Our Sun is Cold And Inhabited With Life.

reply to post by uplander


Like I might have said in passing... 98/2 baby.

Guess which side of that split is CAPABLE of comprehending?

>'voluntary gullibility'
Ouch!

It would seem that the guys on the other side of 'that split' have intellects that are SO massive... the entire universe revolves around them.

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by ngchunter


Thank you! (for SO precisely making my point

)

Let's do a small recap:

golem: 'The ENTIRETY of 'science' is just total BS. '
golem: 'Please DO share with us the 'facts'.'

ngchunter: yada yada yada, formula, yada yada yada.

Do I have that right?

I can see where you get your ignorance. Plugging your ears and pretending the entirety of experimentation and observation is all wrong because you say so tends to lead to irrational ideas.

The basic thrust of my argument(s) (just in case you're slooowwww on the uptake), is that of 'basis'.

'Basis' doesn't prove anything. For instance, I do not accept your argument on the basis that you could be a robot from outer space. How's that for crazy? Two can play that game.

Does the concept of 'basis' mean ANYTHING to you?

In terms of proving anything, let alone that every scientific experiment ever done is bull, it means nothing. In terms of illuminating the source of your ignorance, it means quite a bit.

In all fairness... I should warn you that I am firm believer in the 98/2 maxim.

DO explain to me how your 'questions' are germane to the topic at hand? Don't spare ANY details on how you think 'planet X' somehow fits in...

Ok strawman, I never said it fits in, in fact I specifically stated I wasn't trying to change the subject, I was just trying to see what kind of world view you're coming from. As for my other questions, they all have direct implications on your idea of the sun's true temperature. If you think NASA lies about everything is completely fake, then that will directly impact what you think about measurements made of the sun's spectrum from space. If you think every truth, or almost every truth about space is being "swept under the rug" then that too could drive your idea of the sun's temperature. If I can undo your ignorance regarding those things then it would be a lot easier to explain to you how we can know what temperature the sun is.

Not to mention, that apparently you seem to be offering the supposition that EVERYTHING NASA has ever told the 'public' is the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I have never seen a shred of evidence that held up to the slightest scruitiny that would indicate NASA is hiding ANYTHING. That is not to say that NASA scientists are incapable of making mistakes, but I have not seen a single thing that would make me believe they were intentionally covering anything up. Furthermore, scientific misunderstandings are NEVER revealed by handwaving to the capability of a human to make a mistake, scientific misunderstandings are only cleared up by better science supported by observation. Nonetheless, I specifically asked you what you think NASA is lying about. Rather than answer the question you've chosen to mockingly suggest that it's somehow naive to think that NASA actually tells the truth. I'll ask one more time. What is it you think NASA lies about?

Where is the beef?

I'm not the one challenging the whole of science. The burden is on you to prove the whole of science wrong and show me how a century of data on the sun's spectrum and of the temperature of the earth is wrong. Here's a simple graph of the sun's spectrum, plug in the numbers and you find the sun is quite hot. Prove the spectrum wrong, if you can.
astroneu.com...

You might also consider another simplistic analogy of an incandescent lightbulb... as an emitter... in an electrical circuit. You dig?

I already trashed electic sun nonsense earlier in this very thread, but it's unfortunate for you that in your own analogy a light bulb gets quite hot even though it's electrically powered. In other words, even electric sun nonsense fails to predict a thermally cool sun.

[edit on 4-11-2008 by ngchunter]

Yo Ngchunter. To quote a famous rocket surgeon... 'Whatever'.

Hey, I always try to have fun... I never really take myself too seriously. (The search function will more than substantiate that. ).

If you want to choose to believe that a bunch of guys with huge huge klank! got into capsules powered by rockets and went to the moon!....

Who am I to argue with a true believer!

I assumed you had more than a cut-n-paste mastery of the subject... I'm sorry my attempts at piano lessons have apparently got you SO riled up.

and my bad!

After all this is ATS and the 98/2 rule... well... you know!

We'll just switch back to marketing glossy mode and state the obvious that the sun as a thermonucleur device OR (conventional) electrical emitter simply doesn't hold up to observation.

