The sun was never inviolable either. — Hanover

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.

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

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?

, but it's based on some primitive sun worship theology that you can't understand why no one else will adopt.

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.

The OP can be summarized as: I worship the sun, do you?

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.

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

This planet's monkeys-on-the-rampage probably can't harm the sun. See above.

Michael Ossipoff

should understand the origin of the disk of which their sun is the star performer. — Bitter Crank

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

Sun big. Parker-probe small. — Michael Ossipoff

Fire bad.

If the forming-Sun, at the time that the ecliptic disk outspread from it — Michael Ossipoff

The disk spreads out??
— noAxioms

Yes.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

Gravity tended to form a sphere.

Only nonrotating matter, so no.

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.

Absolutely not. The angular velocity cannot increase if the radius is growing.

That's not my idea. It's the now-accepted explanation for the formation of the ecliptic disk from which the planets were formed.

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.

Mechanical energy (gravitational potential energy) was of course being converted to heat of contraction, so, yes, mechanical energy was being lost.

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.

The disused probe will be garbage when it falls into the Sun, even by the common ordinary definition of garbage: Disused material. — Michael Ossipoff
— Metaphysician Undercover

The probe will not be garbage when it is finished with its mission, it will be incinerated.

Nonsense. I spoke of dumping garbage into the Sun. The probe will indeed be garbage when it's approaching the Sun on a collision-trajectory, before inceneration.,

That's a silly troll-quibble, based on a typical troll misquotation of what I said.

the probe will be useful until it is incinerated, and then it will not be garbage.

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.

It will never be garbage.

See above.

You should perhaps direct this argument at all the unused satellites, and other things orbiting the earth, which are garbage, and not yet incinerated.

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 don't think you've stated very clearly why you think that this is offensive.

I refer you to my previous posts. I've answered that question many times.

At some point you said that it is offense to put garbage near the sun

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.

, but this is an untenable claim because the garbage will be incinerated.

Already answered. See above in this topic.

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.

Oh really? I must have missed the proof :)

You seem to believe that the sun should be, for some reason...

...just the reasons that I've already given.

, regarded as inviolable. But how can you support this claim?

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:

The difference is that the Earth was never inviolable. We never expected the Earth to be inviolable. — Michael Ossipoff

Why do you expect that the sun should be inviolable?

Already answered, many times.

If, somehow, the answer to your question isn't obvious to you, then I refer you to my previous posts.

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?

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.

We already use the sun in many ways, beginning with the photosynthesis of plants, which in turn, we use for nutrition.

You're saying that we depend on it. Correct.

Why do you not view the sun as there for us to use responsibly, like we tend to look at everything else?

Right, our "use" of the Earth shows how responsible "we" are.

Michael Ossipoff