The Parker solar probe. Objectionable?
Does anyone else feel that the Parker solar probe (to be launched next year) is objectionable and offensive?
It's said that this device is going to go through the Sun's outer atmosphere (though it will only approach the sun within about 4 or 5 solar diameters).
Still, the articles say that that's regarded as being "in the solar atmosphere" in a sense that more distant places are not.
Is there anything that's inviolable? ...or is even the sun, the source of the planets, us, and the energy for life, subject to being contacted by the trash that we send up?
So, it isn't enough to garbage the moon and planets. We have to garbage the Sun too?
In the sources that I found on the internet, none of them said what will eventually become of the piece of garbage that we're sending to the Sun. Presumably, then, it will just be left in its outer-sun-skimming orbit. ...losing a little energy and speed each time it passes through. ...and then eventually falling into the Sun.
Might you agree that that would make the offense even worse?
I'm saying that it's objectionable and offensive as a matter of principle.
I'm not saying that the probe is going to result in an "Oops!!" moment. It probably won't. But is "probably" good enough, when we're talking about the source of energy for Earth's life?
Michael Ossipoff
Comments (66)
I should add that, when I first heard about the probe plan, and the article spoke of skimming the sun, it sounded like a closer approach than 5 solar diameters. So my first impression exaggerated the amount of energy and speed that the craft would lose in each passage.
With the closest approach being 5 solar diameters, I don't know how long it would take for the craft to lose enough energy and speed to fall into the sun. Maybe it would take a long time.
But my objection is mostly on principle...though I can't say that I'm not at least a little concerned about "Oops!!".
Michael Ossipoff
Isn't this just a case of incinerating the garbage? Why don't we load all the nuclear weapons into that incinerator as well?
Maybe, even probably, the Sun will be unaffected. You could argue that all of the solar-system's matter originated in the Sun anyway, and that the probe is quite small in comparison to the sun.
But the motivation for the experiment is that little is known about the corona in particular, and about the Sun in general. And, if little is known, that means that things can't be predicted or assured with certainty.
The Sun probably won't be affected? Sure. But is probably good enough, when it involves the energy-source on which Earth's life depends?
But, even just on principle, given that the Sun is the origin of the Earth and us, and given that, in our sky every day, it's the energy-source for Earth's life, isn't there something offensive and objectionable about throwing our garbage into it, or even doing investigative flybys through the solar corona?
(which, it seems to me, the articles spoke of as extending out to the probe's 5-solar-diameter close-approach distance).
The Parker probe takes environmental abuse to its extreme.
Michael Ossipoff
Because we need them to dominate the world.
But, aside from that, let me be the first to break the news that the Sun has importance more than just its ability to incinerate garbage.
So, picture it, Metaphysical Underground, you go outside, your face warmed by the Sun, and you say, "Ah yes, the dumping-place for our garbage, and the subject of our intrusive experiments!"
Michael Ossipoff
The probe falling into the sun puts a bit of heavy metals into it to trivially add to the collection it already has. I can't see how this is offensive no matter the spin put on it.
I heard some discussion about the ambitions for this probe. Apparently the corona (not a beer) is much hotter than the surface of the sun itself, and scientists do not know exactly why this is the case. They hope to gather some information.
Yes, and they also want to find out details of how the solar-wind is accelerated.
Michael Ossipoff
I don't see why we should view the Sun as sacred. We aren't throwing garbage into it, we are putting a satellite into orbit that will eventually be consumed by the Sun. Perhaps this satellite will return useful data that will save lives. Who knows. I highly doubt NASA is just half-assing it and assuming the probe isn't going to screw something up with the Sun.
It's like putting flags on the top of the Himalayas. Long after humanity has gone, the flags will flap away and the mountains will stand on the own once more. If you think about it, the elements used to create the probe came from stellar explosions in the past. The elements are just being returned back to where they came from in some sense.
Not from a single different star, but rather from materials ejected from a number of supernovae.
As I read it, at least, the heavier elements were formed in supernovae. So yes, the Sun is a later-generation star, comprised partly of material from supernovae.
But that doesn't mean that the Sun isn't the origin of the Earth. Let's examine what "origin" means. It could mean "immediate origin", or "ultimate origin", or something in between.
For example, you could say that the more recent supernovae that provided some material for the Sun's formation were, themselves, composed partly of material from previous supernovae. So the "origin" goes even farther back.
You could say that the Earth's origin is really the mass of gas that eventually formed our galaxy.
