotopic composition".
...maybe the sun is made out of milk, which would explain why the moon is made of cheese.. :P
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
The Sun turns out to have more global warming particles than expected!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
It is obvious that the Sun must be Cheese. That would explain why the moon is cheese and the sun is yellow.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Beige, usually.
Seems like someone needs to actually go to the sun and take some samples. its hot, but hell... all for the sake of science right.
Just don't mention blue cheeses.
This is an honest question and I'm not trying to troll or anything but why has it taken so long to analyze the samples that Neil Armstrong came back with? That seems like quite a while for dirt.
Your comment about conjecture and astronomy reminds me of what pretends to be a joke...
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 up and says "No, at least half of one of the sheep in Scotland is black."
yeah, it's not so funny really but its +1 Insightful
Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
The sun is a mass of incandescent gas A gigantic nuclear furnace Where hydrogen is built into helium At a temperature of millions of degrees
I just saw a TV program last night or this morning about analyzing what the Sun is made of.
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.
...haha, right, and what do you think the chances are she listened to you?
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
I used to play with mozzarella cheese at my last paying job. If I remember correctly, it was white. Does that mean that white dwarfs are the systems of choice for Italians?
I have nothing to say.
Scientists were wrong??
God's going to be so disappointed.
I blame the Martians.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
That would be from a brown dwarf star
It spooky how for every colour of cheese, there's a corresponding star type.
Nice to see they rushed to get this soil analysis done. They've only had the sample for, oh, 36 FRAKIN' YEARS. (That soil is older than 99% of Slashdot readers.)
At this rate, we'll make it to Mars somewhere around 3001.
"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."
Soon all those loudmouth "illegal downloading isn't theft" posters will be silenced.
... and even more amazing that nobody has yet posted this obviousness...
There must be intelligent design in making this universe. I men, WTF is it made of if not same as what the rest of the universe is made of?
Man, when the faithful said son of god.... they must have ment sun of god.
So now what? Do we burn the bush?
a) it assumes that the only agent of change on the lunar surface over 4 billion years is the sun, So how is soil formed on earth? Do you think there are similar processes on the moon? b) it's one small size sample size picked up by one astronaut that can't possibly represent the whole moon. If you assume there is one method of creating soil on the moon, them any sample will give a good enough result. Economics limits the sample size. How much does 300 nanograms (or whatever they used, I couldn't find an article) of moon dust cost? Other people are free to repeat the experiment an add to the statistical sample.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
The sun is made out of soylent green!!!!11111
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
"NASA is important, really! See, we're making the news! Look at those buzzwords like 'Neil Armstrong' and 'Moon'. Give us more funding!"
They call you 'it'?
If you assume there is one method of creating soil on the moon, them any sample will give a good enough result
True, but it is also a fairly big assumption, and the only way to confirm it is to test it with more samples, in fact, so many samples that there can be no doubt.
Other people are free to repeat the experiment an add to the statistical sample.
Well yes, but the average joe sees this, and realizes, that, for his own back yard he needs more of a sample to get an accurate nitrogen reading, so whatever this doctor is coming up with is probably wildly inaccurate.
Now, with that said, there is actually a huge implication to this experiment that seems to have been overlooked. The big argument over global warming is solar variability versus not solar variability. While there are plenty of indirect indicators of geological solar output, a really good one would be to go the moon and drill cores and conduct this doctor's experiment, all over the planet. You would establish the solar content with a much greater degree of precision, and, you could also establish a fairly good geological record of solar output. What if there are short term spikes in solar output? What if there are short term drops? Inferential arguments are interesting, but direct measurement is always better, and sans weather, what's a better place to look than on the moon?
I really think we need to accelerate the development of the CEV, double NASA's budget, and get some geologists and physicists up their pronto to check this thing out. The most prominent researchers that oppose this plan, of course, will be bribed with a ride.
This is my sig.
NASA scientists did confirm one long-held supposition: The sun is like really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, hot.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
Science is a religion because science is done with the faith that knowing more about the world will make humanity better, and better is a subjective term. Some would even argue, scientists in particular, that all science has done is teach us how to destroy the planet and each other, so, what's the point?
Experiment refutes scientist's idea.
But the experiment did not refute anything. Science is doing this any more and is relying far more on inferential arguments. The guy's experiment is 300 micrograms of lunar soil being used to characterize the composition of not one, but two celestial bodies. You call that science? If were asked to do a nitrogen sample in the average back yard, I would take thousands of times that in dirt to figure out where the fertilizer actually needed to go, or if you needed it at all, and those samples would only be good for your little back yard. You call this smidgeon of data falsifiability as to the composition of a star and an almost planet? If that's science, no wonder people buy into TV preachers instead.
Bottom line is, people buy Toyotas because they think they are a better product than GM cars, and its GM's fault, not Toyotas. People buy TV preachers instead of scientists, because of who? Scientists need to work on their credibility, and saying the moon is a certain way because of a sliver of a sample is another apalling example of how exactly not to do it.
This is my sig.
Funny, I thought it would be an article about some research results from Sun, about Java or sthng ...
http://www.informedchoice.info/SIDS.php
The experts who I most hate are those whose opinions lead to the criminal conviction of innocent people. The first name that comes to mind is Dr. Sir Roy Meadow. Until his trial evidence was closely examined, everyone accepted that he was one of the most respected scientists in Britain.
The next case was closer to home. A pathologist insisted that a baby's wounds were caused by scissors and couldn't possibly have been caused by the large bloodstained dog who was present at the scene.
