What You Thought Isn't The Right. Right, NASA?

[chinmayrshah]

Many scientific theories have always remained ambiguous and every time apparent proofs are presented to remove that discrepancies. Now comes something new. What NASA and the astronomical fraternity believed has diverted a bit. What they thought that the Sun and planets were constructed of is under scrutiny again. Read more on the following link:

 

http://www.scienceda...10623145430.htm

 

This was the conclusion from the Genesis probe shot in 2004

 

[Ophiolite]

The article, in typical journalistic style, overemphasises the significance of the finding. A difference in isotope ratios between the sun and debris will likely be readily accounted for by interesting, but not fundamentally different, detailed mechanisms influencing the accretion disc.

[Brainteaserfan]

Many scientific theories have always remained ambiguous and every time apparent proofs are presented to remove that discrepancies. Now comes something new. What NASA and the astronomical fraternity believed has diverted a bit. What they thought that the Sun and planets were constructed of is under scrutiny again. Read more on the following link:

 

http://www.scienceda...10623145430.htm

 

This was the conclusion from the Genesis probe shot in 2004

 

Rarely do experiments/tests/proofs get reported that go along with already existing theories. Sadly, the small percentage that don't, even if false, are usually turned into headlines. To me, that is not good for science. It makes it look unreliable.

[Riot]

The scientists are quick to conclude that the sun was not formed by the same nebula based on the unproven fact that they did.

[Ophiolite]

The scientists are quick to conclude that the sun was not formed by the same nebula based on the unproven fact that they did.

Unfortunately your sentence makes no sense.

 

If I take the part in bold, that is simply wrong. This is what the scientists concluded: "...we conclude that essentially all rocky materials in the inner solar system were enriched in 17O and 18O, relative to 16O, by ~7%, probably via non–mass-dependent chemistry before accretion of the first planetesimals."

Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6037/1528.abstract

 

There is nothing in that statement that suggests they thought the planets were formed from a different nebula.

[Riot]

Unfortunately your sentence makes no sense.

 

If I take the part in bold, that is simply wrong. This is what the scientists concluded: "...we conclude that essentially all rocky materials in the inner solar system were enriched in 17O and 18O, relative to 16O, by ~7%, probably via non–mass-dependent chemistry before accretion of the first planetesimals."

Source: http://www.sciencema...7/1528.abstract

 

There is nothing in that statement that suggests they thought the planets were formed from a different nebula.

Wrong again. Directly quoting from OP's source:

 

 

"'The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the sun -- just how and why remains to be discovered.'"

 

 

[Ophiolite]

Wrong again. Directly quoting from OP's source:

 

 

"'The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the sun -- just how and why remains to be discovered.'"

The OPs source is a journalist's hyped up interpretation of their reading of the research paper. Are you seriously contending we should take a popular account over the original document? The abstract in the original is quite clear. I present it here in full, since you seem to have ignored the link. I have emphasised the relevant words.

 

All planetary materials sampled thus far vary in their relative abundance of the major isotope of oxygen, 16O, such that it has not been possible to define a primordial solar system composition. We measured the oxygen isotopic composition of solar wind captured and returned to Earth by NASA’s Genesis mission. Our results demonstrate that the Sun is highly enriched in 16O relative to the Earth, Moon, Mars, and bulk meteorites. Because the solar photosphere preserves the average isotopic composition of the solar system for elements heavier than lithium, we conclude that essentially all rocky materials in the inner solar system were enriched in 17O and 18O, relative to 16O, by ~7%, probably via non–mass-dependent chemistry before accretion of the first planetesimals.

 

Source: McKeegan, K.D. et al "The Oxygen Isotopic Composition of the Sun Inferred from Captured Solar Wind." Science 24 June 2011: Vol. 332

[Riot]

The OPs source is a journalist's hyped up interpretation of their reading of the research paper. Are you seriously contending we should take a popular account over the original document? The abstract in the original is quite clear. I present it here in full, since you seem to have ignored the link. I have emphasised the relevant words.

 

All planetary materials sampled thus far vary in their relative abundance of the major isotope of oxygen, 16O, such that it has not been possible to define a primordial solar system composition. We measured the oxygen isotopic composition of solar wind captured and returned to Earth by NASA's Genesis mission. Our results demonstrate that the Sun is highly enriched in 16O relative to the Earth, Moon, Mars, and bulk meteorites. Because the solar photosphere preserves the average isotopic composition of the solar system for elements heavier than lithium, we conclude that essentially all rocky materials in the inner solar system were enriched in 17O and 18O, relative to 16O, by ~7%, probably via non–mass-dependent chemistry before accretion of the first planetesimals.

 

Source: McKeegan, K.D. et al "The Oxygen Isotopic Composition of the Sun Inferred from Captured Solar Wind." Science 24 June 2011: Vol. 332

 

Wrong yet again. That quote actually came from Kevin McKeegan, a Genesis co-investigator from UCLA, and the lead author of one of two Science papers published this week."

[shellibranch]

Well i cannot give out my answer right now. But based on the comments above, i think there is a long way to go.

[Ophiolite]

Wrong yet again. That quote actually came from Kevin McKeegan, a Genesis co-investigator from UCLA, and the lead author of one of two Science papers published this week."

You are becoming tiresome.

1. Your initial statement "The scientists are quick to conclude that the sun was not formed by the same nebula based on the unproven fact that they did." is incomprehensible. This has been pointed out to you, but you chose not to clarify it.

2. You appear to believe that (a) this piece of research demonstrates that the planets were formed from a different nebula than the sun, and that (b) the scientists conducting this research have affirmed this view.

3. The abstract of the Science paper makes it abundantly clear that, as I have demonstrated, that such is not the conclusion of the research.

4. The quotation by McKeegan, out of context, in a journalistic article does not trump the clear statement within the abstract.

5. Even if it did, the statement most certainly does not suggest that the sun and planets were formed from different nebulae.

6. What the abstract makes clear is that sun and planets were formed from different nebular materials.

7. Do you understand that the phrases different nebulae and different nebular materials convey two completely different meanings?

8. The differences of isotope ratios are suggested to be "probably via nonmass-dependent chemistry before accretion of the first planetesimals" within the same nebula from which the sun was derived.

9. What is it about these very simple concepts you are having so many comprehension difficulties over?

 

 

Edited to clarify point 8.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Ophiolite

[skybender]

Why the hell would it even matter, a physist knows you build personal spaceship and you fly and that's what matters.

[Ophiolite]

Why the hell would it even matter, a physist knows you build personal spaceship and you fly and that's what matters.

If you are going to post can I suggest you try to remain within one or two A.U. of the topic.

[UserX]

Its way to early to make bold predictions about these findings. A lot of research will have to be done, this is the essence of science. Anything else is just theory.

 

X

[Ophiolite]

Its way to early to make bold predictions about these findings. A lot of research will have to be done, this is the essence of science. Anything else is just theory.

 

X

Hello User-X. I see you are new to the forum. I offer you welcome and a word of caution. Describing something as just theory or only a theory is the language of Young Earth Creationists and cranks. Even from your short post I see you are not either of these. Theories are as good as it gets in science. What might have conveyed your meaning better is to say it is just speculation. I think that captures the lay use of 'theory'.

Cheers