You could say that the Earth's origin was the Big-Bang, which could be called the physical "origin" of this universe.
...unless this universe is just a sub-universe of a larger multiverse. ..in which case that multiverse is the physical origin of the Earth.
But the origin and nature of all of that is (I suggest) a hypothetical system of abstract facts and hypothetical facts, and other if-then facts that relate them.
...and that neither has nor needs an "origin", or an external context or medium in which to "be".
But, with the understanding that many differrent origins an be spoken of, it's perfectly correct to call an immediate origin the origin. ...to refer to the Sun as the origin of the Earth.
Yes, here's what I said about that.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff
Well, maybes there's a difference.
You have some plants. You do an experiment on them--an experiment that is unlikely to harm them.
But the plants die as a result.
So you buy more plants.
See the difference?
The basis of your objection to the probe is that the sun is sacred? You don't see this objection as stupid?
I'm not suggesting that there couldn't be an argument made against the probe, like it's an unnecessary expenditure of public funds when there are people in great need, but objecting on the basis of disrespect for a giant ball of energy isn't very persuasive. I'm sure the sun encounters far greater threats from random debris on a day to day basis (Icarus, for instance) without us having to worry about a tiny chunk of steel getting too close to it.
It's just the energy-source, immediate physical origin, and immediate physical reason for for Earth's life.
:D
Thanks,but I'll take my chances without it. :)
Oh really. The justification for doing the experiment is that the scientists don't know what's going on in the solar corona or how it works. As I said before, when you don't know how something works, then you can't validly make assurances.
Yes, I said that in my initial post of this topic.
...and I answered it. I compactly repeated those answers in today's reply to NoAxioms.
Michael Ossipoff
Hanover's definition of "stupid":
"Not in agreement with Hanover.'
To be "stupid" an objection would have to first be demonstrated as objectively incorrect.
...other than because it's different from Hanover's opinion.
Be proud of yourself, Hanover--you're what discredit's the Internet.
Quoting Hanover
...not to mention nearby supernovae, and the Sun's eventual depletion of fuel.
Hello? We didn't build and send those things.
Our role needn't extend to intrusively experiments on the Earth's energy source.
Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
This discussion has devolved to repetition, and nothing other than repetition.
I suggest that we've all had our say.
Hasn't this discussion run its course and reached its conclusion?
Michael Ossipoff
Not really. My comment was insulting, sure, and I should have picked another word, but, really, you're arguing that we shouldn't send a probe to the sun because the sun is super special and should be spared earthly particles that are sent up to look at it? How is that a defensible position? It's not like we're spitting on God or something.
I get that what we say here is irrelevant in that no one would actually listen to us when deciding what to do, but I can think of few worse reasons to call off the sun probe than because it's a cosmic insult. Let's suppose Trump declared tomorrow there was not to be a sun probe because sun area is inviolable by man. That'd go down as a really stupid decision, right?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
You think you can just tell people you've heard enough and they'll be quiet for you? I think the conversation will organically end, like when people are tired of talking about it, not when someone else decides it's quiet time.
This feels trollish.
I’d said:
.
.
Not really. My comment was insulting, sure, and I should have picked another word, but, really, you're arguing that we shouldn't send a probe to the sun because the sun is super special and should be spared earthly particles that are sent up to look at it?
[/quote]
.
…no a subject for intrusive experiments, yes.
.
.
In the ways that I described in my initial post of this topic, and have been re-posting ever since.
.
.
You said it, I didn’t.
.
Good description of the experiment. It sounds as if you’ve understood the character of it.
.
.
A safe bet.
.
.
Fine, then may someone call it off for a better reason.
.
.
Wrong. It would be a good decision. But what it would “go down as” (“…be perceived by most people as”) is another subject.
.
You’ve already shared with us your name-calling opinion--thanks.
.
But if he calls it off for budgetary reasons, that would be good enough.
.
But let’s not get into politics.
.
I’d said:
.
You reply:
.
.
I’m just saying that the discussion has devolved to repetition, and nothing but repetition.
.
Michael Ossipoff
While the sun IS the source for solar energy, it isn't the immediate physical origin of the earth. already pointed this out. The disk of dust that spawned our system spawned the sun along with the planets.
Eventually the sun will take back everything it allegedly gave us. Towards the effective end of its yellow*** star life, it will enlarge beyond the orbit of earth -- which won't be vaporized, but will be rather thoroughly fried. Eventually the sun will collapse into a dwarf and earth will be a ball of rock which won't host life again (not enough time, not enough energy, no water, no more water-bearing bodies falling on it in huge numbers, etc.)
