Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

An Up-Close Look At the Parker Solar Probe -- the Spacecraft That Will Skim the Sun's Surface (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the up-close-and-personal dept.

schwit1 shares a report from Ars Technica, offering an up-close look at the Parker Solar Probe: This summer, NASA will launch the Parker Solar Probe, an impressively heat-resistant spacecraft destined to glide closer to the surface of the Sun than any spacecraft before it. It will fly within about 6 million kilometers of the searing surface, more than seven times closer than earlier craft. If all goes to plan, the craft will be hurtling at 724,205 km per hour and have its one-of-a-kind heat shield perfectly facing the surface as it makes those closest approaches. In about seven years, it will complete 24 orbits around the Sun and pass by Venus seven times. All the while, the Parker probe will collect a constellation of data to help answer scientists' burning questions -- and solve some sizzling mysteries -- about the orb of hot plasma that lights up our Solar System. Namely, it will try to help us finally understand why the Sun's atmosphere is 300 times hotter than its surface, which itself is a balmy 5,727C. This fact defies basic physics and to this day is unexplained. One of the leading hypotheses to account for the heat shift comes from famed physicist Eugene Parker, after whom the probe is named. In the mid-1950s, Parker theorized that the Sun's super-heated corona could be explained by a complex system of plasma, magnetic fields, and energetic particles that spark solar explosions called "nanoflares." Scientists are thirsty for close-up data on those potential explosions as well as the cascade of energy called solar wind. With that data, they can put their hypotheses to the test. And in addition to helping us understand coronal heat, data on these sunny phenomena could help clear up poorly understood space weather, which can wreak havoc on satellites and power lines here on Earth.

121 comments

  1. The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The plasma increases in density and temperature gradient until some arbitrarily defined point of human definition. If this thing is warping through there 7e5 km / hr then it's obviously nowhere near any surface.

    1. Re:The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Informative

      True, and insightful. The sun has a visible surface, where the plasma becomes opaque. But the visible surface isn't a "surface" in any sense other than being visible-- it is a place where the density is actually far far less than the Earth's surface atmospheric density.

      Cool to see the mission get some publicity --I was involved in the design (power system).

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    2. Re: The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      We landed a man on the moon decades ago but Trump said he will do one better. He demanded that NASA plan a mission to land a man on the sun!

    3. Re:The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      How do you mod True and Insightful?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re:The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plasma increases in density and temperature gradient until some arbitrarily defined point of human definition. If this thing is warping through there 7e5 km / hr then it's obviously nowhere near any surface.

      And if it did have a 'surface', this craft would be far from 'skimming' it. Another unnecessarily stupid headline by BeauHD. The story is interesting enough with no need for stupidity in describing it.

    5. Re:The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool, so you have a web page that dates back to 1996, and it shows. Dude, update it; It's an embarrassment!

    6. Re:The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

      It's a Parker Square of a title.

    7. Re: The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by datavirtue · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I might add that this mission is far more interesting than a trip to Mars.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    8. Re:The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by G00F · · Score: 1

      What kind of materials are used that can take that kind of heat, even a fraction of the heat destroys most electrical component.

      Honestly, it is people like you that keep me coming back to /. , I have yet to find a single site to replace it.(sure there is hacknews and reddit...)

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    9. Re:The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Informative

      You send the spacecraft at night. I'm only kind of joking: you make a heat shield that creates an artificial "night" behind the shield. The only way for heat to transfer in space is radiation, so you just have to make sure that a) the more delicate components can't see the sun (so the sun can't heat them up directly), b) the shield doesn't transfer heat very well to the rest of the craft (it does have to be physically attached, but you can use very good insulators), and c) the shield poorly absorbs heat through radiation. a is easy, c is relatively easy (literally, you just paint it white), and b is tricky but very much possible. If the craft was an ideal black body, this wouldn't be possible, but fortunately it isn't.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    10. Re: The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The density gradient across 1% of the Sun's radius near the photosphere is orders of magnitude larger than the density gradient from underground Earth to low Earth orbit. In terms of density gradients, the edge of the Sun is as well defined as Earth.

    11. Re: The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by BKX · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if I was the only person to get that joke. Lol

    12. Re:The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      How do you mod True and Insightful?

      The most common way? +1 Troll :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    13. Re: The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      Props to you and good luck!

    14. Re: The sun doesn't really have a "surface" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the power system? Do you use the heat gradient with peltier elements, photovoltaics or is there a separate power source on board? How do you make the power electronics work? Is everything including logic silicone carbide? What kind of core materials for inductors? Must be super fun to work on such a project :)

  2. Skim the Sun's surface?! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hope they plan on only going there at night!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Skim the Sun's surface?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comments like this are why they let us post anonymously.

    2. Re: Skim the Sun's surface?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Touché

    3. Re:Skim the Sun's surface?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they go at night they won't be able to see anything. Bit it should be okay to go during the winter.

    4. Re:Skim the Sun's surface?! by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      I hope they plan on only going there at night!

      Comments like this are why they let us post anonymously.

      Every time I give a lecture about Solar Probe I can count on somebody saying that.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    5. Re: Skim the Sun's surface?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When are they going to send a probe up Uranus? They may find some gerbils & missing toys!!!

    6. Re:Skim the Sun's surface?! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Very funny, but very redundant also ;-)

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    7. Re:Skim the Sun's surface?! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      An ID above 4.8m is like an AC...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    8. Re:Skim the Sun's surface?! by Talderas · · Score: 2

      That's a pretty low barrier you set. Let's at least drop it to something like account with a UID above 1500000.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    9. Re:Skim the Sun's surface?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your uid HelloImACunt?

    10. Re:Skim the Sun's surface?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sooo... NASA should put their probe where the Sun don't shine? That's how the space aliens do it.

    11. Re: Skim the Sun's surface?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, I love this shit.

    12. Re:Skim the Sun's surface?! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Let's drop to to anything over 9000!!!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  3. Very punny by sjbe · · Score: 3, Funny

    All the while, the Parker probe will collect a constellation of data to help answer scientists' burning questions....

    Pun intended I hope

    1. Re: Very punny by datavirtue · · Score: 2

      Its pun day. Another story about coffee has a judge mentioning insufficient grounds.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    2. Re:Very punny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That particular Ars Technica author is known to have a predilection for puns.

    3. Re:Very punny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "help answer scientists' burning questions -- and solve some sizzling mysteries" Methinks it was!