The concept of the sun being an energy emitter, but obviously NOT the source (hence the light bulb in an electrical circuit analogy ) fits the pieces and further...

The NASA bamboozlery about the sun 'being hot' conveniently masks the truth of the actual physics involved that the energy emitted from the sun is a tuned energy...

Yes... I said TUNED energy!

That resonates and of a type that the planets are capable of RECEIVING and more importantly NOT so subject to the impact of distance as expressed by the 'standard' physics equations.

Say... Isn't that somewhat the way homeopathy works? You know... An impossibly DILUTED solution EFFECTING a change in it's target?

I mean, it's not like we direct energy to tuned receiving devices... do we?

'Scientist': "That can't be cuz it violates the 7th equation of the sacred dogma."
Scientist: "Really? Tell me more!"

Bottom line:

Sun not hot.
Planets in solar system... inhabitable.
Sun not the source.

I want to thank the Op for the thread (and of course, apologize if we veered it too far OT).

I guess it's fair to say not many of the armchair (astro)physicists noticed that their precious equations...

(You DO understand it's a modeling system... NOT a reality framework, yes?)

...are kind of MISSING some important pieces?



That would be an "I don't think so!".


[edit on 4-11-2008 by golemina]

Originally posted by golemina
If you want to choose to believe that a bunch of guys with huge huge klank! got into capsules powered by rockets and went to the moon!....

Who am I to argue with a true believer!

Why should I believe otherwise when there's not a shred of evidence to the contrary as well as independent confirmation from other countries and amateurs who observed the event in their telescopes?

I assumed you had more than a cut-n-paste mastery of the subject... I'm sorry my attempts at piano lessons have apparently got you SO riled up.

Quite the superiority complex. Combined with your ignorance of basic high-school level science I'd say you're unintentionally entertaining.

The concept of the sun being an energy emitter, but obviously NOT the source (hence the light bulb in an electrical circuit analogy

) fits the pieces and further...

Light bulbs get hot, how many times do I have to say that before you understand that your pseudoscientific theory regarding electric sun doesn't support your ignorance about the sun being hot? Furthermore, if it were part of a "circuit" there would have to be a huge net flow of protons coming from the sun at all times. That is not the case.

The NASA bamboozlery about the sun 'being hot' conveniently masks the truth of the actual physics involved that the energy emitted from the sun is a tuned energy...

Yes... I said TUNED energy!

Oooohh, am I supposed to bow down to you or something because you said "tuned energy"? The sun's spectrum clearly demonstrates that it's a black body radiatior with a peak emission in the visible part of the spectrum indiciating an incredibly hot temperature.
Standard Black body curve:
www.proviso-systems.co.uk...
Sun's spectrum:
astroneu.com...
The correlation of the two graphs proves the sun to be a black body emitter and the formula given to be applicable.

Bottom line:

Sun not hot.
Planets in solar system... inhabitable.
Sun not the source.

Interesting rhetoric. Funny you haven't offered a shred of evidence to support it.

(You DO understand it's a modeling system... NOT a reality framework, yes?)

You DO understand the spectrum I just showed you is real, right? You DO understand that you've utterly failed to offer a single shred of proof that the formula given fails to model the sun's temperature properly, right, a fact proven by the tight correlation between an ideal graph and actual graph of the spectrum?

[edit on 5-11-2008 by ngchunter]

"He who knows best knows how little he knows.'

What?

You HEARD me.



Let me see if I get this right... You want to convince me of the erroneousness of something that exists OUTSIDE of the totality of the knowledge of 'science' (at least the part the 'public' is allowed to see )... using only the LIMITED tools and knowledge AND (EXTREMELY limited reality) CONTEXT(s) of that very same 'science'?



I'm sorry... This is simply delicious! (And I'm pretty sure I hurt myself laughing. ).

(I think I'm going to start a list of your maxims. You don't mind do you?)

But I digress, let me introduce myself.

I am golem.

If you haven't read any of my stuff... I play the honest observer.

And I'm quite sure you will agree... I'm an absolute(ly ignorant! that right?) idiot.

So you won't mind if I ask you just a few questions... OK?

