Reasons why I believe the sun is more luminous and why it matters to you

The sun is a roaring furnace of nuclear mayhem and the only reason one could possibly stare at it without burning one's peepers out is that something is shielding your eyes... namely, the atmosphere (or darkened lenses, etc.).

The sun does go through cycles and perhaps some we aren't aware of yet due to length of records and quality of equipment, but to reliably observe with naked eyes alone any difference in the amount of light put out by the sun is a wee bit silly... but nothing wrong with being silly once in a while, unless the silliness has people convinced they are doomed sooner than the definite later.

reply to post by buckeye13


haha you really wish don't you? lol temperature has increased, or did you miss something along the way?

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by Suspiria

 

I already said countless times I'm in Korea. just do a google search of sun from wiki, and you'll see the two pictures I posted. I don't get what you're getting at. It's getting late here, so that could be it, not your post I'm sure.

If you are in Korea I'm not sure why you would post a sunset to prove any of your claims taken literally down the road from where I live in the UK.
Not only does it prove absolutely nothing useful scientifically like everything else you've offered us, it's also glaringly hilarious to anyone who knows the lay of the land in the picture like I do.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


I guess you're trying to back door your way in to becoming relevant. It shan't work you know lol

reply to post by shortsticks


I did. You discounted it immediately and showed me some calculation involving UV radiation that was apropos to naught.

It is not my fault you do not understand basic science, but we already have plenty of Henny Pennys running around here, so what's one more, eh?

reply to post by Baddogma


no, your post is just silly. wish I could say more, but it is what it is.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Its healthy if you look at it 1hour before it sets and within 1hour of it rising.

Check this out.
in5d.com...

reply to post by Suspiria


not sure why you'd use 'if'

the sunset happens every day, why should I take a picture of it? to keep you from getting off your chair even for a moment? i'm not supporting the lazy.

I am hopeful that the comment I am about to make was already made and I simply overlooked it. It is perfectly logical that the sun would appear brighter to us in our adult lives than it did in our childhood. Our eyes are much more healthier as children than as adults. As we age macular degeneration of some sort typically occurs along with a slew of other conditions that can crop up along the path to old age; in other words our eyes are not wine and they do not get better with age.

An appropriate analogy would be someone in their 40's saying that the Earth's gravity must have increased because they can't run as fast as they could in their 20's. We all know the simple truth isn't that the Earth's gravity increased and the the 40 year old man is simply suffering the side effects of being 40. The same can be said of this notion that the sun is brighter than it was in someone's childhood; that it isn't the brightness that has increased but the effectiveness of one's vision that has decreased.

I am hopeful that the comment I am about to make was already made and I simply overlooked it. It is perfectly logical that the sun would appear brighter to us in our adult lives than it did in our childhood. Our eyes are much more healthier as children than as adults. As we age macular degeneration of some sort typically occurs along with a slew of other conditions that can crop up along the path to old age; in other words our eyes are not wine and they do not get better with age.

An appropriate analogy would be someone in their 40's saying that the Earth's gravity must have increased because they can't run as fast as they could in their 20's. We all know the simple truth isn't that the Earth's gravity increased and the the 40 year old man is simply suffering the side effects of being 40. The same can be said of this notion that the sun is brighter than it was in someone's childhood; that it isn't the brightness that has increased but the effectiveness of one's vision that has decreased.

Originally posted by Cornczech
reply to post by mainidh

 

"I wonder if the people who think the sun is getting brighter and hotter, are ALL the same people who stared at it as a kid."

The sun doesn't give you eye cancer....genetics and bad luck does....(I work in ophthalmology)

THAT aside...I don't stare at the sun...I love my retina too much to damage it that way...BUT....I have told my husband for the last several years that the sun FEELS HOTTER then it used to...I can actually feel it COOKING my skin...now..I AM 45 years old and it could just be my white skin getting old....but..I ALSO notice the shadows are longer sooner....like the Earth has shifted...

My 2 cents...which is now worth about half,,,,,

I pounced on your post without reading the rest of the thread because I am the same age as you. I am not white, I'm racially mixed and while I don't get actual sunburn any worse than in my youth I can definitely feel a searing concentrated heat from the sun instead of a nice warming like I used to.

I did stare at the sun as a kid. Miraculously I don't show any damage now from that. Either the damage did somehow heal over almost 40 years or having dark brown eyes and good guardian angels and a heaping helpful of good luck saved me. I still usually do not wear sunglasses. I can still take the brightness through my coated non tinted prescription lenses (for myopia).

I agree the tint has changed from a golden to a more blue-white or pure white hue. I don't think this is due to me staring at the sun as a kid because the hue stayed golden until I don't know, maybe about 15 years ago or something?

My kid does still use a yellow crayon to draw the sun. That's because white doesn't show up on her drawing paper. But she says the sun is white, except in her drawings and her storybooks. She can not look up at the sky at all I the general direction of the sun, unlike me as a kid. She wears sunglasses. She does not have light colored eyes.

Okay now I'd better catch up with the rest of the thread.

Originally posted by shortsticks

Originally posted by buckeye13
-Op, I am sorry, but luminous is not the correct term here.

