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 . .
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.
All sciences evolve like this. How many revolutions have occured in biology in our lifetimes alone? The thing with astronomy is that in many areas we're only at the present epoch getting good looks at the objects we study. You're surpised that there are new discoveries?
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 a species of bird do exactly the same thing in the wild?) These sciences include geology, meteorology, astronomy, and a lot of biology and are referred to as "historical sciences". In these fields, you can't control the experiment, so you rely on similar observations and the ability to test theories with other, related observations. The key isn't the laboratory or the controls; it's being able to somehow falsify the theory. As long as you can do that, it's a science.
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.
"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)