    4. Re: Very punny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expect the pun-intended.

  4. We might already have a working theory... by IMarvinTPA · · Score: 0

    The mystery is a lot simpler, just read up on https://www.thunderbolts.info/... and other Electric Universe research. Our sun is basically a gigantic electric arc lamp.

    IMarv

    --
    Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
    1. Re:We might already have a working theory... by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Nah, it's much simpler than that. The core doesn't burn so hot because there's less oxygen in the center than on the exposed surface.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:We might already have a working theory... by Burdell · · Score: 1

      I thought the Sun was a mass of incandescent gas (or maybe a miasma of incandescent plasma).

    3. Re:We might already have a working theory... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      'Gigantic' is all relative, compared to other stars, our Sun is not the brightest.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re:We might already have a working theory... by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 1

      It's a sign of weakness when somebody has to resort to misstating or understating an argument. This is what the actual argument looks like.

    5. Re:We might already have a working theory... by meglon · · Score: 1

      Except EU is complete bullshit. It' not science, it's a pseudo-science cult for batshit stupid fanbois. I seriously cannot fathom why dipshits still think it's anything; it doesn't have any math behind it, and it requires Relativity to be completely wrong... yet every experiment and observation shows Relativity to be correct. What mental defect does someone have to have to continue to deny reality in the face of stupidity; what benefit does your ignorance give you?

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    6. Re:We might already have a working theory... by meglon · · Score: 3, Funny

      ....our Sun is not the brightest.

      Neither are any of the mentally challenged that kneel before the genitalia of the cult of EU.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    7. Re:We might already have a working theory... by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 1

      It "doesn't have any math behind it"?

      Re: "and it requires Relativity to be completely wrong"

      All you've done here is to ignore the disconnect between Relativity and quantum mechanics. The two ideas cannot be made to work with one another, so simple logic suggests that at least one of them must be in error.

      Also: the failure to observe dark matter, even as instrumentation for observing it has become a million times more sensitive over the past 15 years, is further reason to suspect -- as has been stated by the Electric Universe theorists -- that gravity does not dominate beyond the planetary scale.

      To the extent that people contemplate alternative ideas in cosmology, they do so because of cosmology's own failure to solve these same problems.

      The reasons for 'crankery'

      The advancement of science requires - absolutely - what I call 'forced' induction (as opposed to 'free' induction - what animals do). This requires that you go off on your own to think independently. The extent to which you 'go off alone' determines whether you will become an acceptable scientist or what you call a 'crank'. Unfortunately, the originality of your ideas is tied inextricably to the measure of your 'aloneness'.

      Other people act as guides and supports (a frame of reference) upon which you can rely to 'set you straight' when you stray into the realm of the 'illucid'. As I have said, 'Self delusion is the bane of induction'. I know this to be true from extensive personal experience. It is a real struggle to keep one's thoughts on track without the assistance of other readily available opinion.

      Thus, if a scientist at Cern has a really bad idea, he may mention it to a colleague who says,

      'Did you slip on a bar of soap in the shower? Don't you remember the 'X' factor we were just talking about last week?'

      And then the first guy says, 'Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Forget it.'

      Now he's back on track in less than ten seconds.

      Someone alone however, may struggle for weeks in the same situation, unable to see a simple thing that another disinterested person would notice immediately. He may pursue the wrongheaded matter to some new bizarre conclusion and believe that he has found the Holy Grail. And the more effort he has put into it, the less he will be willing to give it up.

      Therefore, if you go off alone you tend to become a 'crank'... but if you remain with the herd you tend to discover nothing new, i.e. and become a 'pundit'.

      There is a Gaussian distribution here.

      There are perhaps five or six thousand individuals who actually try to do 'forced induction' at the highest level. Half of them fall on the left 'crank' side of the distribution and half fall on the right 'pundit' side. Each half needs the other.

      You could make the case that the 'extremes' ought to be cut off. But I would say, 'Who is to decide the cutoff point?'. I certainly wouldn't want to make such a momentous decision. Hence, I don't criticize other people's stuff in general since I understand how difficult it is to produce anything at all.

      The same applies in the larger sense to wide groups of individuals. If the 'ship of science' (or one of its smaller boats) decides to drop anchor and wait for the truth to come to it ... they will stagnate and you will find that many more 'cranks' pop up to point out the paucity of perpendicular progress ... at the same time offering new and evermore bizarre solutions to present problems.

      This is actually the present situation. The physics establishment has decided that they can proceed by experiment alone (data gathering) and that the data will tell them what to 'induce' next.

      In fact, it will.

      But this is the method of the animal population ... fre

    8. Re: We might already have a working theory... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      The issue is that mainstream scientists and views are equally as clueless perhaps?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    9. Re:We might already have a working theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a giant firefly that got stuck in the sky. This is definitely true since i learned it from Disney's The Lion King.

    10. Re: We might already have a working theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, answer me this, if stars are not nuclear reactors, where do all of the elements come from, and how do you explain away spectral readings of the makeup of stars

    11. Re: We might already have a working theory... by IMarvinTPA · · Score: 1

      1) Magnetic forces, Plasma, and high electrical systems are in a great position to cause nuclear fusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      2) The spectral readings of the elements are a result of the atoms emitting light due to being excited and releasing that energy. It is the electrical grid of the galaxy that lights up the star's matter. There is nothing to explain away, just a different way of explaining why what you see is happening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      IMarv

      --
      Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
    12. Re: We might already have a working theory... by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 3

      Adding to IMarv's comments, the sun's neutrino output has at times varied inversely with the sun's surface sunspot count. Were the neutrinos produced in the sun's nuclear core, this relationship would be inconceivable, since solar physicists calculate that it takes about 200,000 years for the energy of internal fusion to affect the sun's surface. The observations seem to raise the possibility that fusion is occurring near the sun's surface, and it only took one non-correlated half-cycle for theorists to completely stop paying attention.

      The graph which shows this anti-correlation has been deeply buried in academic papers, so I've published a copy of it here.

      Most authors that have analyzed the full set of data from 1970 to 1990 find a reasonably significant correlation between the 37 Ar production rate and sunspot occurrences, solar oscillation frequency changes and solar magnetic fields.

      One thing to consider, when contemplating the situation of an anti-correlation which apparently switches between on and off states is that the Sun clearly exhibits these different states through its cycle. To observe switching behavior, and immediately use that as reason to discount the existence of an anti-correlation is honestly a rush to judgment. You know, this is why we build models.

    13. Re:We might already have a working theory... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      ....our Sun is not the brightest.