The sun is entirely capable of dealing with anything we send its way.
If you want to worry about a long term problem, worry about plastics. The billions of tons of plastic that we let loose into the environment are practically immortal. The plastic out of which your oatmeal bowl was made may not be in the shape of a bowl by the time the sun overtakes the earth and burns up all the crap once and for all time, but all of it will be in little pieces somewhere (unless it gets incinerated first by our efforts).
***Bob Dylan said the sun isn't yellow, it's chicken.
No, that cloud of matter that formed the Sun isn't the immediate origin of the Earth. After that cloud originated the Sun, the Sun originated the planets, via a disk of material that spread out in the plane of the ecliptic, in keeping with conservation of angular momentum.
So, yes the Sun is the immediate origin of the Earth.
...and (to our great credit) it won't be our doing.
[
That has been said many times in this topic, and I've been agreeing, every time, that it's probably so.
I've been repeatedly copying and re-posting my answers to that. Now, I'll just refer you to them, above in this topic.
I'm not saying that I support the garbaging of the Earth. I just don't think it's necessary to garbage the sun too.
(...even though were garbaging the Earth worse, and the garbaging of the Earth is much more likely to bring us harm.)
Michael Ossipoff
Doing anything that would detract from the sun's character is beyond our operational capabilities.
All right then, let's load all that plastic onto that spacecraft and get it incinerated.
1. The experiment is being done precisely because so little is known about the solar corona in particular, and the Sun in general. When little is known, that lack of knowledge isn't the best basis for making assurances.
The Parker probe probably won't noticeably affect the Sun? Probably not. Is "probably" good enough when it's about the origin of the Earth and us, and the energy-source for life on Earth?
2. You're missing the point. It's the thought, the gesture, that counts.
So we have no reason to not toss garbage into the sun just because it's probably too big to be affected by us?
Someone justified the garbage-ing by referring to the Sun as a "ball of gas".
Well, not an ordinary ball of gas. A sphere of gas about 100 times the Earth's diameter, and about a million times the Earth's volume. And, as I said, the immediate origin of our planet and everything on it, including us.
Not only is it the celestial object that is absolutely essential to life on Earth, but it's also the most prominent celestial object in our sky every day.
As I said earlier:
You go outside, surrounded by green-leaved trees, in the (thermal-convenctive) breeze, the sun warming your face, and say, "Ah yes, lets intrusively experiment on the Sun and then dump garbage into it!"
Michael Ossipoff
I've answered that many times, above in this topic.
...many, many, many, many times.
So I might as well repeat this too:
This topic has devolved to repetition, and nothing but repetition.
We've all had our say.
I wanted to find out how people at this forum feel about this matter.
I've found that out, thank you.
Michael Ossipoff
The disused probe will be garbage when it falls into the Sun, even by the common ordinary definition of garbage: Disused material.
I didn't say that using materials and manmade things is offensive. I said that sending them into the Sun's corona, and then letting them eventually fall into the sun, is offensive and objectionable.
People here evidently believe that there's literally nothing that should be inviolable by human-monkey tinkering.
...and that not being in agreement with you is the definition of being wrong.
In other topics here, everyone seems to be a science-hater and an evolution-denier.
But here in this topic, people, reverse-chameleon-like, have the ability to remarkably transform themselves to staunch Defenders-Of-Science and Scientificism.
Michael Ossipoff
Incorrect.
NoAxioms didn't say that.
The Sun wasn't formed from a disk of matter. The matter that formed the Sun was a cloud, but it almost surely wasn't a disk.
How did a disk later form?
The gravitational contraction of the cloud that formed the sun resulted, via the law of conservation of angular-momentum, in a disk of material spreading out from the Sun, in what we now call "the plane of the ecliptic". ...a plane perpendicular to the newly-formed Sun's axis of rotation.
Of course the planets were later formed within that ecliptic disk, which took only a small fraction of the Sun's mass.
Aside from that, you're confusing the meaning of "immediate origin".
The Sun was formed from a cloud of material.
Then the planets were later formed from the Sun.
Yes, the Sun was was the immediate origin of the planets. They were formed directly from the Sun's material.
Michael Ossipoff
Nobody here has so far agree that the planets formed from the sun. The disk is not the sun. It didn't emit from the star. That's our opinion, and you differ. OK, we get that.
