It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our Sun is Cold And Inhabited With Life.

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

Did it escape you that the 'normal' temperature gradients were in FACT REVERSED (during my little hike
). I couldn't tell from your 'variables' this 'response'...


Happens all the time.
It's called an inversion layer and has several different causes.

Usually, within the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) the air near the surface of the Earth is warmer than the air above it, largely because the atmosphere is heated from below as solar radiation warms the earth's surface, which in turn then warms the layer of the atmosphere directly above it.

How and why inversions occur

Under certain conditions, the normal vertical temperature gradient is inverted such that the air is colder near the surface of the Earth. This can occur when, for example, a warmer, less dense air mass moves over a cooler, denser air mass.



en.wikipedia.org...(meteorology)

[edit on 1/21/2009 by Phage]




posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
That somehow YOU think the atmosphere should conform to some static model (PVT based, of course!
) is surprising.

You were talking about ice melting when I responded, that's not relevant.


Did it escape you that the 'normal' temperature gradients were in FACT REVERSED (during my little hike
). I couldn't tell from your 'variables' this 'response'...

Did you read my post? Apparently not. Did it escape your attention that you reversed from your original claim in doing so? Taken at face value I'd have to say you just proved yourself wrong - it gets hotter closer to the sun - that's the result of the shallow logic you originally invoked. Did it escape your attention that you also introduced a new variable into your claim? It's like you didn't read a word I said, you just went ahead and wrote a response.


I guess it would only be fair to say, that the only place you could take an accurate sampling of light from the sun would be OUTSIDE our atmosphere.

You can get adequate spectra on the ground, and you can definately determine the temperature of the sun on the ground accurately since the peak radiating point of its spectra is within the visible wavelengths at around 500nm.


I do have one question... What do you make of the 'greenhouse effect'?

Do you seriously think the greenhouse effect accounts for the difference between temperature at sea level and on a mountaintop? If not, what does this have to do with anything?


About the sublimation... Sorry, not right.

Goes from ice to gas (NO middleman
).

Also no layer of water on the ice in your freezer. Just goes to gas.

Ice in your fridge doesn't have a thin layer of water? Why is ice slippery then? Ice always has a very thin layer of quasi-liquid water on it, even at inhumanly cold temperatures:
www.exploratorium.edu...



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Hey there NgcHunter.


It might be just me... But I think it would be awesome if you actually made some definitive statments... You know like pop out of this rhetorical mode as I have NO clue what you are talking about.

Whatever it is, you seem to be 100% behind it, but I can't seem to crack the veneer of your parlance.



I will try to summarize what I stated in the last serveral posts.

I was pointing out for you that this weekend we had a peculiar weather system... The HOT air was on top of the particular 3 layers I walked thru.

On the next block...


>'You can get adequate spectra on the ground, and you can definately determine the temperature of the sun on the ground accurately since the peak radiating point of its spectra is within the visible wavelengths at around 500nm.'

We've covered this a LOT.

But I have infinite patience.


If you look at one of the cornerstones of the premise I am futilely attempting to get you to look at...

You can NOT measure the Sun's spectra... Because it is NO LONGER the Sun's sprectra. It has been filtered by the atmosphere and ALREADY undergone shifting and absorption.

You can NOT measure the Sun's temperature, because you are relying on an earthbound technique, that simply does NOT apply, because the Sun represents an entirely different energy form/source than a conventional heat source.

And in case it slipped by you, you can NOT have something be part of the supposition simultaneously being part of the proof.

>'Do you seriously think the greenhouse effect accounts for the difference between temperature at sea level and on a mountaintop? If not, what does this have to do with anything?'



Despite those nitwits who believe humans in their infinite glory are responsible for global warming and that global warming IS occurring, attempts at hijacking the term, the 'greenhouse effect' actually references the wavelength shift that occurs when sunlight goes thru glass and is converted in large part to infrared.

So, I will ask the question again:

What do you make of the 'greenhouse effect'?

Sublimation, again...

>'Goes from ice to gas (NO middleman).'

Don't care what that (goofy) website says...

Some people refer to it as a phase change, in theory it's supposed to require (the absorption of) LOTS of energy...

It's one of those enigmatic things, just a little mysterious...

It just happens.

The only variation between the fridge and the Sun frying frost is the method by which the needed kinetic energy is imparted.

I won't go into great detail about my opinion about the REAL mechanics of why some of these things occur, but in a nutshell it has to do with resonance state transference.

Let's just say it happens.

Finally, you've suggested that I haven't given due consideration to PVT, my criticism has been basically it's an ideal, and is a lock in only a narrow range of values, really only practical IN THE LAB.