      Neither are any of the mentally challenged that kneel before the genitalia of the cult of EU.

      Finally, a simple explanation for Brexit.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    14. Re:We might already have a working theory... by seven+of+five · · Score: 2

      our Sun is not the brightest.

      shudders, remembering how often parents said that

    15. Re: We might already have a working theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stellar cores like our Sun's only make elements up to iron - nothing heavier.

  5. The Donald by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Donald no me gusta science!

  6. if it gets too hot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...inside the probe, can they just open a window or something?

    1. Re:if it gets too hot... by sheramil · · Score: 1

      They who? It's an unmanned probe.

  7. North Korean Scientists by TheZeal0t · · Score: 1

    A group of North Korean scientists caused quite a stir when they attended a convention of astrophysicists, and proclaimed boldly that they were going to land a manned space probe on the sun. There was silence in the auditorium for about five seconds, before uproarious laughter burst out. One of the distinguished scientists from England stood up, cleared his throat, and said, "Why this is QUITE preposterous! You'll never get a manned craft within a million miles of the sun before it burns up! No one would survive! How do you expect to accomplish such a feat?"

    The lead North Korean scientist stood up and glared at the upstart. He boldly proclaimed, "Our Great Leader, Kim Jong Eun, is a MASTER SCIENTIST! He has given us the plan for success in this mission!"

    The English scientist smirked, "And what is that exactly?"

    The North Korean scientist smirked back and replied, "We're going AT NIGHT!"

  8. Burning questions and sizzling mysteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't do that. You're not trying to win a creative writing contest in high school.

    1. Re:Burning questions and sizzling mysteries by hey! · · Score: 1

      They should have named it the Parkour Solar Probe.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  9. FYI by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    At its closest the probe will be 1/10 the distance Sun-Mercury

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  10. 724,000 KPH!!! by drewsup · · Score: 1

    Thats a feat in itself as the fastest we ever launched was roughly Juno with a gravity assist got to 265,000 KPH, and these guys are gonna go almost 3 times as fast, is this correct?! Anyone?

    1. Re:724,000 KPH!!! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 0

      It's probably easier to go towards the Sun.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:724,000 KPH!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that about 3/4 the speed of light?

    3. Re:724,000 KPH!!! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      At those speeds and distances, how would this not be ablative?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re: 724,000 KPH!!! by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Off by many oders of magnitude. Basically sitting still relative to the speed of light.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    5. Re:724,000 KPH!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. To escape the solar system you have to go sqrt(2) x orbital velocity where you start. At earth's orbit, that would be ~30km/s, or ~42km/sec, a deltav of 12km/s.

      To crash into the sun, you have to kill all orbital speed for a deltav of 30km/s.

    6. Re:724,000 KPH!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the GP was referring to the fact that getting closer to the Sun accelerates you due to the conversion of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. Kepler's third law covers this.

    7. Re: 724,000 KPH!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, getting to the Sun is fairly difficult. You have to shed the 66,000 mph orbital speed that the Earth is traveling at. That is far more velocity change than you need to visit any of the outer planets.

    8. Re:724,000 KPH!!! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      At those speeds and distances, how would this not be ablative?

      Errr, by not hitting anything? Seriously - despite the visible impact of the corona when you see a total solar eclipse, and the perfectly accurate talk of "coronal mass ejections" and solar wind, it's still a pretty good vacuum out there, by terrestrial laboratory standards.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  11. loginshack@gmail.com is Hacker Hire for email pass by loginshack · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    loginshack@gmail.com is a professional hacking Service. * Hack and UPGRADE UNIVERSITY GRADES * Hack into FACEBOOK and EMAIL ACCOUNTS * LOAD BANK ACCOUNTS ANY AMOUNTS * Hack into CRAIGSLIST and remove account flagging * Hack into any BANK WEBSITE * Hack into any COMPANY WEBSITE * Hack into any GOVERNMENT AGENCY WEBSITE * Hack into SECURITY AGENCY WEBSITE and ERASE CRIMINAL RECORDS * Hack into any DATA BASE * Hack PAYPAL ACCOUNT * Hack WORD-PRESS Blogs * SERVER CRASHED hack * Untraceable IP etc contact us at: loginshack@gmail.com loginshack@gmail.com is a professional hacking Service. * Hack and UPGRADE UNIVERSITY GRADES * Hack into FACEBOOK and EMAIL ACCOUNTS * LOAD BANK ACCOUNTS ANY AMOUNTS * Hack into CRAIGSLIST and remove account flagging * Hack into any BANK WEBSITE * Hack into any COMPANY WEBSITE * Hack into any GOVERNMENT AGENCY WEBSITE * Hack into SECURITY AGENCY WEBSITE and ERASE CRIMINAL RECORDS * Hack into any DATA BASE * Hack PAYPAL ACCOUNT * Hack WORD-PRESS Blogs * SERVER CRASHED hack * Untraceable IP etc contact us at: loginshack@gmail.com

  12. Children of the Sun by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    What," said Trillian in a small quiet voice, "does 'sundive' mean?"
    "It means," said Marvin, "that the ship is going to dive into the sun. Sun. Dive. It's very simple to understand."

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  13. "Yes, milady." by BDeblier · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unfortunately Parker didn't appear in the Sun Probe episode.

  14. There's a far simpler explanation by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: -1

    The submission states ...

    Namely, it will try to help us finally understand why the Sun's atmosphere is 300 times hotter than its surface, which itself is a balmy 5,727C. This fact defies basic physics and to this day is unexplained. One of the leading hypotheses to account for the heat shift comes from famed physicist Eugene Parker, after whom the probe is named. In the mid-1950s, Parker theorized that the Sun's super-heated corona could be explained by a complex system of plasma, magnetic fields, and energetic particles that spark solar explosions called "nanoflares."

    There have been a few important details consistently missing from the reporting on this subject:

    (1) First of all, there is never any mention of the far simpler solution where the Sun is receiving some percentage of its power supply externally. A person need not be a solar physicist to understand that such a situation would create the thermal inversion which is observed. But, this common sense approach is never suggested in the science journalism on the subject.

    (2) When Eddington first proposed his thermonuclear power source, it was widely believed that interstellar space was completely empty. And it wasn't until many years after the thermonuclear model gained in popularity -- with the first instrumented rockets launched at the start of the "Space Age" -- when it was discovered that an alternative power source -- charged particles -- fill space.