There are lots and lots of cases where people were jailed based on some expert's conjecture. In that light, calculating the number of nearby planets that could support life is benign. I also support funding astronomy. I was for many years a member of the RAS. I just make a sharp distinction between conjecture and something that can easily be confirmed by experiment. It is basically the difference between extrapolation and interpolation. Extrapolation is, by nature, hazardous. I don't say that we shouldn't hypothisize, but neither should we bet the farm on the results of said conjecture.
"In our world," said Eustace, "a star is a huge ball of flaming gas."
"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)
My theory is that the sun's is mostly hydrogen and helium.
Hydridic Earth theory:
The summary makes no sense for a change - no one has suggested the sun has the same composition as the earth - or it wouldn't be giving out much light, it'd be a big ball of iron and rock. TFA states that the relative abundancies of three oxygen isoptopes (16 - the common one on earth - 17 & 18) reflect neither the relative abundancies found on earth nor of meteorites (unchanged since they formed and thus thought to be similar to the nebula from which the solar system formed).
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
...that page 3 of the Sun might turn a profit, but none of the rest of it would.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Science really only has a few theories, because scientific theory are based on disprovable, repeatable, predictable, and in this case observable evidence.
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 understanding of science and the scientific process. Some random bullshit idea someone comes up with is not a theory, even if it may be based on some kind of coincidental factual information (like the sun containing helium) for example. Maybe, after some more testing, an actual theory of the composition of the sun can be determined. Until then, it is all conjecture or hypothesis, just as the ones in this story.
Nothing to see here, move on now.
Other people have pointed this out, but they were needlessly wordy:
1: Faking results isn't science. It just looks like it.
2: We check stuff! I could fake a result, but when someone else tries to reproduce it or extend it then my fake result would be discarded. I'd also be fired.
Since some scientists faking some things doesn't work, you might suggest that all scientists fake everything... well, that could work but then all that stuff like microwave ovens and transistors would be based on lies and wouldn't actually function. Plus, there's no clear edge between scientist and non-scientist, i.e. an amateur astronomer can sometime check a professional's work. Engineers use scientists' work, designers use engineers', man on the street uses designers'. Everyone in the world would have to be lying about everything.
p.s. If Paul the apostle had faked a result, i.e. told a lie in his gospel, who'd get that result thrown out?
This guy claims the sun has a solid surface... Anyway, there are some nice pictures.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
I would surely have thought he posted this!
The sun is really a PLANET!
The sun was always my favorite planet.
It's like the KING of the planets!
mMMmm beer... ..ok joke.... how do you spot a gay guy in a bar? ...he's the one drinking a corona!
When did there become an "overwhelming consensus" that man is causing global warming?
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. The truth is often somewhere in the middle.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
[] We employ Dr. Soren
[] Have him launch a "probe" to destroy the sun so the "Nexxus" can fly overhead
[] When the Dr. isn't looking, change probe to destroy sun with probe to research sun
[] Mystery solved!
-- "Mathematics is music for the mind, and Music is Mathematics for the Soul. - J.S. Bach"
That Java doesn't quite suck as bad as we all thought?
"And what would have happened if I hadn't commanded the sun to rise?"
"Well, then, Discworld would have only been illuminated by a flaming ball of gas."
-- Pyramids by Terry Pratchett
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/ claims that the sun has a solid "rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer" beneath a plasma photosphere.
.avi files on that site (like this one: http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_0008 28.avi) are strangely convincing. Beneath the turbulently moving filaments of a coronal mass ejection, you can see a layer that has features that remain quite fixed in location relative to each other -- implying a solid surface.
The animations /
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Inflammable and flammable mean the same thing? What a country!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Well, the obvious problem with this theory is the the problem that bedeviled all pre-quantum theories of the Sun's composition: why is the Sun still glowing? It's easy enough to work out the energy lost by the Sun every year, and calculate how long it could stay as hot as it is given that energy loss, and given any particular mechanism of energy generation.
The problem, as previous generations discovered, is that no chemical energy-producing reaction whatsoever can produce enough energy for the Sun to still be hot after even a few million years (and eighteenth-century fossil and geological evidence had already established that the Earth, and hence the Solar System, must be at least several million years old). Could the energy come from gravitational collapse? Yes, surely. But, again, without a steady replenishing source, that energy lost through radiation would have cooled the Sun down long ago.
No pre-nuclear theory of the Sun was able to explain how the Sun could be simultaneously as old as the Earth and yet still hot. It was one of the big "aha!" moments in atomic physics when it was realized early in the 20th century that nuclear reactions could provide enough power to keep the Sun hot for billions of years.
If one accepts that nuclear fusion powers the Sun, however, then the central temperature of the Sun must be in the millions of degrees. Which means there can be no solid surface.
It's for this reason that the person after the link invokes weird, as-yet undiscovered means of stupendous energy generation to power the Sun. Fair enough. But until evidence of these undiscovered exceedingly high energy mechanisms is provided, all the observational evidence in the world hinting at a solid surface has to be regarded as dubious. It's as if I saw a film of Sasquatch walking on water. It's not the existence of Sasquatch per se that would make me doubt the film, but rather the impossibility of him walking on water. In the same way, it's not the observational evidence that convinces us the Sun has no solid surface, but the fact that this would be completely inconsistent with the only way we know it could be powered.
I just love the fact that this is modded +4 informative
http://instantbadger.blogspot.com