Unjust?

I don't think so.

I can't think of any natural occurances where the Earth's atmosphere is confined to a container of fixed volume.


Does that bring us up to date?



PS. Good point Phage. Thanks for the info.


I guess the only thing I would add is that the coverage of conditions dealing with inversions is incomplete. It's NOT always as simple as the suggested model is promoting.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by golemina]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
I have NO clue what you are talking about.

I'm not surprised. Take some science classes and maybe you'll start to get it.


I can't seem to crack the veneer of your parlance.

It's called science and it has specific terminology that you're apparently unfamiliar with.


I was pointing out for you that this weekend we had a peculiar weather system... The HOT air was on top of the particular 3 layers I walked thru.

So you found a situation with extra variables and, thanks to your dogma, you're unshakeable in the belief that it somehow disproves the usefulness of pv=nrt in the original situation you proposed, even though it also violated your own original assertion. Amazing. It's too bad I can't link to another forum where this discussion was had. There was someone there essentially arguing your point of view, but he made a much better attempt at it and was actually familiar with the appropriate terminology and formulae. Even if he was wrong, it was much more informative.


We've covered this a LOT.

You gave up on this argument ages ago. You really want to start this again? Even a lightbulb works as a good example of a blackbody radiator.
www.vias.org...


You can NOT measure the Sun's spectra... Because it is NO LONGER the Sun's sprectra. It has been filtered by the atmosphere and ALREADY undergone shifting and absorption.

The sun's spectra in visible light has not been absorbed significantly enough to thow off our temperature measurement, and since the location of the peak in wavelength reveals the temperature and not intensity, as long as the shape is retained the measurement is accurate. Any absorption lines will show up and can be accounted for. If they caused any problem at all it would be to make the spectra look less like a black body radiator, not more.

You can see where absorption lines occur, but clearly they do not throw off our measurement of visible light.


You can NOT measure the Sun's temperature, because you are relying on an earthbound technique, that simply does NOT apply, because the Sun represents an entirely different energy form/source than a conventional heat source.

The sun is a good example of a black body radiator, it has a fairly smooth spectra curve, therefore we can use that to determine temperature. It applies, it works regardless of whatever you think is powering the sun.


And in case it slipped by you, you can NOT have something be part of the supposition simultaneously being part of the proof.

An incandescent lightbulb's spectra can be used an example of a black body radiator, and because the shape matches that of the sun it proves the sun is also a black body radiator.



the 'greenhouse effect' actually references the wavelength shift that occurs when sunlight goes thru glass and is converted in large part to infrared.

LOL, wrong. Glass is not converting visible light to infrared, reflected light which is reemitted by the plants partly in infrared is partly "trapped" by the glass. Again, I ask why you think the greenhouse effect will occur significantly differentially between a mountain and sea level?


>'Goes from ice to gas (NO middleman).'

Don't care what that (goofy) website says...

So you plug your ears and cry "lalalala," I got it.


Finally, you've suggested that I haven't given due consideration to PVT, my criticism has been basically it's an ideal,

You've failed to demonstrate what the assumptions of the formula are and you've utterly failed to qualify what range of values it will work for. The truth is, it works plenty well enough for our purposes here. If you want something more advanced to model it down more accurately, use this:



This, of course, is overkill due to your unreasonable demands that PV=nRT is insufficient, a demand you still haven't substantiated at all. Notice that you're still wrong even according to this formula - temperature is proportional to pressure.


I can't think of any natural occurances where the Earth's atmosphere is confined to a container of fixed volume.


This is your first mention of volume. So as pressure goes down volume will go up, very good, but is it a zero-sum game or not? For that we need the adiabatic expansion equation

In other words,
(1-1/gamma) (-1/gamma)
P = (nR)/(V0) * P0 * T
Gamma = 1.4 for air on earth, therefore pressure decreases faster than volume increases, thus temperature goes down.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
That's just a few dozen too many insults big guy.

I just today told someone...

This is ATS.

We simply don't argue.

Well, most of us don't...

You're on your own.




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


NGCHUNTER: Dude I just wanted to say that you deserve some type of an award or something. You are the god of patience, I would have flamed this guy to the point of being banned by now.

Kudos to you NGC, your the man



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by XTexan
 


Nah, get real XTexan.

