Now, you are adding the moon in your previous statement on post 96 and other previous posts. Acknowledge you did not say it and be humble about it.
Last edited:
The Sun Is Not Hot
- Thread starter chung
- Start date
Now, you are adding the moon in your previous statement on post 96 and other previous posts. Acknowledge you did not say it and be humble about it.
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."
Isn't it a theory that the process in the sun is via nuclear fusion? How can anybody prove it when we have no known probe towards the sun? We are just observing apparently from probes so far away (apparently).
What is so ugly in me taking a counter theory? Otherwise if the nuclear fusion of the sun is already 100% proven, then what are the mechanics of the solar nuclear fusion? I would be extremely interested.
If the nuclear fusion of the sun is only a most probable theory, you and the scientists should clearly say so and not be so dogmatic in indoctrinating us, the common man.
The science community must be the first to retract their errors, apologize and be humble about it, because they are taking the stance of teachers and educators of humanity during all these years.
Last edited:
That quote came in only on the post 97, but in post 96 and before, you were only talking of space near or facing the sun.
And somebody mentioned that above the atmosphere of the earth, when facing the sun, the temperature is so hot. I was not agreeing with that but apparently all were ganging up against me and in support of such statement.
Post 96 was the Captain's, post 94 was yours. I've said nothing about the temperature of space.
That's because you were wrong and 'all' were correct. There have been orbiting space stations for quite a while, with direct measurements of temperature made both in direct sunlight and in shade.
Now you go again saying that all of you were correct.
Without qualification, that means all of you in all of your posts. And it also mean that all of my points are invalid. Common be humble when you make mistake and correct yourself. I was willing to correct myself when I felt sleepy and told the truth of my mixed up post inspite of everyone pouncing on that.
Now can you provide that measurements of temperature made both in direct sunlight and in shade from space stations? Or at least a link? I am interested and I would like to find out if the said temperature readings are inside the space stations or outside.
Last edited:
Thanks. Common language using friction is perfectly fine because I am speaking as a common man. I wouldn't view it as half truth then, it would be half-truth if I write a science book using common language that misleads. Other than that instance I feel I did not write half truths in the post we were discussing.
Last edited:
Where are those things which I was incorrect and all of you are correct? Let us examine them to document in this forum. And by the way, we are documenting also our attitude and manners, so don't be carelessly attacking people. If ever just say your opposing ideas.,
Is the title "The Sun is Hot" 100% proven?
If not, then Science have wronged us in the first place, and I was only providing a counterview.
If it is 100% proven, all my inquiries presented here so far have not been satisfactorily answered by the collective effort of all who jumped into the thread to pounce on it!
By the way, have you found the link for space temperature readings within shade or directly facing the sun? I'm waiting.
Last edited:
For objects in space in shade or direct sunlight:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/
Two points
1. It would be very difficult to take a temperature, because the thermometer or whatever instrument you used would get hot in sunlight.
2. There is a difference between temperature and heat. The temperature of the few molecules per cubic metre in space might well be very high,
but they provide no heat.
I have been thinking about this, and I'm going to have to contradict something I said earlier.
I said space was freezing cold. I think that was wrong.
So far as space is a vacuum, it is neither hot nor cold, it is an insulator.
It is the perfect vacuum flask.
Something warm will largely remain warm, and something cold, cold.
There is almost nothing which would allow the transmission of heat one way or the other.
They are color temperature measurements of the solar chromosphere and corona of the sun. I believe it only gives a sign of hot temperature and these color signs are not definitive. They could also be a measure of the effects of the said frequency to excite molecules to generate heat.
I will study their science jargon later. But a more definitive thing to observe is an icy comet like Halley's Comet passing near the sun and melting.
You have good points. Re: the thermometer, I would assume it is only a conjecture at this time or have they observed that already?
Is there a major lengthening of the said tail compared to when the comet is observed nearer earth? Is there a definitive loss of mass?
Why is this sentence appearing on your linked page:
"But water circulated in pipes outside the space station would quickly freeze"