In actuality the disk formed from the collective center of gravity of the cloud, and the critical mass of the central object that later ignited into the sun is not required for disk and planets to form.
The sun does emit material, so I cannot deny that there is some sun material in each planet, but since most of that blows away (especially on the inner planets), I think I can say that nobody is going to agree with your assertion that they were formed directly from the sun's material. The sun does not emit iron and oxygen for instance, and Earth is more of those than anything else.
Well, our computers, etc., will be garbage some day as well then. They're disposed of on Earth, for the most part. You seem relatively indifferent about that. The Sun, then, must have a special, greater significance than the Earth. Since the probe will likely be incinerated, it will have a lesser impact on the Sun than our other garbage has on the Earth. As that's the case, your objection presumably has nothing to do with any harm to its environment which can be anticipated after the probe becomes garbage. But if it has nothing to do with that, what's the basis of the objection? Is it the mere fact that the probe, as it transforms into garbage, does so in the vicinity of the Sun and falls into it?
If that's true then it would appear you believe the Sun should be immaculate, inviolate, untouched by man. Rather like Mary the mother of Jesus in the Catholic tradition (beatæ Mariæ semper Virgini).
No, you didn't say that.
You didn't say that the Sun formed from a disk of material.
That's what I was correcting BitterCrank about in that passage. ...his use of the word "disk", in BitterCrank's sentence.
The ecliptic disk formed the planets, but not the Sun.
You're quibbling about how we should define the point at which the gravitationally-contracting material became what we could rightly call "the Sun".
When the equatorial disk was formed, it was formed, not from a loose cloud of material, but rather from an already-formed, gravitioinally-contracted, relatively dense sphere of material.
Maybe you're saying that that dense, already-contracted sphere of material wasn't the Sun yet, if it wasn't yet emitting radiation, or generating energy from fusion. That's a matter of definition. It was already a formed compact sphere.
I don't know at what point fusion energy began being generated. But, by the time the equatorial disk was formed, there had already been so much gravitational contraction that surely, due to compression-heating, some radiation was already being emitted from the surface of what you don't want to yet call the Sun.
So you're defining 'the Sun" based on fusion-reactions, rather than from the already compactly-formed sphere that's already emitting some radiation (from compression-heating).
Fine. That's an individual matter of definition.
You're asserting your definition of the Sun that says the Sun didn't exist until it had fusion-reactions.
See above
Having answered you here about that matter, I'm not going to argue any more about your different definiiton regarding when the formed, radiation-emitting, contracted sphere of material became the Sun
Michael Ossipoff
I didn't say that I'm indifferent about the garbaging of the Earth. In fact, I've said the opposite,above in this topic. I said that the garbaging of the Earth is more likely to harm us, than is the Parker probe's garbaging of the Sun.
Then what's the difference?
The difference is that the Earth was never inviolable. We never expected the Earth to be inviolable.
Though I oppose harmful pollution, what are you going to do with garbage? It isn't feasible to launch it into space, and so it ends up in landfill. Yes, we garbage the Earth that we're standing on. I don' like that either, but there never was a chance that the Earth could have been inviolable.
In contrast, garbaging the Sun, intrusively experimenting on the Sun, is entirely and easily avoidable.
See above.
See above.
Incorrect. I've (repeatedly) said that the "justification" for the experiment is science's lack of knowledge about the corona in particular, and the Sun in general. That lack of knowledge can't be the basis for any assurances.
Yes, the probe probably won't do any harm. Probably.
I've answered that very, very many times, in this topic.
I can't be expected to repeat it for each person who hasn't read it, above in this topic.
...sent into the solar corona, and also eventually falling into the Sun.
You know more about your Catholicism than I do.
But yes, the Sun needn't be regarded as violable by the monkeys that refer to themselves as humans.
Michael Ossipoff
The star does eject material, but that only goes into orbit if deflected by something already in orbit. Otherwise it escapes, or falls back into the sun.
So you don't believe that the ecliptic disk was formed via conservation of angular momentum, when the initial cloud contracted?
Well, yours is a minority position, but suit yourself.
On another subject, I don't dispute your definition of the Sun, as beginning with fusion-ignition. Definitions can be different, but not wrong. It isn't something to argue about, wouldn't you say?
The formation of the ecliptic disk wasn't a throwinlg-out of planets. The planets later formed from the ecliptic disk.
Michael Ossipoff
I acknowledged your altered definition and still find the planets not coming from it. I called the Sun a central condensing pre-star. Not ignited, but it was what has now become our sun.