You just have got to recognize a good old fashioned Texas fillibuster when you see one.




posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Not sure I want to get in the middle of this barn burner. I've wondered about this topic for years. A little backroud first. My two main sources of info. at this time are Sheldan Nidle (3 astounding books-"Your'e Becoming A Galactic Human", "Your First Conctact" paoweb.com) and my spiritual path Eckankar. The former master had some info. on this subject in a book called "Your Right To Know". He said the sun is not as hot as it's thought to be. Nidle said the same thing. Unfortunately they didn't say how hot it is. The master said the sun's magnetic pull, pulls the molten core of the earth closer to the surface creating friction and that's what makes our seasonal heat. Nidle and Patrick Bellringer of Fourwinds10.com believe in the Hollow planet theory. I've always had a problem with that theory with the possible exception of our moon. His newest DVD gets into this stuff with much more depth but still falls short for me. So at this time I'm still in the molten core camp.
I can think of a few examples of heat without heat. Microwaves can cook without heat. Could the results we see in space be caused by micro waves etc. and not heat from the sun? Nidle also mentioned some beings he met who called themselves the Solarians. They said they were from the sun. I don't know if they are 3d physical beings or spiritual beings. Nidle is supposed to be a lifelong contactee who has an implant in his ear that lets him hear the Sirrians like a telephone call.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sargoth
I can think of a few examples of heat without heat. Microwaves can cook without heat. Could the results we see in space be caused by micro waves etc. and not heat from the sun?

I'm a little unclear here, are you saying that the cosmic microwave background causes earth's warmth, and if so, how is that compatible with the change in seasons? Or are you saying that the sun's own microwave emissions account for most of the earth's heat? If the latter, do you understand how heat transfers in the vacuum of space? It's by radiative transfer only. Microwaves are just another part of the total spectrum of light emitted by the sun because the sun is effectively a black body radiator based on its temperature. In other words, even if microwaves made up the bulk of the sun's emissions (they don't even come close), the earth would still be heated by the transfer of heat from the sun via radiation, though the earth would be much much colder, as would the sun.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
No, I said i lean to wards the idea that the sun's magnetic pull, pulls the molten iron core closer to the surface which creates more friction and heat. That heat would come up through the ground and ocean vents and volcanoes which warms the seas which in turn warms the air. etc. That would account for the seasons.
I was also speculating and asking if it could be microwave energy that causes some of the effects we see in space? Because I don't quite understand how heat can be transfered through space and our atmosphere. I always thought the fact that the upper atmosphere and mountain tops were colder than the lower atmosphere and valleys was an indicator that heat didn't make it through. Please keep it simple for us average joes.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sargoth
No, I said i lean to wards the idea that the sun's magnetic pull, pulls the molten iron core closer to the surface which creates more friction and heat. That heat would come up through the ground and ocean vents and volcanoes which warms the seas which in turn warms the air. etc. That would account for the seasons.

That wouldn't even account for the rapid swing in temperture between night and day, especially in a desert away from oceans and volcanoes. Most importantly, it would fail to account for something as simple as the feeling of heat on your face coming from the direction of the sun in the sky, which can be quantified by measuring the amount of light energy received per square meter.


I was also speculating and asking if it could be microwave energy that causes some of the effects we see in space?

What effects? I assumed you meant heat, but obviously you mean something else.


Because I don't quite understand how heat can be transfered through space and our atmosphere.

Radiative transfer in space, convection and radiative once in our atmosphere.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.engineeringtoolbox.com...
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


I always thought the fact that the upper atmosphere and mountain tops were colder than the lower atmosphere and valleys was an indicator that heat didn't make it through. Please keep it simple for us average joes.

I tried to keep it simple before, but the "simplified but good enough" version gets nitpicked and then I have to explain the more complex model, or people wish to assume examples where there is an inversion layer or some other extra variable outside the standard situation and example. Here again is the simple version: as pressure decreases with altitude, temperature decreases. PV=nRT. Volume does increase with decreasing pressure, but the pressure falls off more rapidly than the volume as can be proven using the adiabatic formula I mentioned earlier in the thread.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I'm sure all the processes you mentioned are in play too. Another thing I forgot to mention was the former master said that in the sunlight, the photons are polarized,(more focused) creating higher temps. in the shade they are more scattered (lower temps).
The effects I was thinking about are like the movie Armageddon. Remember when they are on the asteroid, when the sunlight hit, all hell broke loose. Those extremes seem so radical that I was trying to think of anything else that could be responsible. Micro waves was the only thing I could think of. Are there ways of knowing which it is? Microwaves or Heat?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sargoth
I'm sure all the processes you mentioned are in play too. Another thing I forgot to mention was the former master said that in the sunlight, the photons are polarized,(more focused) creating higher temps. in the shade they are more scattered (lower temps).

Direct light versus indirect light? Actually indirect light tends to be highly polarized, which is why counter-polarized sunglasses cut down on reflected glare.