A star's luminosity is determined by it's distance away from us and it's apparent brightness. What you mean to say is that it is becoming brighter, not more luminous. Brightness also has to do with temperature, the more bluish that the star looks the hotter, and conversely the more red a star, the cooler it is

But that does not make any sense either, because a star's lifetime has to do with the fuel it has for nuclear reactions. Stars only use 10% of their mass as energy in the form Hydrogen Fusion so to say that anything is being added to increase this reaction has no basis in the real world. Our sun, through it's lifetime, will only cool down (except on the core- temp will increase) and expand.

Furthermore, there are hundreds of scientists looking at the sun everyday and measuring it's apparent brighness, it's distance away from us (even though that is fairly stable) and it's luminosity. The change in color would cause a change in wavelength on the visible spectrum, which would have sounded an alarm bell somewhere as this technology is fairly common and is used by astronomy students worldwide.

Source: I am an astronomy major.

I'm glad you're an astronomy major and not English, because your usage of it's versus its is kind of glaring to me. But I'm willing to overlook that fact.

Unfortunately I can overlook your mountain of erroneous thinking. The sun is not a giant ball of nuclear reactions. Has anybody sustained a proposed nuclear fusion model from start to finish? Absolutely not. But this doesn't surprise me in the least. Conditioning starts at the earliest of ages, and you aren't the exception.

First of all, his English, grammar, spelling, what have you, is fine. Second, he is right and you are wrong, the Sun exists because of nuclear reactions. Third, you come across as a jack ass because he proved you wrong. Like I said in my first post, take an Astronomy class or better yet, buy a book about Stars and Galaxies if you really want to know about the Sun. Otherwise, you're just making information up based on your childhood memories.

The Sun's Interior: Core

science.howstuffworks.com/sun2.htm

The core starts from the center and extends outward to encompass 25 percent of the sun's radius. Its temperature is greater than 15 million degrees Kelvin [source: Montana]. At the core, gravity pulls all of the mass inward and creates an intense pressure. The pressure is high enough to force atoms of hydrogen to come together in nuclear fusion reactions -- something we try to emulate here on Earth.

Originally posted by Cornczech
reply to post by mainidh

 

"I wonder if the people who think the sun is getting brighter and hotter, are ALL the same people who stared at it as a kid."

The sun doesn't give you eye cancer....genetics and bad luck does....(I work in ophthalmology)

THAT aside...I don't stare at the sun...I love my retina too much to damage it that way...BUT....I have told my husband for the last several years that the sun FEELS HOTTER then it used to...I can actually feel it COOKING my skin...now..I AM 45 years old and it could just be my white skin getting old....but..I ALSO notice the shadows are longer sooner....like the Earth has shifted...

My 2 cents...which is now worth about half,,,,,

I pounced on your post without reading the rest of the thread because I am the same age as you. I am not white, I'm racially mixed and while I don't get actual sunburn any worse than in my youth I can definitely feel a searing concentrated heat from the sun instead of a nice warming like I used to.

I did stare at the sun as a kid. Miraculously I don't show any damage now from that. Either the damage did somehow heal over almost 40 years or having dark brown eyes and good guardian angels and a heaping helpful of good luck saved me. I still usually do not wear sunglasses. I can still take the brightness through my coated non tinted prescription lenses (for myopia).

I agree the tint has changed from a golden to a more blue-white or pure white hue. I don't think this is due to me staring at the sun as a kid because the hue stayed golden until I don't know, maybe about 15 years ago or something?

My kid does still use a yellow crayon to draw the sun. That's because white doesn't show up on her drawing paper. But she says the sun is white, except in her drawings and her storybooks. She can not look up at the sky at all I the general direction of the sun, unlike me as a kid. She wears sunglasses. She does not have light colored eyes.

Okay now I'd better catch up with the rest of the thread.

reply to post by Furbs


yes I already said that can't go toe to toe with specific technical details. if you claim victory in that fact, then so be it. I don't really care.

It is probably not politically correct, in this age of Rush Limbaugh, (who functioned as Bush's climate change czar), to bring up science in a topic devoted to things that effect climate but here goes:

upload.wikimedia.org...

0 represents the present


we are on a significant downtrend in solar insolation since the 90's, meanwhile the solar spectrum remains, as it always has, at least as far as human history goes, as a 5800 K black body.

So it looks like we are stuck with Al Gore to explain why the temperatures are going up.

reply to post by rojero98


I would love to be a sun-gazer. I know we should be. but it's so practically impossible nowadays that well, we simply can't. the sunrises and sunsets are too much still now even. you'd think we could at those two prime times for viewing, and if you can then good on you. I can't.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


ahhhh I'm laughing so hard at your post it's hard for me to type this now! anyway, thanks lol

Click here for more information.

[SNIP]

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by Furbs

 

yes I already said that can't go toe to toe with specific technical details. if you claim victory in that fact, then so be it. I don't really care.

Yes, that is what you claimed, however, you never actually answered why you feel that way. In your mind, why is a worldwide averaging of thousands of data points spanned over decades measuring exactly what you are claiming is increasing less important that the smaller sampling of a single fixed point in time over a specific region of the world that neither of us are in.

Your initial evidence was conjecture based on biological feedback from organs that have changed dramatically in sensitivity over the past years. I could mount an argument to conclude that your eyes are seeing anything like they used to, but I am afraid you wouldn't be able to understand the biology either.

Are you merely trolling? I mean, you clearly don't care about logical discourse. You don't seem to be interested in feedback from anyone but the usual crowd of "Yes men".