You said the sun was "the already compactly-formed sphere that's already emitting some radiation", not the ecliptic disk. If you're equating the entire disk to the sun, then any landfill is already garbage being dumped into the sun, so the probe is no different than that.
Before the solar system, there was a nebula in this general region of the MW. Some disturbance (a big one -- probably a relatively nearby super nova) roiled the amorphous nebula and the dust in the nebula started moving. Particles collided, and got bigger, and began to accrete more particles. In the fullness of time, the accretion of particles begat little blobs, little blobs begat bigger blobs, bigger blobs begat still bigger blobs. The nebula, now kind of lumpy-bloby, started to turn--first slowly. As it turned, and as very slight gravitational pull of little blobs gradual attracted more matter and became bigger blobs, the messy-shape of the nebula began to be pulled by gravity into a flattened disk, still with a great deal of dust (organic and inorganic molecules). The biggest blob collected the most stuff and became the center of the disk, and the other blobs were stretched out away from the center, in some sort of order.
The biggest blogs attracted the most dust -- and the WINNER was... the envelope please, the sun! However there were two runners-up -- the blobs that would in the far distant future bear the names of Jupiter and Saturn.
The proto-planets and future sun began sweeping up most of the dust in the system, except the stuff out at the edges which has it's own less well understood history.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the big ball of stuff at the center of the disk got so big that it fell in on itself and got denser and denser and denser until it ignited. The proto-plannetary blobs also compressed themselves and the heaviest material sank to the center of the compressing bodies and became extremely hot. The planetary bodies (the inner ones especially, being rocky) heated up so much they were balls of molten stuff.
Besides dust and the planets, there was a big batch of chunky matter that had formed, here and there. The big outer planets' gravitation stirred up this stuff and it began to move, but it was shepherded by the various gravitational pulls of the planets. This chunky hard matter started moving toward the center, and was thrown this way and that by the rotating planets, and bombed the daylights out of the rocky planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars...).
So, here we are, a few billion years ago: A sun, a string of planets -- all arising independently from one nebula, and a bunch of asteroids and comets.
Except when they are wrong.
Well, I was referring to the forming-Sun, at the time of the outspreading of the ecliptic disk, as "the Sun", even if its fusion hadn't ignited.by that time. You're saying that it wasn't "The Sun" until that fusion-ignition.
Either definition is fine.
Since the Earth and other planets formed from that ecliptic disk, it seems not unreasonable to call that forming-Sun the immediate origin of the planets.
Maybe you'd rather say that, due to the intermediary of the ecliptic disk, the forming-Sun wasn't the immediate origin of the planets, but that seems an unnecessary quibble. The Sun (or the forming-Sun) produced the ecliptic disk that formed the planets. For me, that's enough to call it the Earth's origin.
But this definitional quibbling is unnecessary.
If the forming-Sun, at the time that the ecliptic disk outspread from it, hadn't yet ignited fusion, and if you define the Sun's beginning as that ignition, then the forming-Sun wasn't the Sun yet. Then the ecliptic disk formed from the forming-Sun.
If the facts and the chosen-definitions are like that, then.the forming Sun was the origin of the planets.
With that word-change, we don't disagree. It isn't a significant disagreement.
I'd said:
You repled:
That's right, because i was referring to the forming-Sun at the time that the ecliptic disk spread-out from the forming-Sun.
I'm referring to the ecliptic disk as having formed from the forming-Sun.
No, I've just gone over and checked the nearest landfill, and it isn't being dumped into the Sun. It's just sitting there like it was yesterday.
Well, the probe is a little bit different from a terrestrial landfill, because the probe is a projectile that NASA is going to fire through the Sun. (The articles say that the probe will go through the corona, and that the corona is part of the Sun). ...and a projectile that will eventually hit the not-tenuous part of the Sun bounded by the chromosphere. (the luminous sphere whose image is visible on the ground, as spots of light underneath a tree, where sunlight is shining through small gaps between leaves).
So NASA intends to shoot a projectile into the Sun twice--first into the corona, and then into the chromosphere.
Maybe it's better not to shoot anything that you don't intend harm to. ...even if you're (almost) sure that your projectile is harmless. A 300 fps, roughly 1 foot-pound, BB, from a child's low-power BB-gun is harmless if it hits someone's clothes. So do you go downtown and walk down the sidewalk shooting people with a BB gun?
Maybe it just isn't a good gesture.
Michael Ossipoff
Troll-talk.