(Whirrrrr... Wait is that sound? )

[edit on 5-11-2008 by golemina]

Originally posted by golemina
Let me see if I get this right... You want to convince me of the erroneousness of something that exists OUTSIDE of the totality of the knowledge of 'science' (at least the part the 'public' is allowed to see

)

You have it backwards, I want you to at least make the slightest effort to prove the erroneousness of one of the most basic concepts in physics, the method of measuring the temperature of an object by looking at its black body radiation curve. That requires doing a lot more than making ridiculous proposals using pseudoscientific terminology and without offering the slightest shred of evidence.

The public can easily get vast amounts of data concerning the sun's spectrum, it's no secret, and it certainly doesn't exist "outside the totality of the knowledge of science." It doesn't even require insanely expensive equipment, nor is it particular difficult to understand. Anyone who's ever heated a piece of metal sufficiently has seen the same effect as it begins to glow in visible light. This is how light bulb filaments work. If you used the same equipment you could measure the metal's temperature by finding its peak emission wavelength down in the infrared part of the spectrum.
spiff.rit.edu...
Seeing as how this is in direct contradiction to your "theory" and would not be the case if it were true, it disproves it. What you're arguing, in a sense, is that planck's law is somehow false and that you cannot measure the temperature of an object by measuring its black body radiation curve. That's got to be one of the biggest claims of all time, so I expect to see some very hard evidence that planck's law is wrong.

(I think I'm going to start a list of your maxims. You don't mind do you?)

I'm getting tired of your attitude. I have been extremely patient with you, persistently offering evidence and asking to see yours. Instead of producing the first shred of it, you insist on nothing but taunts, insults, and boasts, with the occasional wild claim tossed in.

But I digress, let me introduce myself.

I am golem.

Why you wasted server space with those two sentences I'll never know. I can see your screen name.

So you won't mind if I ask you just a few questions... OK?

Honestly, why should I answer them when you have completely refused to answer mine or produce any evidence of your claims? Unless your questions pertain directly to the sun's spectrum and how it applies to its temperature, don't bother.

That's a WHOLE lot of posturing for a guy who supposedly has 'science' on his side!

golem: 'So you won't mind if I ask you just a few questions... OK?'

You know Ngchunter... It's NOT that complicated a question.

Hint: It's a yes or no type thing.

You DO understand that, yes?

(Hurry up brother... I can't wait to talk about that Planck's stuff! You know... your 'evidence'. )

Do you want to play or just keep claiming victory?

(While we wait, any bystanders have just GOT to go to YouTube and check out the Apollo 11 LEM liftoff! I just LOVE cartoons!)

As an aside, this entire episode is a great encapsulation on what happens when ANYONE tries to talk about ANYTHING outside of the 'doctrine' of 'science'. You get ridiculed, call a few names... No! NOTHING ever gets swept under the rug.

Originally posted by golemina
That's a WHOLE lot of posturing for a guy who supposedly has 'science' on his side!

This from a person who refuses to answer a single question directly related to the subject.

Do you want to play or just keep claiming victory?

Neither. I want you to present whatever evidence you have or stop wasting my time. I can claim victory by default if you can't offer any proof. The burden of proof is on you, yet even so, I was generous enough to provide my own proof for your sake which you promptly ignored. I'm sure you're looking up planck's law right now. I'm making sooo easy for you, showing my hand before you offer the slightest shred of evidence. If you had anything you'd have posted it by now.

(While we wait, any bystanders have just GOT to go to YouTube and check out the Apollo 11 LEM liftoff!

I just LOVE cartoons!)

Thanks for further demonstrating your ignorance. The LEM liftoff was filmed using the rover cam left on the moon and controlled remotely by mission control. The operator waited until about t -1 and the commanded the camera to pan up so the signal would arrive just as it was lifting off. This was not an easy thing to time, so previous attempts actually failed, they only got it right on the final mission, apollo 17.

As an aside, this entire episode is a great encapsulation on what happens when ANYONE tries to talk about ANYTHING outside of the 'doctrine' of 'science'.