    The Internal Constitution of the Stars, Arthur Eddington, p.25

    "The problem of the source of a star's energy will be considered; by a process of exhaustion we are driven to conclude that the only possible source of a star's energy is subatomic; yet it must be confessed that the hypothesis shows little disposition to accommodate itself to the detailed requirements of observation, and a critic might count up a large number of 'fatal' objections."

    The Internal Constitution of the Stars, Arthur Eddington, p.291

    "In seeking a source of energy other than contraction the first question is whether the energy to be radiated in future is now hidden in the star or whether it is being picked up continuously from outside. Suggestions have been made that the impact of meteoric matter provides the heat, or that there is some subtle radiation traversing space which the star picks up. Strong objection may be urged against these hypotheses individually; but it is unnecessary to consider them in detail because they have arisen through a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. No source of energy is of any avail unless it liberates energy in the deep interior of the star. It is not enough to provide for the external radiation of the star. We must provide for the maintenance of the high internal temperature, without which the star would collapse. The temperature gradient from the surface to the centre cannot be maintained by supplying heat at the bottom end. If, for example, sufficient heat is developed by meteoric impact to maintain the surface of Capella at 5200', the temperature throughout the interior will fall gradually to this level and the star will no longer be distended to low density."

    It seems, in retrospect -- with the added information supplied by the presence of an all-pervasive cosmic plasma -- that Eddington's logic would have to be altered by many modern observations which support an external source.

    (3) Consider, for example, the persistent mystery of the solar cycle. There's not really any reason for it which would necessarily follow from a thermonuclear model for the Sun:

    "the solar activity cycle has fascinated scientists and amateurs alike for over a century, but its mystery remains, and even deepens, as we collect new data that reveals its full complexity" (

    1. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by meglon · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. Stupid fucking bullshit. Your EU is nothing more than crap, which requires things we've observed, and experimental results from the past 99 years to be completely wrong. Either Relativity is right, or EU is right.. can't be both... and EVERY experiment done has shown Relativity is correct, and on the EU side, they've all shown EU doesn't explain anything experimentally.

      Seriously.. what the fuck is wrong with you EU cultists?

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    2. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Re: "Either Relativity is right, or EU is right.. can't be both... and EVERY experiment done has shown Relativity is correct"

      You could swap out "EU" with "quantum mechanics", and we'd be in the same exact situation.

      Re: "EU doesn't explain anything experimentally"

      Just to give an example, it can explain why the ionosphere is layered. There is a very simple experiment which involves charge-loading a metal sphere in a vacuum. This very simple experiment produces a layering of charge, and experimentally, that would appear to suggest that our planet Earth is a charged body in space. There are many other examples -- but realize that they are not going to just pop into your science journalism newsfeed; you have to actually seek these arguments out.

    3. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody please tell me what the fuck "EU" means in this context?

    4. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      EU === Electric Universe, but also EU == electrical cosmology. Its central thesis is that cosmic plasmas behave as laboratory plasmas -- an important claim in light of the realization, since 1958, that most of the matter that we can see with telescopes is matter in the plasma state (>99%).

      One thing to know is that in the EU, there is no dark matter problem: Since we clearly observe plasma to conduct in the laboratory, what is being claimed is that the cosmic plasma is conducting across vast distances of space over plasma filaments -- much like what is already observed with a novelty plasma globe. These filaments are referred to by mainstream astrophysicists as "interstellar clouds", but in fact, "clouds" like the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds are highly filamentary. They are hardly the only ones; in fact, hydrogen filaments are ubiquitous in space, and have been shown to precede the formation of stars.

      What seems to confuse a lot of people about the debate is that mainstream astrophysicists are arguing against the idea that we can model cosmic plasmas as laboratory plasmas. But, this is indeed the case. They have been using fluids models to model cosmic plasmas, and this creates the extraordinary situation that when astronomical observations exhibit the features of laboratory plasmas, even professional astrophysicists and cosmologists will commonly fail to recognize very common forms observed in the laboratory for electricity over gas. When these failures are pointed out, the debate can become extremely emotional -- and we have a situation where stating "the obvious" creates a very acrimonious situation.

    5. Re: There's a far simpler explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a lot of talk about scientists and very little talk about physical theory. As far as I can tell, EU is some conspiracy theory about scientists as opposed to a science theory. Maybe it would be more attractive and approachable if they drop the antisocial, whiny cruft and stuck to business.

    6. Re: There's a far simpler explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What seems to confuse a lot of people about the debate is that mainstream astrophysicists are arguing against the idea that we can model cosmic plasmas as laboratory plasmas.

      This is flat out wrong considering the number of lab experiments that exist solely as astrophysical models. Additionally, many basic and fusion plasma experiments get part of their funding to do astrophysical experiments (20% on the last fusion project I worked on). We presented this data without any conflict at astrophysics conferences. And at plasma physics conferences we were constantly approached by theoretical astrophysicists looking for labs that could test new things.

      They have been using fluids models to model cosmic plasmas,

      Uh, the vast majority of models I've seen are at least resistive, and often gyrokinetic or flat out kinetic instead of fluid. PIC is really popular for astrophysical plasmas, and a lot of the work on relativistic plasmas can't be fluid model at all.

      When these failures are pointed out, the debate can become extremely emotional

      I'm sorry, but how do you expect people to react when you tell them they are wrong but present such a blatant strawman? If you walked up to a painter doing a portrait of a person, and complained how it is a bad horse and that painters are ignorant for not knowing that a horse has four legs, what do you expect? Short of finding a saint, don't expect rational debate for long when arguing using what appears to be delusions about the other party is doing. Scientists get approached constantly (a couple cold emails a week for me) by people who didn't read an intro level textbook, and it is extremely time consuming and unfruitful to argue with most of them (or worse, leads to legal problems occasionally). It is fine to say something in that textbook is wrong (I have several colleagues that published papers with possible criticism of basic concepts), but you better know what you are arguing against. The vitriol is for the strawman aspect, not the criticism aspect usually.

    7. Re: There's a far simpler explanation by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      Re: "There is a lot of talk about scientists and very little talk about physical theory. As far as I can tell, EU is some conspiracy theory about scientists as opposed to a science theory. Maybe it would be more attractive and approachable if they drop the antisocial, whiny cruft and stuck to business."

      It's probably unfair to judge an entire cosmology through Internet comments. Since a lot of the efforts here are focused upon correcting misconceptions, these efforts may come off to some as "whiny". For a more thoughtful introduction, you might consider, instead, reading The Electric Sky by Don Scott, which goes into great length about how we can explain astronomical observations with ordinary laboratory plasma physics observations.