The effects I was thinking about are like the movie Armageddon. Remember when they are on the asteroid, when the sunlight hit, all hell broke loose.

Well first off I could be wrong (only seen armageddon once, thankfully), but it sounds like you're actually describing the movie Deep Impact. Suffice it to say it's just a movie and they took a little liberty exaggerating the effects a bit for drama. That said, comets are unpredictable and unstable - comet holmes was proof of that. Comets are unique because their combination of "volatile" ice and very low gravity mean that it's easy for stuff to escape the surface. I don't know if drilling a bit on one's surface would automatically cause a new jet to form in that place, but the movie definately seemed to exhaggerate the prevalence of jets on its surface a bit for dramatic effect.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Last night was a show and a question was,
How long could you survive in space without a space suit.

A former NASA tech said first you woul pass out in 7-12 seconds from lack of air, then you would turn blue and swell to twice your size and that your side facing the sun would burn as temperatures pass 200 degrees but your side not facing the sun would freeze at -200 degrees, so you would freeze and cook at the same time.

If the dark matter of space does not get heated and something needs to intercept the suns rays to create heat, then would this not seem that the cold sun theory is plausible?


Oh the answer was 1-1/2 minutes. But you wouldn't be conscious for your last breath or heart beat.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by deathhasnosound
 


Of course the sun is cold, many great scientists have stated this over the years. Nikola Tesla and Victor Schauberger were two of the first great scientists to state that.

Many scientists state that the surface of the Sun is 10,000 degrees, while the core is 15,000,000 degrees in temperature; those figures are absurd.

At 15,000,000 degrees the Sun would burn out in 10 minutes just like Nikola Tesla stated. At 15,000,000 degrees all Elements and all of their combinations on the Period Table of Elements would be incinerated at that temperature.

The Sun is magnetic in nature, there is too much magnetism there because of the magnetic pressure, and no life could exist there that we currently know about because the magnetism would short circuit everything since it is so strong.



[edit on 23-3-2009 by RussianScientists]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by deathhasnosound
 


yes you lose temperature due to gaining altitude due to a decrease in atmospheric density, your body will recieve as much energy, possibly more, but as was mentioned earlier, air convection will carry it away, and if air is cooler then you feel cooler
so i still dont see how this proves your point?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by deathhasnosound

Originally posted by logicalview
Unfortunately the core of the sun is an estimated 15 million degrees celcius.
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 if anyone believes that why dont we build a big rocket put them all in and they can go visit the sun people and also collect the DARWIN award for that year!


www.darwinawards.com...

Just read some of the other comments on here re magnetic pull on the molten core , the sun burning up in 10 seconds etc Is it me or are we heading back to the DARK AGES.

Next thing someone will say the bibles true!

[edit on 24-3-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
SO you are saying the gigantic ball of fire which is condensed hydrogen is cold?

Yet the avg surface temp is 6k C?


But on the internet I am suppose to believe some nut bucket.


Mass (kg) 1.989e+30
Mass (Earth = 1) 332,830
Equatorial radius (km) 695,000
Equatorial radius (Earth = 1) 108.97
Mean density (gm/cm^3) 1.410
Rotational period (days) 25-36*
Escape velocity (km/sec) 618.02
Luminosity (ergs/sec) 3.827e33
Magnitude (Vo) -26.8
Mean surface temperature 6,000°C
Age (billion years) 4.5



Principal chemistry

92.1% Hydrogen
7.8% Helium
0.061% Oxygen
0.030% Carbon
0.0084% Nitrogen
0.0076% Neon
0.0037% Iron
0.0031% Silicon
0.0024% Magnesium
0.0015% Sulfur
0.0015% All Others


And the sheer gravity of the sun, yet there are beings living there?


Well I guess this is where that invisible man in the sky who tallies the death of every insect lives, since we are throwing all logic out the window.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
So the sun is a star and not a planet (and 6000 degrees Centigrade)?

You know this how, jfj123?

Doesn't it bother you when you go to the peak of a mountain (while hiking of course
)...

And instead of it being hotter (because there is less atmosphere and you are closer to the sun...
), it's COOLER?

Doesn't it make you wonder?

Hmm....?



[edit on 14-1-2009 by golemina]



No it doesn't make me wonder much at all.

Conduction, Convection, Radiation. Do you understand these concepts?

Science FTW.

Enough of this pure conjecture.



[edit on 24-3-2009 by Lysergic]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I struggled through this thread but was kept going by my admiration for your patience. Full marks for keeping on the subject and not lowering yourself to the baiting and rhetoric received!
Debated and won1



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join