The Sun Is Not Hot
- Thread starter chung
- Start date
Finding links between any religion and Sun worship is not to be unexpected.
For early man seeking for something to worship, the sun would be an obvious first choice.
Even when religion became more sophisticated, it is such an obvious metaphor for God that allusions to it remain.
All religions are accretions.
Correct! There are no flames. There is just nuclear fusion.
Neptune has an average temperature of -200C (only about 70 degrees above absolute zero.) It is one of the coldest planets in the Solar System.
You are proving yourself wrong here.
I'm sure about it because I studied physics, rather than just looked up the information in Wikipedia.
If you want to learn more, google "blackbody radiation."
Ah. Then you have proven that the Sun cannot be generating energy via cold fusion, since it's surface is thousands of degrees K.
http://cseligman.com/text/sun/sunbb.gif
===================
"Black body" radiation is the light (including invisible forms of electromagnetic radiation) given off by a "perfect" radiator. In general, the better things are at absorbing light, the better they are at emitting it, so a perfect absorber would be the most efficient radiator possible; but if something is a perfect absorber, it will not reflect any radiation, and will look black. Hence the odd name of the radiation given off by a perfect radiator.
Since stars have no surface, in the ordinary sense of the term, any radiation which enters a star is very likely to be scattered and absorbed until it is completely lost; making stars very close to perfectly black bodies, as far as absorption is concerned; and as a result, it would be reasonable to suppose that they would be perfect, or black body radiators, as well.
At the surface, stars are not actually perfect radiators, because the absorption of light at individual wavelengths by various atoms and ions blocks part of the outward flow of radiation, and this has to be made up for by emitting more light at other wavelengths (the gas heats up, emitting enough extra light at unabsorbed wavelengths to make up for the line absorptions). As an example, the spectrum of the Sun is shown in red, below, in comparison with the spectrum of a black-body of 5780 Kelvins, shown in orange. By and large, the spectra are the same, but the absorption of light at various wavelengths (where the red spectrum of the Sun dips below the orange spectrum of a black body with the same temperature as the "surface" of the Sun) is balanced by an excess of light at other wavelengths (where the red spectrum of the Sun lies above the orange spectrum of the black body).
===================
Unfortunately for your hypothesis, that is indeed the definition of blackbody radiation.
They come up with the acronym first, and then name it to fit.
Isnt it obvious?
Much of it is accretion and RCC is calling it traditions. Much of science's body of knowledge is like that. That is why, we must welcome people's science audit. Common man may spur discoveries that scientists would not find because they are too busy thinking! - linear thinking from all their age old accretions
I would not like to say anything against sun worship or any faith but duplicity in practice of religion may need to be exposed:
[video=youtube_share;X87HnBs5Y9M]http://youtu.be/X87HnBs5Y9M[/video]
Much of Vatican's traditions are from pagan and other religions.
Last edited:
No. It's you who were insisting that the sun is a blackbody and it generates power from hot nuclear fusion. That is not what I'm theorizing at all!
Last edited:
Consider this variation of an old adage, Alex: "a fool and his money are soon parted; a fool and his foolishness are bound together forever."
Also, just as your tagline says, there's no point in arguing with a crank - because a crank does NOT want to learn.
Again, create a thread as cranky as this as implied by your academia dogma:
"Therefore in your belief, the sun is hollow and from there, hot nuclear fusion is going on. Then there is a great containment of this nuclear bomb. Being a blackbody, this shell serves as an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.
However, since the resulting emission is all around the sphere of the sun, then, there are holes all around the shell containment from which these contained energies/frequencies/vibrations etc. are perfectly emitted."
At the very least you just have to accept that neither science as currently available nor you or me have the perfect fitting theory about the sun. If you believe current science about the sun is infallible, then you have become an ascendant master parrot of the academia!
Here is the attitude of a real student of the universe:
Francis Crick
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1962 humbly wrote:
"Scientists are painfully aware that they do not know everything but they think they can
often recognize nonsense when they come across it.
A theory that fits all the facts is bound to be wrong as some of the facts will be wrong.
Some scientists work so hard there is no time left for serious thinking."
Disciples of the academia and scientific materials should not be too dogmatic as to condemn those who have contrary views. Here are other more acceptable stance:
"The fundamental strength of science is that it compels its practitioners to confront their own fallibility/
What is the core, immutable quality of science?