      If you'd prefer to avoid purchasing their book, then consider their technical introduction, The Essential Guide -- which is actually geared towards those with an EE background. It is quite technical.

      Alternatively, if you come from the world of plasma physics, you'd want to also supplement these works with the second edition of Physics of the Plasma Universe And in that case, there are also a couple of papers you should read here and here, which both review critiques of MHD in good detail.

      Personally, I also recommend focusing upon the historical arguments, whose importance are greatly under-appreciated ... e.g., the mistaken assumption of empty space, the story of Kristian Birkeland, the history of the Birkeland current concept, the electron theory as a worldview, the story of Halton Arp, the Big Bang's big redshift assumption, and this discussion of the debate over uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, for starters.

      For those that just want a very basic and quick introduction, then watch these two Youtube videos.

      There is really no shortage of high-quality resources, pitched at all of the various levels. If you aren't seeing them, then that definitely says more about your own efforts to find these resources than anything else.

    8. Re: There's a far simpler explanation by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      Re: "Uh, the vast majority of models I've seen are at least resistive, and often gyrokinetic or flat out kinetic instead of fluid. PIC is really popular for astrophysical plasmas, and a lot of the work on relativistic plasmas can't be fluid model at all."

      There's an overt disconnect between what you are saying and the relentless onslaught of fluids concepts that appears within the analysis of astronomical plasmas. Whether or not the models in use are technically referred to as "fluids models", what is happening with them is that the plasmas are being modeled as fluids, without reference to electrodynamic plasma concepts observed within the laboratory.

      There are by now numerous laboratory plasma physics concepts which generally don't appear in astrophysics papers -- including double layers, plasma instabilities (aka Peratt intabilities), z-pinches, critical ionization velocities, Marklund convection, and of course the force-free field-aligned Birkeland current.

      Let's take an example from just this week. If you go to the original paper, it states:

      Using numerical radiation hydrodynamical models, we show that the light curve of KSN 2015K is well fitted by a model where the supernova runs into external material presumably expelled in a pre-supernova mass-loss episode.

      But, anybody who has spent time working with electrodynamic plasmas in the plasma laboratory should already be very familiar with the ring of vortices morphology, because this exact type of filamentation is what happens for the highest charge-density state of a conducting plasma, known as the z-pinch. In fact, plasma physicists have been imprinting electron beams onto a variety of materials for many decades now, producing this same form in the laboratory.

      When people point out the obvious problem of failing to mention the correspondence between the astronomical and laboratory forms, people who honestly should know better tend to totally lose it, and it honestly creates a very anti-science situation where the exactly correct conversations are apparently out-of-bounds.

      Personally, I believe that you understand where the disconnect is happening, and are just adopting a defensive posture. Why not be honest with us, and help us to better understand, in your own words, why objects like KSN 2015K and sn1987a cannot be considered the cosmic version of laboratory z-pinches? What physical features -- not just assumptions -- actually precludes such an analysis? An honest assessment would really help to advance the conversation.

    9. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Stands for Electric Universe.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    10. Re: There's a far simpler explanation by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      Let us how you really feel. No need to pull your punches.

    11. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, crap. I downmodded a different comment as "offtopic" because it made a jab at EU. I wondered why it was bringing politics into the conversation. Meps.

    12. Re: There's a far simpler explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I followed a link to a site talking about EU. It said "The usual demonstration using heavy steel balls on a rubber sheet to represent ‘gravity wells’ relies on gravity as its own explanation!" in it's first paragraph. I said to myself, "Well, since that whole business is a simplified 2D representation of a 4D phenomenon meant to *illustrate* the effect of gravity, I don't see an issue". I'm not sure it's worth reading the rest of it besides its entertainment value.

      Of course, the link was from rationalwiki, so of course they're going to go find the most ridiculous examples out there. Having said that, I will take a look at some of your links to get a more lucid explanation from a proponents view.

      sr

    13. Re: There's a far simpler explanation by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      We live in very interesting times, where things -- like electricity -- which are extraordinarily mundane down here on Earth are apparently just completely preposterous in the context of space.

    14. Re: There's a far simpler explanation by meglon · · Score: 1

      It's real plain and simple:

      Relativity -
      * Einstein saw a problem with the existing science (he wasn't alone in that)
      * he formed his hypothesis (with actual math, apparently it's a thing in physics to use real math)
      * a bunch of predictions are made using his hypothesis
      * from 1919 to present day, every experiment done to verified those predictions has a positive outcome.

      Electric Universe - wow, i mean just wow (talk about crackpot dipshtis on this list)

      * was it Velikovsky thinking Earth was a moon of Saturn until just a couple thousand years ago until *BOOM* electricity!, or was it the new earth creationists who saw it as a way to explain the Grand Canyon without the long term effects of water erosion? Everyone had some problem (other than the mental one) that *BOOM electricity! could solve
      * all sorts of ideas floated... but no math, none at all...cause pseudo-science cultists can't do math it appears. Besides, using basic math would show that basic physics also say's the whole EU thing is bullshit
      * a few predictions are made, some predictions required already observed things to not actually have happened, and a whole bunch of experimentally verified physics (including Relativity) to be completely wrong.
      * experimental predictions verified to date = 0 (even Alfven couldn't find the radio emissions he predicted)

      Your problem is you got to the point where actual scientists would discard a hypothesis that is wrong, but decided you could con people out of a bunch of money by keeping at it.

      Every time an actual astronomy thread pops up, some dipshits from the EU cult starts talking about things that a 9th grader would know is bullshit. I place people like you as nothing more than liars and conspiracy theorists. Your certainly not a scientist, and what you say is simply a lie...actually, it's more like a con job given how the leeches who run the EU crap support themselves selling t-shirts and convention tickets.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    15. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by meglon · · Score: 1

      Electric Universe - it's actual central thesis is:

      * Einstein's postulates are wrong.
      * General relativity (GR) is wrong.
      * The Universe is not expanding.
      * The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near-infinite velocity.
      * Gravity has two poles like a bar magnet; dipole gravity.
      * A plenum of neutrinos forms an all-pervasive aether.
      * Planets give birth to comets.
      * Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.
      * Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges. The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.

      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...

      for a longer read: https://briankoberlein.com/201...

      EU is pseudo-science with a cult following. Why? It doesn't take any actual work to be a brain-dead follower (that's my guess).

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    16. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant ELECTRIC UNIVERSE®, of course....

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    17. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by Nivag064 · · Score: 1

      What have you got against the European Union???

