Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sun Research Yields Unexpected Results

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the fact-and-theory dept.

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."

22 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Curious by DrMrLordX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 . .

    1. Re:Curious by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's mostly hydrogen; helium makes up around 20-25% of the Sun. Everything other than those two are trace elements.

      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.

    2. Re:Curious by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We have our priorities. $2B investigating astronomy is nothing compared to the $300BILLION we've already spent invading Iraq, or the $2TRILLION it will cost. If we caught bin Laden we might not get to spend all that Iraqmire budget on "the right priorities".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Curious by EndlessNameless · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronom y/stars/lifecycle/

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  2. Re:Huh? by Mr_Tulip · · Score: 3, Informative
    Cheese.

    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.

  3. Re:Huh? by DrMrLordX · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Solar System by mkiwi · · Score: 3, Funny
    From 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).

  5. Hmm by More_Cowbell · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Our Sun is not the Sun that we thought it was."

    Sounds like something my parents said...

    --
    Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
  6. Shoddy science by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  7. Oh no... by dazlari · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Our Sun is not the Sun that we thought it was."
    ...we have a bastard sun!!
  8. Re:Ahh the burn! by aachrisg · · Score: 5, Informative

    They mean a similar composition in terms of the ratios of different isotopes (in this case, oxygen, which has 3 stable isotopes), not that it has a similar composition in terms of which elements make it up.

  9. Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong by Squiffy · · Score: 5, 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.

    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.

    1. Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh yeah, that's how scientists are supposed to act. But there are a lot of people out there with a copy of Skeptical Inquirer tucked under there arm, going around saying such-and-such is "unlikely" (when they have absolutely no statistical evidence as to how likely or unlikely said thing is) and generally acting like know-it-all assholes, all while proclaiming to be in the name of science. You know the types: the ones who talk as though "Occam's Razor" were some kind of law of nature or rigid logical process.Those sorts of people are the ones create that perception.

    2. Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong by Xzzy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      science is not faith-based

      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.

    3. Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong by babble123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would say that's even better than what you describe. Some people accuse scientists of "groupthink", that they don't publish papers that contradicts the majority point of view. But it's every scientist's dream to make some discovery that contradicts the current majority view of the field! That's what makes you famous.

    4. Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong by Bemopolis · · Score: 4, Funny

      Balderdash. Religion has a parallel development system:

      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

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    5. Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong by mysticgoat · · Score: 4, 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.

    6. Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 3, 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.

      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.

      --
      Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
  10. Oh, the star. by merdaccia · · Score: 5, Funny

    I read the topic and I thought "What? They're turning a profit?"

    --

    *blinking cursor*

  11. DoninIN by DoninIN · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  12. Too bad that satellite crashed on re-entry... by vistic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. is vs of by Ragica · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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)