It's not formal publication, it's not peer review, it's not properly citing sources. It's not "the scientific method" (whatever that means). It's not replicability. It's not even Popperian falsificationism – the approach that admits we never exactly prove things, but only establish them as very likely by repeated failed attempts to disprove them.
Underlying all those things is something more fundamental. Humility.
Everyone knows it's good to be able to admit when we've been wrong about something. We all like to see that quality in others. We all like to think that we possess it ourselves – although, needless to say, in our case it never comes up, because we don't make mistakes. And there's the rub. It goes very, very strongly against the grain for us to admit the possibility of error in our own work. That aversion is so strong that we need to take special measures to protect ourselves from it.
If science was merely a matter of increasing the sum of human knowledge, it would be enough for us all to note our thoughts on blogs and move on. But science that we can build on needs to be right. That means that when we're wrong – and we will be from time to time, unless we're doing terribly unambitious work – our wrong results need to be corrected...."
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/nov/13/science-enforced-humility
Francis Crick
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1962 humbly wrote:
"Scientists are painfully aware that they do not know everything but they think they can
often recognize nonsense when they come across it.
A theory that fits all the facts is bound to be wrong as some of the facts will be wrong.
Some scientists work so hard there is no time left for serious thinking."
Disciples of the academia and scientific materials should not be too dogmatic as to condemn those who have contrary views. Here are other more acceptable stance:
"The fundamental strength of science is that it compels its practitioners to confront their own fallibility/
What is the core, immutable quality of science?
It's not formal publication, it's not peer review, it's not properly citing sources. It's not "the scientific method" (whatever that means). It's not replicability. It's not even Popperian falsificationism – the approach that admits we never exactly prove things, but only establish them as very likely by repeated failed attempts to disprove them.
Underlying all those things is something more fundamental. Humility.
Everyone knows it's good to be able to admit when we've been wrong about something. We all like to see that quality in others. We all like to think that we possess it ourselves – although, needless to say, in our case it never comes up, because we don't make mistakes. And there's the rub. It goes very, very strongly against the grain for us to admit the possibility of error in our own work. That aversion is so strong that we need to take special measures to protect ourselves from it.
If science was merely a matter of increasing the sum of human knowledge, it would be enough for us all to note our thoughts on blogs and move on. But science that we can build on needs to be right. That means that when we're wrong – and we will be from time to time, unless we're doing terribly unambitious work – our wrong results need to be corrected...."
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/nov/13/science-enforced-humility
Last edited:
You said this:
The sun is a light generating sphere, but the photons traveling the near vacuum of space are not hot. We only feel the heat from friction of the sun's rays as they pass particles within the space-time curvature around the planet.
This is a mixture of truths and half truths.
Photons are packets of energy. They carry energy, so are sometimes described as "messenger particles"
They are not "hot", as you rightly say. Nor is the vacuum of space "hot", it is close to zero on the Kelvin scale.
So far correct, but your idea of "friction" is not correct.
Once photons have transmitted energy, by coming into contact with a particle with mass, they no longer exist.
All the energy is used up by exciting electrons in the atom they meet.
If the atom they meet is not ready to accept that packet of energy, the photon will be re-created and carry on.
That is why glass is transparent.
You also say that the sun is not hot.
What do you think that the sun is made from,
so that it does not become hot from all the photons being created within it?
There is a kind of truth in what you say.
The sun does not generate photons because it is hot.
It becomes and stays hot because of the photons being generated.
The sun is a light generating sphere, but the photons traveling the near vacuum of space are not hot. We only feel the heat from friction of the sun's rays as they pass particles within the space-time curvature around the planet.
This is a mixture of truths and half truths.
Photons are packets of energy. They carry energy, so are sometimes described as "messenger particles"
They are not "hot", as you rightly say. Nor is the vacuum of space "hot", it is close to zero on the Kelvin scale.
So far correct, but your idea of "friction" is not correct.
Once photons have transmitted energy, by coming into contact with a particle with mass, they no longer exist.
All the energy is used up by exciting electrons in the atom they meet.
If the atom they meet is not ready to accept that packet of energy, the photon will be re-created and carry on.
That is why glass is transparent.
You also say that the sun is not hot.
What do you think that the sun is made from,
so that it does not become hot from all the photons being created within it?
There is a kind of truth in what you say.
