Roger said:
. [quote] Off topic/ Yes! [/quote] . No, not entirely. . And it isn’t rare here for posts to be precisely on topic by being directly about sundials. . [quote] Please get a grip. [/quote] . Whoa, Cowboy. I clarified that a seriously undesirable unintended result is unlikely. Here’s what I said, in case you missed it: . “No, the experiment probably *won’t* result in an “Oops!”, “Uh-Oh!”, or “Oh Shit!” moment.” …so you’re answering regarding a matter that I already addressed. . [quote] Do you know the void of outer space? [/quote] . Not intimately :D . But it doesn’t bear on what I said. . [quote] Do you realize the immensity of the nuclear fusion reactions fueling the sun. Any probe is infinitesimal in comparison. Do the numbers. [/quote] . My, aren’t we the science expert ! . See above. . Though (as I said in my initial post) a very small local intrusive influence can sometimes start a reaction that propagates throughout a much larger medium, I’ve clarified that I don’t claim that’s likely in this instance. . Life is full of risks, and all of the personal risks that concern people are a lot greater than the risk of an undesired result from the Parker probe. . Every time someone gets in their car, and takes it on the road, the risk to their safety is incomparably greater than the small risk of harm resulting from the solar-probe experiment. . As I thought that I clarified, my objection is about repugnance, not risk. .Here’s what I said: . You go outside. It’s a nice sunny day. The solar-convective breeze is rustling the chlorophyll leaves of the green trees. So, with the warm sunshine warming your face, you say, “Ah yes, let’s intrusively experiment on the Sun, and dump garbage into it!” . Visit an art museum. Go up to a large statue from the Classical Period, and throw a wadded up piece of trash-paper at it. . Then explain to the security guards, “Don’t you know anything about science? That wad of trash-paper doesn’t possess enough mass to knock that much more massive statue over. Nor does it have enough hardness to damage the statue’s surface. Get a grip.” . I’m not anti-science, but I admit that I don’t worship science. . There seems to be a widespread popular belief that if there’s an experiment “for science” that can be done, then we’re obligated, by some notion of scientific-necessity, to do it. . I expressed an opinion. You disagree. Fine. Duly noted. But try to remember civility. . Because I find the intrusive experiment on the Sun to be repugnant, I’ve brought the matter up at several forums. . There’s always someone who will explain to me that the probe is much smaller than the Sun :D . II mentioned the matter here because people here probably aren't unanimously gung-ho about "anything for science". Michael Ossipoff On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Roger Bailey <rtbai...@telus.net> wrote: > Hello Michael, > > Off topic/ Yes! > > Please get a grip. Do you know the void of outer space? Do you realize the > immensity of the nuclear fusion reactions fueling the sun. Any probe is > infinitesimal in comparison. Do the numbers. This probe is not a violation > of a sacred place. > > Roger Bailey > > *From:* Michael Ossipoff <email9648...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 08, 2018 4:42 PM > *To:* sundial list <sundial@uni-koeln.de> > *Subject:* This year a probe will be sent through the Sun's corona. > > > Maybe this is a little off-topic here, but not completely: > > . > > As you may have heard, a space-probe is scheduled to be launched this > month, which will pass through the Sun’s corona (which extends much farther > out from the Sun than it was previously believed to). > > . > > In other words, NASA is goings to intrusively experiment on the Sun. > > . > > This is called the “Parker solar probe”. > > . > Does anyone else find that objectionable? Even just on principle, if for > no other reason? > > . > > Of course the Sun is the origin and energy-source of the Earth, and > therefore the physical origin of all life on Earth. …so we dump our > garbage into it? > > . > > Is there anything that we respect enough to not spit on it? > > . > > After the probe’s first pass through the corona, I don’t know if will be > moved out of that corona-traversing orbit. Probably not. If not, the of > course each passage will slow the vehicle, until it eventually falls into > the Sun, meaning our garbage becomes part of the sun. > > . > > Someone told me that the craft might vaporize during its first > corona-passage. I don’t know if that’s true, but, even if so, it doesn’t > change the experiment’s object. > > . > > No, the experiment probably won’t result in an “Oops!”, “Uh-Oh!”, or “Oh > Shit!” moment. Probably not. Is “probably not” good enough? > > . > > But there are times when a small bit of matter, operating in a small part > of a large object, starts an effect that propagates throughout that larger > object. No, I’m not saying that’s likely. > > . > > The whole justification for the experiment is a lack of knowledge about > the Sun, and the corona in particular. How much assurance does a lack of > knowledge guarantee? > > But, in any case, see above for other reasons why the experiment is > objectionable. > > . > > You go outside. It’s a nice sunny day. The solar-convective breeze is > rustling the chlorophyll leaves of the green trees. So, with the warm > sunshine warming your face, you say, “Ah yes, let’s intrusively experiment > on the Sun, and dump garbage into it!” > > . > > Michael Ossipoff > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > --------------------------------------------------- > https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/sundial > >
--------------------------------------------------- https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/sundial
