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. — Ciceronianus the White
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
Yes, I did say that.NoAxioms didn't say that. — Michael Ossipoff
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.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.
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 — Michael Ossipoff
NoAxioms didn't say that. — Michael Ossipoff
Yes, I did say that. — noAxioms
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. — Ciceronianus the White
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).
If there is a point of the beginning of the what is the sun, it would seem to be the moment of ignition. The change is quite abrupt and it isn't a star if it doesn't happen. The opinion of apparently all the other posters on this thread is that the material that makes up the vast bulk of the planets was never part of this central condensing pre-star. If the central mass had enough angular momentum to throw out the planets, our solar-system would likely have sported a binary star as so many of them do.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. — Michael Ossipoff
Trying to figure out how you got that from what I posted.So you don't believe that the ecliptic disk was formed via conservation of angular momentum, when the initial cloud contracted? — 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.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?
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.The formation of the ecliptic disk wasn't a throwinlg-out of planets. The planets later formed from the ecliptic disk.
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?
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 — noAxioms
The formation of the ecliptic disk wasn't a throwiing-out of planets. The planets later formed from the ecliptic disk.
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.
Definitions can be different, but not wrong.
Except when they are wrong. — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
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.
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...
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. — 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.If the forming-Sun, at the time that the ecliptic disk outspread from it,
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. — Michael Ossipoff
In other topics here, everyone seems to be a science-hater and an evolution-denier. — Michael Ossipoff
It is statistically almost impossible that a random group of matter happens to have zero net rotational inertial. For instance, Andromeda is coming at us, but not exactly straight at us, and impossible point target. The amount off target represents an obscene angular momentum, enough to throw a great deal of the stars away when the two combine.Whence all this spinning? — Bitter Crank
The difference is that the Earth was never inviolable. — Michael Ossipoff
Neo-orthodox wing, 1962 reformation sect Appolloian — Hanover
Resutling in a rotation free and satellite-free system of one object, perhaps large enough to be a star, or perhaps a lonely dark planet with neither year, month, nor day. I wonder what religion they'd come up with.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. — Hanover
The disused probe will be garbage when it falls into the Sun, even by the common ordinary definition of garbage: Disused material. — Michael Ossipoff
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. — Michael Ossipoff
The difference is that the Earth was never inviolable. We never expected the Earth to be inviolable. — Michael Ossipoff
"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". — Michael Ossipoff
If the forming-Sun, at the time that the ecliptic disk outspread from it,
The disk spreads out?? — noAxioms
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.
Yes, the centrifugal force experienced by material at the solar equator overcomes gravity, and the material spreads out as a disk in the plane of the forming-Sun's equator.
...but I can't take original credit for that explanation. I must admit that others beat me to it.
Say you're stirring your drink. As you stir it faster, the outer part rises up the glass. Centrifugal force drives some of your drink up the sides of the glass, against gravity.
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)
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.