    18. Re: There's a far simpler explanation by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      Setting aside the fact that the existence of mathematics does not somehow make it correct, it is absolutely misleading to assert that there is no mathematics associated with either electrical cosmology (for example here) or the Electric Universe (for example here). In fact, understanding both require a deep appreciation for the Lorentz Force and Maxwell's Equations. Mathematics has been a part of electrical cosmology from its inception (for example here).

      Math is crucial for understanding the critical ionization velocity effect; it has been used to show how Marklund convection can replace gravitational accretion as a system for forming stars (and unlike the idea of stars accreting gravitationally, the geometry matches observations of actual stars forming all at once in a burst). Don Scott could not have accurately predicted the structure of AGN jets without significant amounts of mathematics. He's a retired EE professor, so he has spent his life immersed in these mathematics which you claim the EU does not include.

      Attempts to model space without electrodynamic plasma physics concepts are destined to fail. We know this because it's already been tried, and the approach has failed to explain the nature of the many cosmic plasma structures we observe.

      Think about it this way: What is the first plasma we encounter as we leave the Earth? It's the ionosphere. You may not know a whole lot about the ionosphere, but if you've been paying attention at all, you will at least understand that it is layered. You might spend some time thinking about why that is. Why should differing concentrations of charge exist in layers at all? Why not just a smooth gradient of charge that tapers off as one leaves Earth? Why should differing, adjacent regions of charge not neutralize one another?

      The math here explains why.

      "As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory.

      A simple circuit is suggested which is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources ... Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object." ("Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics", Hannes Alfven, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Dec 1986)

      In a 1992 paper titled, "Double Layers Do Accelerate Particles in the Auroral Zone," the authors plainly state:

      "the direct observational evidence for substantial (multi-kV) electrostatic potential structures in the auroral zone is plentiful [16-27].

      The Earth's auroral zone is far from being fully understood, but observations clearly show that electrostatic-potential structures (called double layers or electrostatic shocks) reside in the auroral magnetosphere."

      Observations of laboratory plasmas have shown that double layers are what lend plasmas their structure. When you see a plasma filament in a novelty plasma globe, you should be asking: Why is charge confined to this thin filament? Laboratory plasma physicists point to the double layer as the source of this structure.

      You should also be asking these same types of questions about the Van Allen Radiation belts: How can it be that these belts have all of this

    19. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      Carl Sagan:

      "The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts. Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. And there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. And the history of the study of our solar system shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong -- and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."

    20. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      Koberlein admits 4 years later that he was wrong to claim that the Electric Universe predicts no neutrinos, but take a look at the link you posted: He has left the claim there in his personal blog, without any mention of the mistake. Not only does he refuse to have his critiques reviewed, but when he is informed of obvious mistakes, he also refuses to retract those mistaken claims. This is the process which you are supporting by passing along his links. I'm always amused that people who claim to believe so strongly in the value of peer review will gladly point to unreviewed critiques so long as they personally agree with the claims being made.

      Re: "The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near-infinite velocity."

      You've completely misstated this point, to the point of causing confusion. What Wal has suggested is that electrons have subparticles (he calls them "subtrons"). It is the subtrons which are interacting at near-infinite velocity and which confer quantum physics' mysterious attributes (absolutely not the electric force, which of course results from electrons -- not subtrons). Using this approach, it also becomes possible to explain gravity as a form of electron dipole distortion, much like what we already know about how the Van der Waals force works. This approach offers us a possible way to reconcile the quantum and gravity domains -- a problem which you of course fail to mention in your attempt here to discredit the EU. Their only crime here is to try to solve the problem that you fail to mention -- a problem which you will still be stuck with if you remove the EU from the conversation.

      But, it's also incorrect to state that this constitutes their "central thesis". The central thesis is the conversation which we've been having here about how to model cosmic plasmas. When engaging these topics, its crucial to start there, because if you talk to people who consider themselves to be adherents, they will not place a whole lot of importance on subtrons, and you may also run into people who engage the EU topics, but who do not necessarily agree that all aspects of Relativity are wrong. Just like in mainstream physics, to the extent that people are thinking for themselves, you're going to observe a full spectrum of beliefs -- some better put together than others, of course.

    21. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by meglon · · Score: 1

      You're right... EU has no central thesis because it's a mashed up bunch of shit. The few predictions it can make have been shown to be wrong, and it still requires relativity wrong.... but relativity has always had positive experimental conclusions. EU is a shithole of a con, and the people who still adhere to it are idiots who refuse to accept reality for some unknown reason.

      Relativity works. There has been no experiment where it has had a negative outcome. Until you can explain why we need to throw away a working, tested, verifiable theory (relativity) for a mixed up pile of shit that has no math, and who's predictions can't be experimentally verified (and in actuality, are experimentally disproven), then you're peddling bullshit... nothing more. You're not a scientist, you're a crackpot. I don't have to discredit EU because it has no credit except with a handful of idiots and conmen who want you to buy their t-shirts. Do yourself a favor, quit being a fucking idiot.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    22. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      Re: "The few predictions it can make have been shown to be wrong"

      As I've stated in another thread here, you are blocking the best explanation we currently have for the observed layering of cosmic plasmas. A person need only go to the first nearest plasma to Earth -- its ionosphere -- and you will immediately run into the unavoidable problem of explaining how it can be that the different regions exist as layers which do not recombine or mix. In other words, why do plasmas exhibit structure with well-defined edges, where plus and minus charge can coexist without apparently recombining to form neutral matter? Your insistence that the cosmic plasmas are not behaving as laboratory plasmas blocks the most scientific explanation we have for layering in plasmas: the double layer.

      Your insistence that Relativity must be right ignores the conflict which existed long before the Electric Universe ever came onto the scene -- one of the problems which the EU actually tries to solve -- that quantum mechanics is irreconcilable with Relativity. One or the other (or both) will need to undergo significant changes in order to create an internally consistent modern physics worldview. The treatment of theorists who are attempting to find such novel solutions (without rigid adherence to the existing theories) as somehow heretical would seem to entrench modern science into this irreconcilable state forever. There can come a point where defense of scientific theories becomes defense against innovation in the sciences.

      Re: "Relativity works. There has been no experiment where it has had a negative outcome."

      Entire books have been written on this topic, but the most important reason why your statement misleads is because you are referring to the accuracy and precision of the equations, whereas the actual debate on these matters has always been over the physical inference.

