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

Re:Huh?

[DrMrLordX]

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.

Hmm

[More_Cowbell]

"Our Sun is not the Sun that we thought it was."

Sounds like something my parents said...

Shoddy science

[MyLongNickName]

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.

Oh no...

[dazlari]

"Our Sun is not the Sun that we thought it was."

...we have a bastard sun!!

Re:Ahh the burn!

[aachrisg]

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.

Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong

[Squiffy]

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.

Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong

[babble123]

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.

Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong

[Bemopolis]

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

Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong

[mysticgoat]

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:Curious

[CheshireCatCO]

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.

Oh, the star.

[merdaccia]

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

Too bad that satellite crashed on re-entry...

[vistic]

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.

Re:Curious

[EndlessNameless]

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