I've given you every opportunity to present evidence that the science is wrong about this, you still can't produce a thing. Do it now or forever hold your peace. This is what happens when anyone tries to disprove any well studied phenomenon with claims instead of proof.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by daz__
well direction of the tail to me is very important..
as the comet approaches the sun the tail is millions of miles behind it. this gives a casual observer the idea that something is coming off the comet.. you said the heat coming from the sun is exciting the comet forcing all this debris off the comet and out about 40 million miles into space..
ok
now the comet reaches perhelion (closest point to sun) and passes by the sun the tail changes direction.. the tail is now in front of the comet.. is the comet flying through the tail..

Yeah.... So?

You have officially confused me now as to the point you are trying to make. To me it looks as though you are saying that the heat of the sun somehow controls the direction of the comets path? The heat radiates out from the sun and as the comet passes it, you should expect the tail to shift to the opposite side, as the sun is now hitting the other side of the comet. The direction of the tail has nothing to do with the direction that the comet is traveling.
Please stop beating around the bush and explain what you are trying to say here.

Defcon...I think I understand daz's (incorrect) point he is trying to make

daz -- a comet's tail is pointing away from the Sun even when the comet is moving away from the Sum because the solar radiation the pushes the tail is moving FASTER than the comet itself.

Think of it this way: If I was walking 5 miles per hour, and there was a 20 mph wind at my back blowing in my direction of travel, my hair (if it was long enough) would still blow forward in the direction I am walking.

golem: 'Hint: It's a yes or no type thing. '
golem: 'You DO understand that, yes? '

Speeeeaaakkiinnng veeerrryyy slooooowllly:

Yes or no?

It would appear you're having just a little trouble wrapping your head around that concept...



But you're still here posturing... so we will take that as an implicit 'yes'.

Whew! (I'm glad we got that settled... ).

Alright... Let's get to it!

--------------

But first in the interest of polite conversation:

You keep harping on this supposed accusation something along the lines of '...a person who refuses to answer a single question directly related to the subject'.

That's just not what's happening brother.

I have NO horse in this race. My interest is PURELY the truth.

You simply haven't really said anything that is germane. You are attempting to portray yourself as having and communicating brilliant thoughts... but it's mostly just so much nonsense... self-bootstrapping circular thoughts using the premise as part of the solution.

Absolutely lacking one iota of methodological introspective that would even allow the possiblity of even thinking about the enormous defects in the HYPOTHESIS (which you so dogmattically present as FACT) you advance.

You bring an enormous bias... You (are attempting to ) represent the status quo.

I will give you a roadmap as to what has transpired to this point.

I happen to follow the scientific methodology.

You are flat out asserting your presentation of the 'facts' is correct... and pretty much anything I have to say is pretty much 'wasted server space'.

In keeping with the correct methodology, I am paying you the courtesy of going first, as you maintain you represent the accepted (astro)physics viewpoint, and we will progress to in effect covering the defects in all aspects of the 'reasoning' you attempt to bring to the table.

Nothing, you have said is being ignored. If it's relevant, we will bring it up at the appropriate time...

You know... using something approaching STRUCTURED thinking.

One last thing, it's a two way street brother... so feel free to bring it back to the level approaching ATS style courtesy...

If that doesn't suit you (That's OK too!) ...

Somewhere Voltaire IS smiling...

And apparently it's deliciously humorous to keep poking you in the ribs underneath that orange leather jacket of yours.

(I need a minute... There. That's better. )

--------------

You maintain this black-body thing 'proves' the sun is hot.

So are you willing to accept this page as an encapsulation of that approach?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

Originally posted by golemina
But you're still here posturing... so we will take that as an implicit 'yes'.

You're still not answering any of my questions. How about you answer mine before I answer yours?

You keep harping on this supposed accusation something along the lines of '...a person who refuses to answer a single question directly related to the subject'.

That's just not what's happening brother.

Did you answer my questions and I somehow missed it? Could you quote yourself or link me to this missing post?

You simply haven't really said anything that is germane. You are attempting to portray yourself as having and communicating brilliant thoughts... but it's mostly just so much nonsense... self-bootstrapping circular thoughts using the premise as part of the solution.

The premise is that the sun is cold. How did I use the premise that the sun is cold to prove that it's hot? I didn't. The premise never said anything about the sun's spectrum. Saying that "all science is wrong" doesn't give you the right to ignore scientific evidence. You must provide your own evidence that your claim is correct.

