Send a probe into the Sun? No.

Post Reply New Topic

You're quite beyond talking to, Mr. Spit-Man.

Michael829

RetroGamer87 asked:



I didn't say there was no damage. There might not be "serious" damage - uh, in the immediate future, or "permanent" damage, but that's not the same as "no" damage.

Physical actions result in physical reactions.

One physical reaction of vaporizing a probe from Earth in the sun's corona might be that the lingering vaporized materials contaminate future scientific studies and findings about the sun, and it's corona. You wouldn't smear mold and rotting meat all over your fancy "I'd like to learn how to cure cancer" research lab, and then expect that the results that the lab produced accurate and reliable results in the future. If the Sun is your lab, then you shouldn't intentionally sully it during the course of your research. NASA could build probes which could return to Earth, and be recycled without poisoning the planet, or the Sun. They could do that, because they are very smart people. They don't do that, because they externalize costs.

Cost is another way of describing reactions, only those are not limited to physical reactions.

NASA could accept the cost, in time and resources including but not limited to money, of actually following their own protocol regarding cleanliness, and making sure there are no microbes hitching a ride on their Mars probe, before sending their probe to the ONE Mars that exists, for example. Because if they don't, there's this other cost where some of us become unimpressed with their project.

Or maybe we all could realize, at long last, that when we pollute our entire planet, and we desperately start looking for another planet to inhabit because there seems to be no way to actually clean up the pollution we've begun to wallow in, and our approach for that endeavor includes carrying on with our same old habits of polluting everything we come into contact with, just beyond the exosphere this time, we are sending a message to youth that this is "normal" and "acceptable", and then they grow up thoroughly convinced that there are no physical reactions to physical actions, either. Then, once they grow up, what you get are a bunch of adults with bizarre, unsubstantiated thinking patterns and "belief" systems, who are unable to comprehend that pollution is an actual problem, even as they wallow in it.

Here is a quote you may have heard before, and it's followed by a little note about it, which I copied from the internet:

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Lau Tzu

"Although this is the popular form of this quotation, a more correct translation from the original Chinese would be "The journey of a thousand miles begins beneath one's feet." Rather than emphasizing the first step, Lau Tzu regarded action as something that arises naturally from stillness. Another potential phrasing would be "Even the longest journey must begin where you stand." [note by Michael Moncur, September 02, 2004]"

From: http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24004.html

This quote is relevant in this discussion because it's important to understand that this adage holds true also for pollution.

If you think it's okay and normal to throw garbage onto the soil, then it seems okay to throw garbage into the water. If you accept that it's normal to throw garbage into the water, then it's fine to throw it into the atmosphere, and exosphere. If you can throw garbage into the exosphere, it must be fine to start piling it onto the moon. If it's okay to dump garbage on the moon, then it must be normal to dump it on Venus, and Mars. If Venus and Mars are garbage dumps, then Saturn and the Sun can be a dump, too.

If you can understand that pollution of the Earth is a problem, as you say RetroGamer87, then what would make you think that it has no effect if you pollute other bodies in the cosmos? Have you externalized the cost? Do you believe that you will never have to worry about it in your lifetime, and somebody's children's children will figure out how to clean it up?

That's not science. That's the adoption of a flawed economic strategy, in lieu of a scientific solution. It's a non answer. If pollution is a problem here, it's a problem elsewhere.

We've been over this many times already. I've already answered kokopelli's endlessly-recycled argument quoted below:

And, while I'm at it, I'll just repeat one other thing that I've said here, because it doesn't seem to have sunk in:

No one owns the sun. No one has a right to intrusively experiment on something major that they don't own, without some convincing consensus-permission.

Now, the pro-spit faction aren't saying anything different from what they said in their first posts, and so there's nothing more to be said in reply to them.

Michael829

This thread is a joke and does not belong in this sub forum and should be move to the PPR forum where all the science deniers and crackpots live

We've been over that several times. I've repeatedly agreed that every time you get in your car and go on the road, you're taking a greater risk than any risk that the Parker probe would cause for you (If they persist in the abysmal poor-taste to launch it).

I've repeatedly said that there will probably be no harm.

In my initial post to this thread, I mentioned that the Sun has about about a million times more volume than does the Earth. I didn't deny that the Sun is larger than the Parker probe

As for something small affecting something large, I've answered that too. There's something called a chain-reaction, in which a small object, affecting at first only a small part of a large object, starts a process that soon propagates throughout the large object, affecting it considerably. Examples: 1) a boiling-chip dropped into a large pot of superheated water; 2)cloud-seeding. (...and yes, the ratio of masses is much greater in the case of the Sun and the Parker probe.)

Yes, I don't know of a mechanism by which that would happen in the case of the Parker probe and the Sun. But the probe is being justified by the fact that not everything is known about the mechanisms in the Sun. Not even by you.

As I said, there will probably be no damage.

And I'll remind you that my objection wasn't entirely about risk. I mentioned that there's something odious, repugnant, in poor taste, aesthetically-troglodytic about the probe.

But there'd be no point in trying to tell that to you.

But I'll repeat something that I said, in the post to which you were replying:

So you are admitting that you have no argument? That you have "nothing more to say", and that what you have already said is pure nonsense, but you are clinging to it anyway?

you're saying here that "the probe wont do any harm, WILL probably get valuable information, and that there is no reason for any sane person to oppose sending this probe to the sun. But I am against it anyway because to me it's just icky."

Is there any argument you have besides the fact that (for some emotional reason that you cant explain) you find the project icky?

This probe is a machine made of various metals, and plastics. Its of similar composition (iron, and carbon), and of comparable size (like a boulder) to thousands of natural meteors that fall on every body in the solar system every day including on the sun itself. So how is it worse than a natural meteor hitting the sun?

I can't endlessly answer questions that I've already thoroughly addressed, to the same folks I specifically already thoroughly answered.

You are welcome to read my entire posts, make an actual attempt at comprehension, and continue the discussion in a way that doesn't require me to repeat what I've already written.

I'm happy to respond to anyone who has something relevant to add, or discuss, though.

I can't endlessly answer questions that I've already thoroughly addressed, to the same folks I specifically already thoroughly answered. You are welcome to read my entire posts, make an actual attempt at comprehension, and continue the discussion in a way that doesn't require me to repeat what I've already written.

I'm happy to respond to anyone who has something relevant to add, or discuss, though.