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."

Comments

Ahh the burn!

[42Penguins]

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?

Re:Ahh the burn!

[Quadraginta]

It's worth noting that differing isotope ratios are quite difficult to explain. Nuclear reactions must be involved, because no* chemical or physical process can distinguish between the different isotopes of an element. That is, there is no way the isotope ratio in lunar soil can be different from Earth soil unless the material that makes them up has undergone different types of nuclear reactions.

-----------
* OK, almost no. I don't want to hear from any isotope-effects people. Anyway, you folks look for results in the 3rd or 4th decimal place and you know it.

Re:Curious

[CheshireCatCO]

Probably not. Stars with large iron cores can't produce enough power to support their own masses. That's how you get a supernova. And there are a lot of things about the idea tha a supernova formed the planets that make me very skeptical, including how you get the dichotomy between planet compositions. Of course, a supernova probably *started* our Sun's formation, a theory which is widely held in good regard, if not actually believed, by many astronomers.

Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong

[Listen Up]

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.

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 there are those people who do give a bad name to scientists and to science, it is important to understand that these people are truly acting individually, and that these people and their acts need to be seen in that light as well.

Global Warming Fraud

[Dareth]

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.