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

Does the Sun care what gets tossed into it?

So, it isn't enough to garbage the moon and planets. We have to garbage the Sun too? — 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?

I hope this isn't your best objection.

Does the Sun care what gets tossed into it? — darthbarracuda

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

Isn't this just a case of incinerating the garbage? Why don't we load all the nuclear weapons into that incinerator as well? — Metaphysician Undercover

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 sun is not the origin of Earth or other planets. They're all from a different star, which is what it means to be a second generation system.
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.

Sorry but this is trivial, comparable to concern about scratching yourself in the presence of oxygen-producing green plants since it will contaminate them with dead skin cells. :)

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. — Michael Ossipoff

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.

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. — Metaphysician

Yes, and they also want to find out details of how the solar-wind is accelerated.

Michael Ossipoff

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? — 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.

The sun is not the origin of Earth or other planets. They're all from a different star, which is what it means to be a second generation system. — noAxioms

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.

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.

Yes, here's what I said about that.

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

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? — Michael Ossipoff

I'm saying that it's objectionable and offensive as a matter of principle — Michael Ossipoff

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? — Michael Ossipoff

Michael Ossipoff

Sorry but this is trivial, comparable to concern about scratching yourself in the presence of oxygen-producing green plants since it will contaminate them with dead skin cells. :) — Joseph

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?

Is there anything that's inviolable? — Michael Ossipoff

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.

"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?" — Michael Ossipoff


I don't see why we should view the Sun as sacred. — darthbarracuda

It's just the energy-source, immediate physical origin, and immediate physical reason for for Earth's life.

We aren't throwing garbage into it, we are putting a satellite into orbit that will eventually be consumed by the Sun.

:D

Perhaps this satellite will return useful data that will save lives.

Thanks,but I'll take my chances without it. :)

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.

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.

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.

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

I don't think you realize how absolutely massive and hot the sun is compared to anything we could lob into it. Even if it was done for the specific purpose of destroying it, I don't think humanity could muster more than a petty insult to the sun.

"Is there anything that's inviolable?" — Michael Ossipoff


The basis of your objection to the probe is that the sun is sacred?

I've already answered that:
— Hanover

"I don't see why we should view the Sun as sacred." — darthbarracuda

It's just the energy-source, immediate physical origin, and immediate physical reason for for Earth's life. — Michael Ossipoff

Both sides of this question have had their say.

Now there's only repetition.

I said what I wanted to say.

Then you said what you wanted to say.

I'd say this discussion has run its course, in this forum-topic.


[quot4]
You don't see this objection as stupid?


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.

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. — 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

↪Michael Ossipoff
I don't think you realize how absolutely massive and hot the sun is compared to anything we could lob into it. Even if it was done for the specific purpose of destroying it, I don't think humanity could muster more than a petty insult to the sun. — Joseph

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

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? — Michael Ossipoff

I'm saying that it's objectionable and offensive as a matter of principle. — Michael Ossipoff

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? — 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

Hanover's definition of "stupid":

"Not in agreement with Hanover.' — 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?

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

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.

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

This feels trollish.

I’d said:
.

Hanover's definition of "stupid":

"Not in agreement with Hanover.' — 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?
[/quote]
.
…no a subject for intrusive experiments, yes.

.

How is that a defensible position?

.
In the ways that I described in my initial post of this topic, and have been re-posting ever since.
.

It's not like we're spitting on God or something.

.
You said it, I didn’t.
.
Good description of the experiment. It sounds as if you’ve understood the character of it.
.

I get that what we say here is irrelevant in that no one would actually listen to us when deciding what to do

.
A safe bet.
.

, but I can think of few worse reasons to call off the sun probe than because it's a cosmic insult.

.
Fine, then may someone call it off for a better reason.
.

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?

.
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:

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

.
You reply:
.

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.

.
I’m just saying that the discussion has devolved to repetition, and nothing but repetition.
.
Michael Ossipoff

It's just the energy-source, immediate physical origin, and immediate physical reason for for Earth's life. — 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.

While the sun IS the source for solar energy, it isn't the immediate physical origin of the earth. ↪noAxioms
already pointed this out. The disk of dust that spawned our system spawned the sun along with the planets. — Bitter Crank

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.

Eventually the sun will take back everything it allegedly gave us.

...and (to our great credit) it won't be our doing.

[

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.

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.

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).

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

I just don't think it's necessary to garbage the sun too. — Michael Ossipoff

Doing anything that would detract from the sun's character is beyond our operational capabilities.

If you want to worry about a long term problem, worry about plastics. — Bitter Crank

All right then, let's load all that plastic onto that spacecraft and get it incinerated.

This thread is objectionable.

"I just don't think it's necessary to garbage the sun too". — Michael Ossipoff


Doing anything that would detract from the sun's character is beyond our operational capabilities. — Bitter Crank

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

if the sun is the source of the matter of earth, then something from earth falling into the sun is only solar matter heading back whence it came.

Is the probe garbage? Why, I wonder. It would seem our computers, laptops, etc. would just as well be garbage. Stop using them and other such things if you find them offensive, lest you add to our violation of the universe.

↪Michael Ossipoff
if the sun is the source of the matter of earth, then something from earth falling into the sun is only solar matter heading back whence it came. — Bitter Crank

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