Our Sun is Cold And Inhabited With Life.

'Greenhouse effect'?



Dude we're dealing with RADIANT energy... NOT residual, or did you forget?

Despite all of your posturing... NOT correct.

Your 'black-body' approach, when put into the field, despite ENORMOUS fudging on the application comes up far short in providing anything approaching valid results.

When this methodology was developed it was entirely aperture based... Formulated in a closed system... acting within the acceptable approximations of the point based ideal models so often used in 'physics'.

The fact that the Earth in almost NO way conforms to the prescribed standards for 'black-body' methodology (and can HARDLY be viewed as a point!), doesn't slow you (or '(astro)physicists') down in the least!



13%...

Dude, you are teetering on your soapbox!

Not to mention VERY closely approximating (within 13%?) the APOLOGISTS for the geocentric view of the universe.

You DO know they had VERY precise models (entirely math based, of course. )!

Maybe the 'echos' of the 'big bang' some physicists believe they're hearing are just the remnants of your then fellow 'astronomers' screaming "heretic!" (or was it "troll!"? I forget... )?

Roll your sleaves up NgcHunter...

We have hardly scratched the surface of 'golem and NgcHunters Big Adventure'.



This is just so much fun.

Almost forgot...

>NgcHunter:'This is also completely tangenital to determining the sun's'
>NgcHunter:'temp through its spectrum, a concept you've completely'
>NgcHunter:'ignored.'

Patience Iago!

[edit on 7-11-2008 by golemina]

reply to post by golemina


golemina --

I'm having trouble understanding your argument. Could you please stop posting in riddles and tell us in a short paragraph -- with back-up evidence -- why you think the Sun is cold?

Originally posted by logicalview
The current accepted scientific view of the sun is that it is a giant thermonuclear reactor converting hydrogen to helium and has a surface temperature of nearly 6000 degrees celcius. I would have to say on that basis life as we know it would struggle to survive!

The Plasma Cosmology model differs greatly, and is what i ascribe to.

Consider: how could there be crater ice on Mercury if the Sun generated that kind of heat? It would have boiled off eons ago.

It isn't cold, no more than any other electrical arc is cold. However, the heat assumed via the thermonuclear model is WAY off.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Hey Soylent.

Just read the Op's reference(s).

I would suggest some wrinkles... But would prefer to let the Ops excellent reference(s) stand on their own for now.

If you are interested we'll go into that after the reigning champ can't get up from a three count.

reply to post by golemina


Nope. Sorry, but the OP starts right off with a flawed argument why space is cold, thus the rest of the argument falls apart after that.

It IS true that space -- even space in direct sunlight -- IS in fact cold. But that's only because it is a near-vacuum, so there isn't much matter in space for the Sun's radiation to "heat up". Once the Sun's radiation hits something -- an astronaut, an asteroid, the moon, or even the occasional dust particle floating in the near-vacuum of space -- those objects will heat up, because the Sun and its radiation are hot.

Conversely, if there is nothing in space to get heated up (and like I said, space is a near-vacuum, so there isn't a lot of things for the sun's rays to fall upon) then space could be considered cold. But this fact is not evidence that the Sun is cold.

I thought you had some better evidence of your own, since you seem to be so adamant about this, even though the OP's argument is flawed.

[edit on 11/8/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by deathhasnosound


The world is flat...if we were on a spinning elipsoid...we would fly off from centripetal force (an object in motion, tends to stay in motion, unless acted upon by another object---NOT Invisable force)

If it was spinning, then I should be able to just hop in the air and have the earth move under me....basic OBSERVABLE science. (Problem is nobody goes with science or there own senses, instead they love THEORY)

The sun, moon, and stars....right in the sky.

Space is what is in between you and I.

Gravity means weight. Things with mass have weight which is the modern term. The old term is Gravity or "what's pulling you to the GRAVE".

Peace

Interesting take SGIP.