One part of the definition of a troll is his asserted assumption that what isn't in agreement with him must be wrong..
Michael Ossipoff
Bitter Crank, maybe your astro-history teaching needs a little work. Don't quit your day-job yet.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, it seems to me that it has been suggested that a nearby supernova might have produced a compression-wave that compressed some tenuous material enough for it to begin gravitational contraction, resulting in the gravitationally-contracting cloud that became the Sun.
No, gravity didn't pull the forming-Sun into a flattened disk. The gravitational attraction would have just formed a sphere. But conservation of angular momentum resulted in the contracting forming-Sun giving rise to the outspreading of an ecliptic disk.
The planets formed from the ecliiptic disk after it was spread out from the forming-Sun.
The forming-Sun, at the time of the formation of the ecliptic-disk, was already the result of continuing gravitational collapse of the initial cloud of material. Gravitational collapse didn't wait until after the spreading of the ecliptic disk.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff
The disk spreads out?? Gravity is pulling it in, not out. You seem to envision the process as something like a ball of pizza dough spreading into a disk as it is spun in the air, and thus the planets forming as bits of dough get displaced further out.
That requires an influx of angular inertia from the pizza guy, an influx that doesn't exist in the forming solar system. A large rotating cloud contracts (does not spread out) into a disk, losing mechanical energy (not gaining it) all the way to the heating of the places where it is collecting.
By that definition, your insistence that the planets are derived from the sun is trollish.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff, au contraire, it wasn't my astro-history, it was taken directly from a NASA page describing the formation of the solar system.
I don't know where you acquired the idea that the planets were derived from a big ball that flattened out and would later turn into the sun. This erroneous belief will not interfere with your life in any significant way that I can think of, so carry on.
Well, there are a few science haters and evolution deniers here -- far less than in the population as a whole.
But getting back to a sub-topic of your post, the formation of the solar system...
One of the questions that arises, for which I don't have an answer, is how did the nebula from which the solar system is derived, pick up spin in the first place? They say nothing does not move in the universe--everything is always in motion--motion of some kind. We can see (thanks to the Hubble telescope) very large nebula (large on an astronomical scale) where stars are forming. What we can't see (given distance and time) is any circular motion. Still, the galaxy spins, stars spin, solar systems spin, and the disco ball of public relations spins (very fast).
Whence all this spinning?
Anyway, a cloud of dust is like that. You don't see the rotation in the nebulas when it is all spread out, but it's there. Contract it into a tighter radius and like the figure skater, spins far faster when the parts are pulled in. Ours actually had less rotation than is typical, and thus formed only the one star. Multiple-star solar systems are about as common as the single ones.
The sun was never inviolable either. That's just your baseless assertion. I could just as baselessly declare the earth, mars, oxygen, my cat, or whatever inviolable. Your basis for not probing the sun is not based upon any scientific concern that we'll lose the sun, but it's based on some primitive sun worship theology that you can't understand why no one else will adopt.
The OP can be summarized as: I worship the sun, do you? Those who agree with you might then agree with you that there should be no sun probe. Of course, their might be some sun worshipers (I'll call them Appolloians) who think the sun can successfully take on all comers and they welcome the beat down the sun will dole out to challengers. That's my view by the way, but I'm part of the Neo-orthodox wing, 1962 reformation sect Appolloian, so I'm a bit different than commoner Appolloians.
A memorable reformation in the sect of the far-seeing, boundary observing Apollo Sun God, if I remember correctly, which I, of course, do. We studied your sect in Classics back in 1979. I took notes. I got an A in the course.
Yes, you have named MO's problem, obstinate sun-worship. But even sun-worshipers, worthy though they may be, should understand the origin of the disk of which their sun is the star performer. IF they don't, the TRUE worshipers of the sun will have to extirpate this heresy and burn them all at the stake. If stake-burnings happen to not be in vogue (it comes and goes), there's always the Cult Cure Camps to which they can be sent for re-education.
False Sun Worshipers, consider yourselves warned.
True, but in an infinite amount of time, it occurs an infinite number of times, and that's nothing to sneeze at, cloud or no cloud.