    23. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by meglon · · Score: 1

      Complete bullshit... that's all you have. You're not doing science, you're not learning science... EU is a quasi-religious cult trying to gain some acceptance as science, and is nothing more than trash for imbeciles. You want it to be 1918, before the first (of many) experiments corroborated Einsteins predictions.... it's not. You put forth trash, and wonder why people with a decent education call you on your bullshit. You really shouldn't, because what you're really doing is trying to sell Piltdown Man; air, earth, fire, and water are not the four elements that make up everything.... and the electric universe bullshit is on the same level as both those.

      I get it, you come to forums like this because you're stupid fucking arguments get shredded when you talk to anyone who actually has a high school level education in physics. Get used to it, because you're not doing anything useful by intentionally being a fucking idiot.

      GPS works. Old television sets worked. Particle accelerators work. Radar guns work. Supercomputers work. Telecommunication satellite work. THAT is Relativity. Your worthless shit electric universe does nothing, period; it predicts nothing, it explains nothing.... and along the way we'd have to abandon the past 50+ years of technology that actually DOES work. That is fucking stupid.

      You are a cultist. You're either one of the conmen, or one of the sheep, but intentionally being stupid isn't the way to go. EU isn't science, and defending Relativity is pretty fucking easy with 99 years of positive experimental confirmations, as well as a pretty fucking significant array of technology that requires it.... technology that actually works. EU isn't innovation... it's a backwards step into the steaming pile of shit of intentional ignorance.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    24. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      None of these people are adherents of the Electric Universe, yet they are all saying the same thing.

      "Most people when they paint themselves into a corner will admit their mistake and splash their way out. Mainstream cosmologists turn round and dismantle the corner brick by brick until the building comes down on top of them.

      Faced with observations of the motion of galaxies that can't be explained by gravity alone, it would seem reasonable to consider the possibility that electromagnetism might be responsible. After all, since science began physicists have been able to find only four different types of force: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, the last two of which act only at very small sub-atomic distances. Unfortunately however, there is less kudos in working with the classical physics of electromagnetism than in an exposition of some unexpected consequence of general relativity, and general relativity only deals with gravity."

      - Harry Nielsen, Crisis in Cosmology

      "An iron curtain divides the subjects of gravity and electrodynamics, in today’s academically accepted versions of physics. Those attempting to cross it will risk the intellectual equivalent of machine-gun fire ..."

      - Laurence Hecht, Should The Law Of Gravity Be Repealed? The Suppressed Electrodynamics of Ampère-Gauss-Weber, Spring 2001 editorial of 21st Century Science & Technology

      "It seems crucial to try to unite at least gravitation and electromagnetism. That remains the most important problem faced by physicists today. Einstein is the one who originally issued this ambitious challenge; no one has been able to meet it thus far."

      - Etienne Klein & Marc Lachièze-Rey, The Quest for Unity - The Adventure of Physics, p.124

      "If you go on asking why? why? why? you end up with a fundamental question either in particle physics or cosmology: the sciences of the very small and the very large."

      - Martin Rees, Our Cosmic Habitat (2001) p.155

      "Moreover, physics is now faced with a crisis in which it is generally admitted that further changes will have to take place, which will probably be as revolutionary compared to relativity and the quantum theory as these theories are compared to classical physics."

      - Bohm, David, Causality and Chance in Modern Physics, D. Van Nostrand Co., New York, 1957, p.131

      "Experiments on high speed electrons by Kaufmann, Bucherer, and others showed that at these high speeds the observed values of the acceleration 'a' fell below the level computed from the measured values of F and m, following a pattern which indicated that it would reach zero at the velocity of light. Einstein then decided that this was due to an increase in the mass at these high velocities. At this point he should have been told by his scientific colleagues that this variable mass hypothesis was only one of a number of mathematically equivalent possible explanations of the observed phenomenon, and that neither the hypothesis of mass increase nor any of the others could be accepted on more than a very tentative basis pending the accumulation of further evidence ...

      ... But this is not the way that modern science operates. Einstein's assumption was enthusiastically accepted without further ado, and since that time the original experiments that his explanation was designed to fit, together with subsequent results of the same nature in the particle accelerators, have been regarded as proof of the validity of the hypothesis: a flagrant example of circular reasoning."

      - Dewey B. Larson, New Light on Space & Time

      "Einstein in 1920 (many years after his Relativity papers) said:

      'Space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would b

    25. Re:There's a far simpler explanation by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      The Thunderbolts Project has decided to cover Slashdot readers' rejection of the mainstream astrophysical acknowledgement of electricity in space in their ongoing Space News Youtube series.

  15. I hope something startling is found! by Medievalist · · Score: 0

    It's always fun whenever physics gets a good shake-up.

    I'll just leave this excerpt from Robitaille's 2007 paper here.

    There are numerous arguments supporting a liquid plasma model. These include: (1) the continuous nature of the emission spectrum, (2) the average density of the solar mass, (3) the gentle oblateness of the solar sphere, (4) the presence of a distinct solar surface, (5) the presence of surface gravity waves and helioseimology studies, (6) the known existence of hydrogen on Earth in the liquid metallic plasma state at high pressures and temperatures, (7) the existence of solar boiling, and (8) the presence of the corona, transition zone, and chromosphere. In addition, the liquid plasma model provides for the mixing of solar materials, resulting in important evolutionary consequences for the stars. At the same time, the liquid plasma model addresses the issue of coronal heating and helps to resolve the thermodynamic problems in this area.

    1. Re:I hope something startling is found! by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      ... except that for some people who have refused to question the worldview which was taught to them in school, for whom disrupting modern science theories is interpreted as an attack upon their own personal worldview. These people can be identified by their emotional rants and general failure to cite technical arguments, and they seem unaware of the fact that their "defense of science" is also a defense against innovation in the sciences.

    2. Re:I hope something startling is found! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      In a shocking discovery today, scientists have confirmed that the sun is flat and simply rotates to face Earth.

      Local Flat-Sun advocate commented "Of course it's flat, anyone can see that plain as day" before attempting to thrash our reporter with his white cane.

  16. Information on the Software by joelsherrill · · Score: 1

    There have been multiple public presentations about the software on this mission.

    http://flightsoftware.jhuapl.e...
    http://flightsoftware.jhuapl.e...

    Goddard also has the interesting framework Core Flight System (cFE/cFS) which is available as open source. Again multiple presentations on it but a nice presentation by Dave McComas on it is here:

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/...