I agree with basically everything you say... 'ceptin:

>'...because the Sun and its radiation are hot.'

would say
...because the Suns radiation makes it hot.

And...
>'But this fact is not evidence that the Sun is cold.'
Neither is it evidence that the Sun is hot.

The only thing it's evidence of is that the Sun radiates.

Even on a cloudy day, when sunlight goes thru glass it mostly gets converted to your basic infrared.

Does that mean the clouds are hot?

It looks like we are ultimately heading thataway.

I'm kind of still waiting for NgcHunter...

NgcHunter: Dude... we are ALL friends here. NOT worth even getting mildly annoyed. It's just your normal MB circus... Only an interesting topic!

(I guess I'm looking for the OBVIOUS counter-argument(s). )

Yo LetTheReaderUnderstand...

Recently, I heard a statement that the Earth was in fact spinning at a really high speed and what looks like the gradual change of night and day is just the slight creep in the periodic rate (think the car wheel that looks like it's moving very slowly forward (or backwards ).

Anyhow, love that kind of stuff.

So, tell me more!

Originally posted by golemina
'Greenhouse effect'?

Dude we're dealing with RADIANT energy... NOT residual, or did you forget?

Despite all of your posturing... NOT correct.

Wrong. Where does this radiating energy come from? It radiates from the planet after it has been warmed by the sun. The greenhouse effect traps some of that heat and prevents it from radiating back out into space. It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how radiative transfers of heat work; they need not be generated at the source. That shouldn't be hard to understand seeing as how the formula for boltzmann is based on the sun's temperature, not on anything generated on earth. You refuse to acknowledge this because it disproves your entire point. Thanks for confirming my suspicions; you know better but you're just trolling.

Your 'black-body' approach, when put into the field, despite ENORMOUS fudging on the application comes up far short in providing anything approaching valid results.

Being within 13% of the correct value is pretty close considering all the things I pointed out that you refuse to take into account. By the way, you're still not using Planck's law, so this whole discussion is a red herring.

The fact that the Earth in almost NO way conforms to the prescribed standards for 'black-body' methodology (and can HARDLY be viewed as a point!), doesn't slow you (or '(astro)physicists') down in the least!

Earth is a grey body, finding differences between an idea grey body with no atmosphere and a grey body with a significant carbon dioxide atmosphere does nothing to disprove the usefulness of measuring a black body's spectrum to find the temperature. You're not even using the same approach mentioned before, planck's law.

Not to mention VERY closely approximating (within 13%?) the APOLOGISTS for the geocentric view of the universe.

What in the world are you talking about? Shortsighted approximations of the earth's temperature without accounting for greenhouse warming have nothing to do with geocentrism, which can be disproven by anyone with a telescope looking at a gibbous phase venus. Another example of something clearly proven by "useless science."

You DO know they had VERY precise models (entirely math based, of course.

)!

Too bad for you we can confirm the math of measuring the temp of an ideal black body radiator by looking at the spectrum of the sun by measuring something as simple to understand as a lightbulb, another example of a black body radiator.

>NgcHunter:'This is also completely tangenital to determining the sun's'
>NgcHunter:'temp through its spectrum, a concept you've completely'
>NgcHunter:'ignored.'

Patience Iago!

I will not have any patience for someone who blatently refuses to avoid red herrings. Address the actual issue, measuring the temperature of an object by examining the spectrum now.

NgcHunter... There you are!

Might I say you look particularly FABULOUS DARLING in your orange leather coat today.

After reading your post...

OK...

How do YOU take your 'readings'?

Originally posted by golemina
NgcHunter... There you are!

I don't normally post on the weekends. This past weekend was spent acquiring and processing this image
farm4.static.flickr.com...

How do YOU take your 'readings'?

Oh, so now solar spectra are part of a massive conspiracy and coverup to hide the sun's true temperature, is that it? Funny how those conspirators managed to include ordinary people who have looked at it themselves. Like these folks, who even provide a guide for you to do it yourself too golem:
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

Even cheaper and more accessible here, anyone can participate:
www.skyandtelescope.com...

