The Sun Is Not Hot

timojin said:
Meaning... The discharge to produce glow like Aurora it must be at high altitude were the atmospheric pressure is in the range of 1 + - mm pressure, otherwise there will be a discharge like a lightening
Click to expand...

explain further , about the 1+-mm pressure. never heard of this before .
 
The Sun is NOT produced by Fusion .

If fusion is engine of the Sun or any sun for that matter , why periods of sun spots ?

For the fusion theory to stand up as to understanding of our sun then the fusion energy output should be consistent. It is NOT .

Hence the cycles of 11yrs , by our Sun , from high activity , brightness , to almost completely darkness.

Fusion is not thought of this way . Fusion is a consistent output of energy , not fluctuating in duration .
 
river said:
The Sun is NOT produced by Fusion .

If fusion is engine of the Sun or any sun for that matter , why periods of sun spots ?

For the fusion theory to stand up as to understanding of our sun then the fusion energy output should be consistent. It is NOT .

Hence the cycles of 11yrs , by our Sun , from high activity , brightness , to almost completely darkness.

Fusion is not thought of this way . Fusion is a consistent output of energy , not fluctuating in duration .
Click to expand...
Don't be silly.
 
river said:
The Sun is NOT produced by Fusion . If fusion is engine of the Sun or any sun for that matter , why periods of sun spots ?
Click to expand...
Uh - there is no fusion happening on the surface of the Sun. You knew that, right?
For the fusion theory to stand up as to understanding of our sun then the fusion energy output should be consistent. It is NOT .
Click to expand...
It is pretty consistent.
Hence the cycles of 11yrs , by our Sun , from high activity , brightness , to almost completely darkness.
Click to expand...
Are you really claiming that every 11 years the "sun goes dark?"

Have you ever been outside?
 
river said:
The Sun is NOT produced by Fusion .

If fusion is engine of the Sun or any sun for that matter , why periods of sun spots ?

For the fusion theory to stand up as to understanding of our sun then the fusion energy output should be consistent. It is NOT .

Hence the cycles of 11yrs , by our Sun , from high activity , brightness , to almost completely darkness.

Fusion is not thought of this way . Fusion is a consistent output of energy , not fluctuating in duration .
Click to expand...

The irradiance of the Sun over the 11 yr cycle varies from ~ 1365.5 to 1366.5 watts/m^2, a difference of 0.073%, which is hardly going from brightness to almost complete darkness.
Fusion occurs at the core of the Sun, while the Solar cycle is driven by is magnetic field, which is effected by the complex combination of convection currents ( which helps carry heat produced by the fusion at the core to the surface) and the fact that the Sun doesn't rotate as a single piece (rotation rates vary by both depth and lattitude.)

And even for stars that show a high degree of variability, it has nothing to do with inconsistency of its fusion core, but rather ionization of its outer layers which make them more or less opaque. It is a process of Trapping heat, expanding due to the trapped heat, the expansion decreasing the ionization that trap heat, allowing for cooling, which leads to contraction, an increase in ionization, repeat.
 
Janus58 said:
The irradiance of the Sun over the 11 yr cycle varies from ~ 1365.5 to 1366.5 watts/m^2, a difference of 0.073%, which is hardly going from brightness to almost complete darkness.
Fusion occurs at the core of the Sun, while the Solar cycle is driven by is magnetic field, which is effected by the complex combination of convection currents ( which helps carry heat produced by the fusion at the core to the surface) and the fact that the Sun doesn't rotate as a single piece (rotation rates vary by both depth and lattitude.)

And even for stars that show a high degree of variability, it has nothing to do with inconsistency of its fusion core, but rather ionization of its outer layers which make them more or less opaque. It is a process of Trapping heat, expanding due to the trapped heat, the expansion decreasing the ionization that trap heat, allowing for cooling, which leads to contraction, an increase in ionization, repeat.
Click to expand...
Don't science him, for Pete's Sake!
:D
 
DaveC426913 said:
Don't science him, for Pete's Sake!
:D
Click to expand...
Yeah but river merely acts as the initiator of the reaction.-_O

Threads started by him gain value as we progressively sideline his worthless contributions and focus on the bits and piences thrown off by the responses. Janus can science the rest of us. I learn things from Janus's posts, more often than not. More please! :biggrin:
 
exchemist said:
Yeah but river merely acts as the initiator of the reaction.-_O

Threads started by him gain value as we progressively sideline his worthless contributions and focus on the bits and piences thrown off by the responses. Janus can science the rest of us. I learn things from Janus's posts, more often than not. More please! :biggrin:
Click to expand...
Heh. Sort of like the sidekick that asks all the dumb questions solely to give the hero an opportunity to explain it to the readers... :wink:
 
DaveC426913 said:
Heh. Sort of like the sidekick that asks all the dumb questions solely to give the hero an opportunity to explain it to the readers... :wink:
Click to expand...
This, I find, can often be the unsung - and unintended - constructive contribution of the cranks, nutters and nitwits to forums such as this. :wink:
 
exchemist said:
This, I find, can often be the unsung - and unintended - constructive contribution of the cranks, nutters and nitwits to forums such as this. :wink:
Click to expand...

I agree.
Science offers little opportunity of discussion but when someone presents their home grown ideas it presents opportunity to explain the science.

And given many non scientists become interested in science threads become educational.

Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I agree.
Science offers little opportunity of discussion but when someone presents their home grown ideas it presents opportunity to explain the science.

And given many non scientists become interested in science threads become educational.

Alex
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Then it shouldn't hurt to stare at the sun and we can land craft on it if its cold ya right, op, science is wrong on that one...
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I agree.
Science offers little opportunity of discussion but when someone presents their home grown ideas it presents opportunity to explain the science.

And given many non scientists become interested in science threads become educational.

Alex
Click to expand...
We all owe Riv a thanks.

Thanks Riv.
 
Janus58 said:
The irradiance of the Sun over the 11 yr cycle varies from ~ 1365.5 to 1366.5 watts/m^2, a difference of 0.073%, which is hardly going from brightness to almost complete darkness.
Fusion occurs at the core of the Sun, while the Solar cycle is driven by is magnetic field, which is effected by the complex combination of convection currents ( which helps carry heat produced by the fusion at the core to the surface) and the fact that the Sun doesn't rotate as a single piece (rotation rates vary by both depth and lattitude.)

And even for stars that show a high degree of variability, it has nothing to do with inconsistency of its fusion core, but rather ionization of its outer layers which make them more or less opaque. It is a process of Trapping heat, expanding due to the trapped heat, the expansion decreasing the ionization that trap heat, allowing for cooling, which leads to contraction, an increase in ionization, repeat.
Click to expand...

Why are there sunspots ?

Why is the " heat trapped " ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top