  17. HIllary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...lost. Get over it.

  18. Comment by WallyL · · Score: 1

    Hm, I have reservations about this probe-- sounds familiar

    1. Re:Comment by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The concept is much older than Star Trek. The earliest fictional reference I know of is a Ray Bradbury short story which is apparently too short to merit its own wiki entry. It's about a spacecraft diving close to the sun to scoop up some of its material (albeit for profit, not research).

    2. Re:Comment by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Sam Delaney's "Nova". Though "Nova" (probably) postdated the Bradbury short you mentioned....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  19. Can't help but think of this.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Sun Probe

    I loved that show when I was a kid.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  20. You should pitch this to Trump... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    nt.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  21. But Vanilla is nice [Re:The sun doesn't really...] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Cool, so you have a web page that dates back to 1996, and it shows. Dude, update it; It's an embarrassment!

    It's on my to-do list. Somewhere around item number seventy or eighty, I have other things to do. Besides, the nice thing about vanilla html is that it works even if you have an old browser that doesn't support the latest doodads and geegaws.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  22. Hide behind carbon [Re:The sun doesn't rea...] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Informative

    What kind of materials are used that can take that kind of heat, even a fraction of the heat destroys most electrical component.

    Carbon. Sublimates around 3825C or so.

    Most of the spacecraft hides behind the carbon shadow shield-- almost all the instruments don't need to look toward the sun (the main interest is plasma and fields). The exception is the solar array (my part of the project!)-- this doesn't work unless it is in the sunlight :). But the sunlight is intense enough that we only need a tiny bit of the array to be illuminated, so we retract most of it into the shadow, tilt the part that does see the sun, and use concentrator solar cells that are actively cooled to keep temperatures reasonable.

    Honestly, it is people like you that keep me coming back to /. , I have yet to find a single site to replace it.(sure there is hacknews and reddit...)

    Thanks.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Hide behind carbon [Re:The sun doesn't rea...] by LienRag · · Score: 1

      Is the David Brin's "Sundiver" design (with lasers dissipating the heat away from the ship) any realistic?

  23. Pink Floyd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Came for the Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun references, was disappointed.

  24. Someone needs to stow aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and play all of our favorite Disaster Area tunes in the way in!

  25. Time travel is the result of traveling that close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To the sun:

    I will prove it, here is the transmission from the Parker probe already on Youtube:

  26. Re:But Vanilla is nice [Re:The sun doesn't really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool, so you have a web page that dates back to 1996, and it shows. Dude, update it; It's an embarrassment!

    It's on my to-do list. Somewhere around item number seventy or eighty, I have other things to do. Besides, the nice thing about vanilla html is that it works even if you have an old browser that doesn't support the latest doodads and geegaws.

    But we live in the post-content age. It's all about artsy-fartsy bling, not content. You think content makes up for the lack of Animoji? Get with the times.
    {satire-tag-so-I-don't-haveta-explain-it}

  27. I know why the sun's atmophere is hotter than the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    surface.

          Hot plasma is held tightly together by the Suns magnetic field. The rising/falling fields adds to the heated plasma.

    I bet the probe will prove that.

  28. The Wrong Person Got Mod Points by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1

    WTF? EU at +3 on /.

    --
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    1. Re:The Wrong Person Got Mod Points by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      Yeah, how dare people discuss the idea that electricity flows through space in a tech forum? And no less, in regards to a mission whose purpose is to resolve "burning questions -- and some sizzling mysteries -- about the orb of hot plasma that lights up our Solar System". Nevermind the fact that the inverse corona temperature enigma is a mystery for the vey reason that it's power source is claimed to come from its core; I mean, we should leave it up to the scientists to come up with "a complex system of plasma, magnetic fields, and energetic particles" to explain how it can be that the farther we get from the power source, the higher the temperatures become.

      Of all the ideas offered up as being an explanation of the extreme temperature (more than 2 million Kelvin) measured in the lower corona of our Sun, the simplest is that electrically accelerated high velocity positive ions are colliding with relatively static ions and neutral atoms in that location.

  29. Send Your Name to the Sun - There's still time! by Indigo · · Score: 1

    Submit your name and it will be included in a memory card that will fly aboard Parker Solar Probe spacecraft.
    Submissions will be accepted through April 27, 2018.
    http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl...

  30. Darlek v1.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like they are sending a v1.0 Darlek to the sun.

    1. Re:Darlek v1.0 by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      You meant Dalek, right?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  31. Prior hypothesised ... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    I had read that sound waves were the cause of the corona being hotter than the surface.
    Not your conventional sound waves, yet a likeness caused by the roiling surface creating audio frequency waves through the plasma.

    Also, how can anything survive millions of degrees of heat?!
    I cannot think of anything that doen't melt at even the 5000C surface temperature of the Sun.

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  32. Is there a place like this that doesn't breed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... circle-jerking filter bubbles and bandwagons that always go to dog piles?

    So something that does not allow any kind of voting without explaining yourself (like Reddit) in human words _and_ facing the backlash... plus not having one centralized authority that might deem itself more equal and keep things aligned with their personal bias (like Wikipedia)?

    So a decentralized P2P protocol on top of TCP (and NOT HTTP or some other Web inner-platform effect cancer), with federated message storage, similar to IRC, XMMP and push message servers, preferably with a server that you can run with just a $(emerge $NewsServer && rc-service $NewsServer start) or equivalent.

  33. Technology [Re: The sun doesn't really have a...] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    What about the power system? Do you use the heat gradient with peltier elements, photovoltaics or is there a separate power source on board?

    We looked at using a thermoelectric, but turned out a better solution was using concentrator photovoltaics, hiding most of the photovoltaics behind the shadow shield at closest approach, and then cooling the photovoltaics.

    How do you make the power electronics work? Is everything including logic silicone carbide? What kind of core materials for inductors? Must be super fun to work on such a project :)

    In fact we do a lot of silicon carbide electronic device research for high temperature applications at Glenn, but for this particular application, most of the electronics were hidden behind the shadow shield, and don't operate at high temperature.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  34. Laser heat rejection - doesn't work [Re:Hide b...] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Is the David Brin's "Sundiver" design (with lasers dissipating the heat away from the ship) any realistic?

    Unfortunately not. In oversimplified terms, waste heat radiators "really" get rid of excess entropy. Laser beams are low entropy, so they don't radiate waste heat, they radiate usable energy. Waste heat is defined as everything that is not useable energy. If lasers could radiate waste heat, you could make a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.

    In less technical terms: the laser would need a waste-heat radiator.https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11923383&cid=56369001#

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com