Nice pic astronomer guy.

>'How do YOU take your 'readings'?

Specifications, please.

Originally posted by golemina
Nice pic astronomer guy.

Thank you.

>'How do YOU take your 'readings'?

Specifications, please.

How much more specific could you get? The sources I gave you outlined several specific and detailed methods. Here's an easy one anyone can do without the need for a telescope; reflect sunlight off a CD onto a white wall. Voila. Instant spectra. Combine with a CCD camera that has had it's IR filter removed and you could record quite a bit of the sun's spectrum. If you also couple this same camera with UV transmissive filters you can get more of the spectra in the opposite direction. The most important part is in the visible region as that's where the sun's peak transmission is. Unfortunately a CD isn't a high quality enough grating for measuring anything, so for that I recommend you reflect sunlight off of a chrome cylinder, through a prism (you can get them cheap at any science or discovery store) and into a camera. Still no fancy equipment required:
www.astroman.fsnet.co.uk...

[edit on 10-11-2008 by ngchunter]

Pulling teeth is actually fairly easy!

What. Equipment. Do. You. Use?

(hence the 'specifications' please.)

You're suddenly sounding more and more like an Enthusiast astronomer (as opposed to a professional ).

Originally posted by golemina
You're suddenly sounding more and more like an Enthusiast astronomer (as opposed to a professional).

When did I say I was a professional? I'm an amateur astronomer and that's all I've ever claimed to be. You're starting to put words in my mouth. So you'll stop nagging me, here is my equipment.

I currently use an 8" LX200 classic schmidt-cassegrain telescope.
www.lx200classic.com...
For a camera I use a Canon XTi, unmodded.
For looking at the sun safely I use a thousand oaks type 2 plus white light filter.
www.thousandoaksoptical.com...

What does any of this have to do with the discussion though? You're being ridiculous.

Thanks for your honest answer.

And keep up the good work astronomer guy!

Originally posted by Mozzy
so if i stand behind a tree my morphogenic fields aren't disturbed? sounds like he's describing how to stand in the shade. i don't see anything particularly groundbreaking about not standing in direct sunlight to achieve cooler temperatures.

oh i do that all the time - i love to be in the shade so that i dont feel too hot!

reply to post by deathhasnosound

What he is saying is that what scientist believe about the sun being hot is just a theory and cannot be proven with todays technology.

Well it sure looks like fire to me....Anyone dare to touch it and find out?..
...Now he does give food for thought, I guess in time we will tell.......Like the first ship that tries to land there.........PUFF!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 11-11-2008 by rikk7111]

Originally posted by rikk7111

...Now he does give food for thought, I guess in time we will tell.......Like the first ship that tries to land there.........PUFF!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 11-11-2008 by rikk7111]

Not if they go at night.

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by rikk7111

...Now he does give food for thought, I guess in time we will tell.......Like the first ship that tries to land there.........PUFF!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 11-11-2008 by rikk7111]

Not if they go at night.

HA!HA!........Thats a good one.

Anyone remember Mr wizard, I loved that show when I was a child, doing experiments at home, was so much fun learning and making a mess.........
So lets do a Mr wizard experiment at home, C'mon kids you can do it ( you too golem it's an easy one ) So the sun is a cool blue, and oddly enough so is the flame on a gas stove or even a cheap bic lighter, Ok everyone see the cold blue flame, ok stick you finger in the cold blue flame and voila, you finger freezes, right? right? Aww you must have done something wrong.........

true magnets can create energy ( a dynamo ) and gravity is not a complete theory, and static charge is Still somewhat mysterious (we know the cause and effect, just not a prevalence)......Did you know that it's not the cold that astronauts fear in space but HEAT?, they have to dissipate quite a bit of heat in space, not just from the humans in a closed system but the radiant energies provided from sol? so much for a cold sun, No space vehicles require heaters in the "cold vacuum of space'....................aint that a kick in the pants???