HYPOTHESIS (which you so dogmattically present as FACT) you advance.

The sun's spectrum is not a hypothesis, it IS a fact. It is also a fact that you can use an object's spectrum to measure its temperature.

You bring an enormous bias...

Your argument brings an enormous burden of proof which you have failed to meet.

You are flat out asserting your presentation of the 'facts' is correct... and pretty much anything I have to say is pretty much 'wasted server space'.

Well, it's true, introducing your screenname long after you joined the discussion is a waste of server space.

In keeping with the correct methodology, I am paying you the courtesy of going first,

That's not a courtesy, it's a lame attempt to stall for time so that you can try to come up with a clever approach to do an end run around my argument. I've given you enough of an advantage as it is by offering proof that would destroy a direct approach. Present your evidence. Now.

Nothing, you have said is being ignored. If it's relevant, we will bring it up at the appropriate time...

I'm sick of your arrogance, I've had it. I ALREADY brought it up, it's not up to you to bring up MY argument, it's up to you present your evidence that I'm wrong. Either present it or I'll consider this whole thing one big trolling session and ignore any further posts until such a time that you can produce a shred of evidence.

And apparently it's deliciously humorous to keep poking you in the ribs underneath that orange leather jacket of yours.

I suspect that's all you're interested in doing, annoying me. You obviously aren't here to have a debate about the science.

You maintain this black-body thing 'proves' the sun is hot.

You have yet to prove otherwise. But no, wikipedia is not an all-inclusive source of info about "black-body things" lol. I've done solar observation for years and I can tell you that's only scratching the surface. Here's a good primer to educate yourself with:
galileo.phys.virginia.edu...

NgcHunter:
>You have yet to prove otherwise. But no, wikipedia is not an all-inclusive
>source of info about "black-body things" lol. I've done solar observation
>for years and I can tell you that's only scratching the surface. Here's a
>good primer to educate yourself with:

golem: 'So are you willing to accept this page as an encapsulation of that approach?'

So what are you saying... That the page I gave you can't be used cuz it's not 'all-inclusive'?

Dude, it's not absolutely comprehensive, but it is complete enough for our purposes.

Kind of rigid approach for someone that appears to be presenting themselves as the know all on this topic.

From my honest observers viewpoint... it smacks more of someone who doesn't want to use the page because it so clearly elucidates the glaring shortcomings of your dogma.




[edit on 6-11-2008 by golemina]

Originally posted by golemina

golem: 'So are you willing to accept this page as an encapsulation of that approach?'

Dude, it's not absolutely comprehensive, but it is complete enough for our purposes.

I will not restrict myself to using a single source for any and all information about a very important subject. Did you seriously think I'd be willing to do that? You must think I'm an idiot. You could just edit the wiki entry to whatever you needed it to say to make your point and "win." Not saying you did that, but the point is you could and trying to tie me down to that single source is suspicious looking.

Change the 'wiki' page contents (During! our discussion)?

Dude... THAT is dark!

Seriously, I am flattered that I apparently have somehow come up from arrogant ignorant idiot... to somehow being CLEVER enough to 'pull an end run'...

Thanks NgcHunter... You are too kind.

...What am I going to change the physical nature of the universe or something?

The page... It's just a starting point.

Now that you bring up the concept, please feel free to correct ANY errors on that page.

If you feel the need... I'll wait. (I have infinite patience. )

Originally posted by golemina
Change the 'wiki' page contents (During! our discussion)?

Dude... THAT is dark!

Pay close attention. I wasn't saying you actually did something like that, but it's doable if one has the will. In any case it's reason enough to say no, I will not accept wiki as the sole source of information for this discussion. I'm not going to let you dictate terms to me in any case.

Seriously, I am flattered that I apparently have somehow come up from arrogant ignorant idiot... to somehow being CLEVER enough to 'pull an end run'...

It's not hard when you already know what your opponent was going to say before offering anything subsitive yourself.

Now that you bring up the concept, please feel free to correct ANY errors on that page.