The sun does not generate photons because it is hot.
It becomes and stays hot because of the photons being generated.
Last edited:
Thanks for finding some measure of truth in my unscientific words. But don't assert again that it stays hot because of the photons being generated. You may say it is probably hot but this is not outrightly hot because of photon generation. LED light generates photons and they are not hot. Even sea creatures and firefly generate photons and they are not hot, so there exist a possibility of cold photon generation.
I am only using common man's common sense here. What I am is a student and I believe, scientists and teachers alike are still students!
Last edited:
I refer you to a question I have just asked on another thread, regarding how photons interact with particles.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?135058-Why-do-Photons-make-matter-hotter
It appears that the type of interaction depends upon the frequency of the wave, or the amount of energy in the package, which is the same thing.
Infra red does vibrate molecules, which is not far away from friction.
With regard to the glass.
Low energy photons would, I assume, heat the glass,
but high energy photons would be absorbed and re-emitted,
not having enough energy to excite electrons to a higher orbit.
Not all the Ultra violet light passes through, because there are impurities in the glass,
but if the glass were pure enough, it could be of any depth, and it would be clear.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?135058-Why-do-Photons-make-matter-hotter
It appears that the type of interaction depends upon the frequency of the wave, or the amount of energy in the package, which is the same thing.
Infra red does vibrate molecules, which is not far away from friction.
With regard to the glass.
Low energy photons would, I assume, heat the glass,
but high energy photons would be absorbed and re-emitted,
not having enough energy to excite electrons to a higher orbit.
Not all the Ultra violet light passes through, because there are impurities in the glass,
but if the glass were pure enough, it could be of any depth, and it would be clear.
Thanks for acknowledging that space is cold and close to zero on the Kelvin scale.
But please qualify if the space you are mentioning is only for those portions under the shadow of space objects or not. Otherwise, some 'scientists' here would claim space facing the sun is hot. And most probably all others would readily agree except my inquisitive mind.
As an illustration, here is a video for my unscientific observation:
[video=youtube_share;7f-K-XnHi9I]http://youtu.be/7f-K-XnHi9I[/video]
I haven't observed nor read any mention of hot temperature in the above video. If ever, the skydiver is enjoying a cold weather with the sun shining! Neither the handles outside the module seem hot nor is there any experience of high temp inside the glass window of the module (as in the case of the car window when the sun shines through it).
Last edited:
Did someone say that?
If so, they were wrong.
Space is a nearly perfect vacuum, and intensely cold.
That's why light can travel through it intact for billions of years.
It is also completely dark, which is pretty obvious when you see a total eclipse.
The space around the sun, apart from the Corona, is as black as soot, and colder than liquid Nitrogen.
Should a spacecraft approach close to the sun, however, it would be burned to nothing instantly,
because it would present matter available to be heated.
The sun is not a ball of fire, heating up space like the fire in your house.
But it does look like one, and that's what people thought it was until the 20th century.
Last edited:
Sorry Alex.
He's right and you are wrong.
Not about everything he has said, but in this instance.
It is the matter which is heated, not the space.
If a person was standing on the moon, their space suit would be heated by the sun's rays.
The tenuous vacuum around them might be at quite a high temperature due to ionisation (Not sure),
but would not give much heat because there are so few molecules.
He's right and you are wrong.
Not about everything he has said, but in this instance.
It is the matter which is heated, not the space.
If a person was standing on the moon, their space suit would be heated by the sun's rays.
The tenuous vacuum around them might be at quite a high temperature due to ionisation (Not sure),
but would not give much heat because there are so few molecules.
Last edited:
NOW you've finally made an intelligent statement! Good!!!
Yes, any decent scientist will be more than happy to admit that we "don't know it all." That's exactly what keeps science moving forward - everything we learn teaches us that there is even MORE to learn.
HOWEVER - the ugly, gross mistake you've been making all along is your refusal to accept what has ALREADY been learned and, for the most part, fully understood. For example, we DO know the sun is hot because we understand the nuclear processes that generate that heat. Also, we also know how sea creatures and fireflies generate photons - it's a chemical reaction and not some form of "cold fusion."
I didn't say the space was heated. I said the temp on the moon. The matter on the moon is heated by the radiated energy from the sun. Step into the shade and the temp of the matter drops instantly. Since his deluded idea is that the sun produces no heat, this was a rebuttal to that.