-Mr. Burns of The Simpsons
The probe will not be garbage when it is finished with its mission, it will be incinerated. And incinerated garbage is no longer garbage, that's why they incinerate garbage. So your argument that the probe will end up as garbage is itself garbage, because the probe will be useful until it is incinerated, and then it will not be garbage. It will never be garbage. You should perhaps direct this argument at all the unused satellites, and other things orbiting the earth, which are garbage, and not yet incinerated.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I don't think you've stated very clearly why you think that this is offensive. At some point you said that it is offense to put garbage near the sun, but this is an untenable claim because the garbage will be incinerated. At another point you said that the earth, and all life derives from the sun, so the sun is somehow sacred, but this has also been shown to be untenable. You seem to believe that the sun should be, for some reason, regarded as inviolable. But how can you support this claim?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Why do you expect that the sun should be inviolable? If we live on the earth, and make use of all that is the earth, to support our comfortable existence, why should we not do the same with the sun as well? We already use the sun in many ways, beginning with the photosynthesis of plants, which in turn, we use for nutrition. Why do you not view the sun as there for us to use responsibly, like we tend to look at everything else? You really have not laid out clearly and explicitly why you think that this probe is an offensive, irresponsible act.
Yes.
Yes, gravity is contracting the initial cloud and the forming-Sun.
Angular momentum is conserved
If the radius of a rotating object is decreased, that reduces its moment of inertia. Then, the only way for its angular-momentum to remain constant is for its angular velocity to increase.
Here's the familiar example that's often given:
A figure-skater begins rotating with her arms extended. Then she brings her arms in, and her angular velocity increases.
Yes, the pizza dough would have had no angular momentum if the pizza-chef hadn't provided it.
The pre-Sun cloud of matter had angular momentum before it began contracting, as so many objects in the universe do.
No pizza-man was needed to add angular momentum during the contraction. It was already there.
But no, the angular momentum needn't have increased during the gravitational contraction. The pre-existing angular momentum, and the conservation of that angular-momentum, meant that, as the rotational radius decreased, thereby decreasing the forming-Sun's moment-of-intertia, the angular velocity had to increase.
Yes, the forming-Sun was a nonrigid mass of material, rather than a rigid-body, but the conservation of angular-momentum still applies.
See above. The forming-Sun already had angular-momentum--that of the cloud from which it formed.
No increase in angular-momentum was needed to spin-out the ecliptic disk. The decreasing overall radius of rotation, of the forming-Sun, meant that a large increase of angular-velocity was needed in order to conserve angular momentum.
...if only gravitational attraction were operating.
Gravity tended to form a sphere. The pre-existing angular-momentum, and the reduction in moment-of-inertia, inevitably (due to conservation of angular-momentum) resulted in a great increase in angular-velocity, spinning-out the ecliptic disk along the plane of the forming-Sun's equator.
That's not my idea. It's the now-accepted explanation for the formation of the ecliptic disk from which the planets were formed.
Mechanical energy (gravitational potential energy) was of course being converted to heat of contraction, so, yes, mechanical energy was being lost.
But no: Angular-momentum wasn't being lost. Angular-momentum is conserved.
Michael Ossipoff
You badly misunderstood what you read, BitterCrank.
The formation of the ecliptic disk, spun-out from the contracting forming-Sun isn't my theory. It's the now-accepted explanation for the formation of the ecliptic-disk, from which formed the planets.
Michael Ossipoff
Incorrect.
The Sun was inviolable because it was out of reach. The ever-tinkering monkeys couldn't get at it.
They've pretty much trashed their own planet, but, until now, they couldn't get at the Sun.
I've answered that many times. The probe probably won't harm the Sun.
But the expressed motive for the experiment is the dearth of knowledge about the corona in particular, and about the Sun in general.
I suggest that a lack of knowledge isn't the best basis for making assurances.
Yes, I've given that answer to your argument, every time someone uses that argument.
Additionally (as I've already explained), it's a matter of principle too.
...a principle completely un-perceived by you. There are different kinds of people. That's why the Earth is being trashed too. You don't have to listen to NPR to discover that.
I acknowledge that.
So, can't we just agree to disagree?
I didn't say that I don't understand why you don't respect the origin of the Earth and the energy-source of Earth's life. (See above).
You mis-use "Theology". The Sun is something physical. That's different from a god. The word "Theology" is derived from two Greek words meaning "god" and "knowledge".
You're welcome.
I'm glad that I could help you out with your word-usage.
But yes, do "primitive" people seem to have some respect for the Sun, maybe because it's the energy source for life? But you're not primitive. You're scientific, and you don't respect anything (...well maybe Science). Congratulations.
Hyperbole language is one of the most common troll-characteristics.