I'm not going to let you lead me around by the nose any longer. You think you're terribly clever, but I'm not falling for it. I'm not going to dissect wikipedia trying to guess what your arugment will be. Make your argument with evidence and proof or I'll simply ignore any further postings.

That's quite the pattern of REAL lack of attention to detail that you seem to be demonstrating.

Does this mean you are NOT going to tell us how your vaunted 'black-body' somehow comes up with the temperature of the Earth being 255 kelvin?



Dude, I am TOTALLY into the HARD facts.

And in case, you are just a LITTLE slow... that means doing things like taking the science off of the board and using it in the REAL world... like driving your greeting card thru the window on the 3rd floor, 2nd window from the left. You dig?

It's time to put your equation where your mouth is...

So either go fix the web page (or fix the calculation) and we will continue... or I will accept that as your concession in this absolute parody of a discussion.

(BTW, you are aware that one of your 'graphs' came from a web site that disses the Big Bang. Isn't that like heresy or something? )

[edit on 6-11-2008 by golemina]

Originally posted by golemina
Does this mean you are NOT going to tell us how your vaunted 'black-body' somehow comes up with the temperature of the Earth being 255 kelvin?

This is your big deal? What you're talking about is using the Stefan Boltzmann law to calculate the temperature of the earth based on the temperature of the sun. First off, if you took it at face value that would the temperature of the sun should be far hotter, not cooler. But let's not take it at face value, because that's "not good enough" for our purposes. Stefan Boltzmann does not account for the greenhouse effect, it assumes a constant albedo across the entire surface of the earth, and it assumes a perfect lambertian surface. These are not issues when examining the sun, or even some of the other planets. For example, applying stefan boltzmann to mars gives you the right temperature. It's atmosphere is thin and doesn't retain heat well. Applying it to Venus would not reveal the correct temperature nor should anyone expect it to. Venus' thick atmosphere roasts the planet. Earlier you described the sun as a light bulb, and I ironically posted a graph of a light bulb's black body radiation. Please prove that this would not work, since by your own analogy the sun is analogous to a lightbulb lol.

(BTW, you are aware that one of your 'graphs' came from a web site that disses the Big Bang. Isn't that like heresy or something?

)

So you're saying the sun's spectrum is made up or fake? let's see you produce the "real" spectrum data then.

ngchunter, good job on staying calm with this obvious troll. When somone decides to just ignore everything and fly off into space saying the sun produces jelly beans, it can be very hard. Its sad that this person cares more for his own ego than the truth...

A read of your answer fails to account for the error.

In my reality... the surface temperature of the Earth is NOT 255 kelvin.



If you ever get around to really answering (or fixing the problem with the Wiki page) we will forge ahead...

And start discussing your problems with BASIS. (Not to mention the quite sorry extrapolation of closed system ideals to open system realities).

(Handsome contribution there Wertdagf. One of my favorite songs is 'Flock of Parrots'! )

Originally posted by golemina
A read of your answer fails to account for the error.

I accounted for the error perfectly, if you can't from an effective rebuttle against my argument I'm not suprised.

Show me where stefan-boltzmann accounts for the greenhouse effect, show me where stefan-boltzmann accounts for uneven albedo of the earth. Show me how the earth is a black body radiator (it isn't, it's a grey body with a positive albedo - the sun is the opposite, emissive). When you can do all of that you'll have an effective rebuttal. Until then, your attempt at a dodge is quite a compliment.

In my reality... the surface temperature of the Earth is NOT 255 kelvin.

And in my reality the earth's average temperature across all seasons and all areas is 288 kelvin (en.wikipedia.org...), which is remarkably close to the answer given by stefan boltzmann. The 33 degree discrepency can be entirely explained by the above that you have failed to address. Without those mitigating effects we would assume a slightly hotter sun, not a cooler sun, which you have also failed to address. That without accounting for any of these effects we get an answer within 13% of the true temperature tells me that in the worst case scenario, assuming there is no greenhouse effect etc, the sun's temperature determined by examining the temperature of the earth is within 13% of the true value. In other words, definately hot. This is also completely tangenital to determining the sun's temp through its spectrum, a concept you've completely ignored. Stefan boltzmann is not the same as planck's law.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by ngchunter]