I respect the Sun. Do I have that in common with "primitive" people? Sure. I don't regard the Sun as being there as a subject for for curious-monkeys' intrusive experiments, or those monkeys' garbage-dumping place.
And, though the experiment probably won't have an "Oops!!" result, the purpose of the experiment is the lack of knowledge about the solar corona in particular, and about the Sun in general. As I said above, a lack of knowledge isn't always the best basis for making assurances.
My initial question was simple enough: I asked if people here found the Parker solar probe objectionable, and I got my answer.
Everyone has had their say.
This planet's monkeys-on-the-rampage probably can't harm the sun. See above.
Michael Ossipoff
As was previously explained, the ecliptic disk was centrifugally spun-out from the forming-Sun.
Michael Ossipoff.
Sun big. Parker-probe small.
I've answered that many times. Instead of repeating the answer again for you, i'll refer you to previous posts.
Michael Ossipoff
Fire bad.
I find nowhere in your descriptions where material moves outward.
Everything in moving inward, which is what makes it spin faster, yes, like the figure skater. Once orbital velocity is achieved, it moves inward no further. Outward requires expenditure of energy that needs to come from somewhere.
There is no centrifugal force pushing anything out. All matter is accelerating inward, not outward. If matter is in low orbit, energy must by supplied to put it in a higher orbit. Where does that come from?
My bold. Yes, radius is decreasing in each description. But then you claim it increases, that the disk is spreading out, not contracting. Your descriptions are contradictory all the way. I never claimed a change in angular momentum, which seems to be what your attempting to teach me.
No, the sun spins faster as it contracts. None of this pushes the disk out. Saturn has a nice disk, the rings. It did not emit those rings. It simply is not capable any more than the sun could produce orbiting material.
Only nonrotating matter, so no.
Absolutely not. The angular velocity cannot increase if the radius is growing.
Argument from authority, as was used in the reply to Bitter Crank. I'd accept it better with a link to this "accepted explanation". He pretty much quoted from the NASA site which is about as 'now accepted' as the explanations are going to get.
Gravitational potential plus kinetic energy is what I called mechanical energy, for lack of knowing a better term. The cloud always had it (even if gravitational is negative), but some of that energy is lost to friction in the contraction process, hence the heating up of all the places where matter is clumping. That energy is lost to entropy. You have not posited the source of the energy propelling the matter in the disk to higher orbits. The sun can spin all it wants and not transfer any of that energy to the orbiting stuff.
It might take a while before the probe's orbit intersects the photosphere or gets close enough to be vaporized. How sure are you that the probe will still be operating, and monitored, at that time?
And if it's vaporized before it enters the photosphere, that bit of vapor will still be garbage.
In any case, the probe will be rendered inoperative before it is vaporized, and so it will be nonfunctional garbage before it's vaporized.
But you're desperate for a quibble.
See above.
Orbiting space-garbabe? Well, eventually it could pose some threat to operating, in-use, satellites.
But most things in earth-orbit or solar orbit don't seem, to me, as being as offensive. Land probes on Mars and Venus. Mine the asteroids.I haven't publicly criticized those ideas.
I object to and criticize the suggestion of sending a probe into a gas-giant planet, because it isn't known for sure that there isn't some form of life (less energetic than terrestrial animal-life) that could exist there, based maybe on a different chemistry. ...in which case, such a probe could harm life.
In fact, there are specific suggestions about intentionally sending probes to explore the places where water exists, on some outer-planet-satelllites. But, if the life that those probes are looking for is there, then it will be harmed.
I criticize that too.
But not as much as a solar-probe.
Michael Ossipoff
"I said that sending them into the Sun's corona, and then letting them eventually fall into the sun, is offensive and objectionable. "— Michael Ossipoff
I refer you to my previous posts. I've answered that question many times.
No. I said that it's offensive to put garbage in the Sun. The corona is part of the Sun.
Additionally, the Parker probe will eventually fall into the Sun unless NASA takes positive action to avoid that.
Already answered. See above in this topic.
Oh really? I must have missed the proof :)
...just the reasons that I've already given.
See my previous posts in this topic. I don't have time to repeat these answers every time someone asks same question, or makes the same objection.
I'd said:
Already answered, many times.
If, somehow, the answer to your question isn't obvious to you, then I refer you to my previous posts.
And the result of our "use" of the Earth, and your support of it, shows how environmentally caring you are.
Trump would be proud of you.
You're saying that we depend on it. Correct.
Right, our "use" of the Earth shows how responsible "we" are.
Michael Ossipoff