It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Constitution of the Sun and Stars

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 11:48 PM
We are told from the beginning that the sun and stars are big balls of gas. But what if that idea doesn't hold water? What if the sun and stars are actually big balls of liquid with only their surface on fire (and not as hot as we are led to believe)?

Here is the link to this idea:

Our sun is just an average star, and a mere glance at it should be sufficient to convince anybody that it cannot be gaseous inside. A ball of gas would not have a sharp circular outline like the periphery of the sun. Gaseous clouds do exist elsewhere in the universe, but they do not appear as suns or stars. The periphery of the sun does, however, bear a remarkable resemblance to a horizon of ocean water. This conclusion is further corroborated by the density of the sun which is just slightly greater than that of ocean water--exactly what would be expected if the sun consists mainly of water, but with a solid core at the center.

Sure, its just an idea, but why not think about it?

The heat of the sun is probably generated by bombardment of its outer atmosphere by cosmic rays consisting of subatomic particles drawn in by the gravitational force of the sun. We have a similar heated layer in the upper atmosphere of our earth where cosmic ray intensity is much greater and the temperature is hundreds of degrees higher than at the surface of the earth. Since the gravitational force at the surface of the sun is thirty times that at the surface of the earth, it is not difficult on this basis to account for the 6000 degree temperature at the surface of the sun, without making any fantastic assumptions of interior temperatures of millions of degrees.

Now, I've been wondering for a while (I can't seem to figure out the right type of thing to type into google), how far do hot particles travel in space before they start to cool, and how much do they drop in temperature every inch/mile/10 miles (whatever distance)? Is it possible for the sun's burning portions to be only 6000 degrees (maybe more)? Could that 6000 degrees of heat travel to us without losing too much energy in the process because of the size of the sun (it is constantly giving us heat anyways, so the process is continuous, until the sun dies of course)?

I know we are supposedly protected by a lot of heat/radiation because of the Earth's magnetic field, but if the temperature extremes of orbiting Earth are between -300 something and +200 something (I can't remember the exact temp ranges, they are probably a little higher, but not much), wouldn't the temperature be higher outside of the Earth's magnetic field if the sun is millions of degrees in temperature?

I know the sun is about 93 million miles away from Earth, and the lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth was -129 degrees F (in Antartica) and the highest temperature ever recorded was 136 degrees F (in El Azizia, Libya); Mercury is about 36 million miles away from the sun and it has temperature extremes between -300 degrees F and +800 degrees F. So what am I getting at? Mercury's highest temperature is only about 6 times that of Earth's, yet it is sitting right in the furnace of the sun. It may have a magnetic field, because it is said to have an iron core, still, is it powerful enough to keep millions of degrees of heat from melting it? Mercury also doesn't have an atmosphere like Earth's (which is why it gets much colder on Mercury than it does on Earth), but I really don't think that makes a difference when it comes to higher temperatures - look at Venus, it is hotter than Mercury because it keeps the heat in (yet it is quite a distance away from Mercury)! The corona of the sun is said to range from 2,000,000 degrees F, to +3,000,000 degrees F - how could the Mercury, who is only about 36 million miles away, only receive +800 degrees F of that heat?

Again, I will ask, how far do hot particles travel in space before they start to cool, and how much do they drop in temperature every inch/mile/10 miles (whatever distance)?

I'm not saying I believe it or disbelieve it, but the idea is intriguing - physics isn't entirely concrete just yet.

Yes, this will be total blasphemy to all you astronomers and physicists out there. :-D

[edit on 7-15-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:28 AM
I was inclined to believe since the sun is the only heat source and we are talking about thermal radiation ratios as they change over distance/time. Would the void of space itself before it reaches a solid such as a planet or planetoid work as a coolant due to entropy.. what exactly makes the tempurature go down over long distances? If that is what you are wondering, then sorry for the repetitive question, just my curiousity is piqued too. I need to knaw on this for a bit...

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:33 AM
Well, I understand the temperature will decrease over long distances, but by how much and how fast do temperatures decrease in space? Especially something like hot particles coming from a very hot object.

[edit on 7-15-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:52 AM
Since we are dealing with a variable rate of change, I would know that a differential formula/derivatives would be involved in getting a known value.
We would probably need to account for an approx amount of particles per volume, a given temperature as it exits the surface of the sun(assume 1 ray of light for simplicity), and whether or not there would be objects near or on the vector path of said thermal ray. The total distance of the thermal ray before it decays would be important. Star light can reach a long ways and yet have almost no bearing on temperature, generally speaking. This should answer both questions.. it's been too long since I have studied calculus so I couldn't tell ya off the bat. Hopefully that may be enough imformation to consider in order to build either an equation set or perhaps a simlulation to find out the tempurature threshold of a given ray over a set distance.

To answer the initial question, would it be a liquid.(or what state would exibit this behavior). Plasma, though it's really an overexcited gas, does seem to have some liquid behaviors, with some unique properties as well. Perhaps in some stars that are huge and powerful, there may be an additional exotic state of matter beyond plasma. I have read material discussing the possibility of an Einstein-Boson(sp?) condensate. If such an animal existed it would be the polar opposite of what you are asking.. in that it's a state that is not solid, yet far colder than anything we could typically imagine (just a fraction of a degree above absolute zero), also possessing properties that are unique, such as the ability to slow down or even freeze light!

[edit on 15-7-2004 by Crysstaafur]

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 01:45 AM

Those are interesting things you bring up. I need to figure out the equation though. :-D I don't believe or disbelieve the idea that I posted though. But lets figure out an equation! I'd like to know it. :-D

posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 02:18 PM
The radiation from the sun is photons, right? And the absorbtion on earth creates the heat, right? If thats the case, then the energy loss of the "particles" you refer to follows the inverse square law. 1/X^2

That's all I can contribute. Hope it helps.

Interesting post too, by the way.

posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 02:44 PM
Wow....thats one wacky theory.

You said Physics isn't concrete yet, but for this to be true virtually all physics would have to be wrong.

For starters the mass of the sun would cause fussion... any thing with that mass would contain fussion where fuel (helium and hydrogen) was available.

Also you'd be bumping the measured 2.7 kelvin background radiation level to about 800 kelvin.

You'd be doing away with the only known source of any atom heavier than hydrogen and helium. Stars.

You'd be ruining electromagnetic theory because the earth's magnetosphere would have to be billions of magnitudes higher for us not to be baked by this massive radiation...instead of just having a warm layer.

You'd have to explain why this heating effect doesn't show up on unshielded planets like Mars.

You'd have to do away with all plasma physics.

You'd have to ignore all solar flare data and particle theory.

You'd have to ignore the fact that Background Radiation is measured weak while the sun just gushes radiation.

You'd basicly you'd have to uravel ALL physics based on no data at all, just an observation that the sun "looks like the ocean".

As for your question on energy loss between here and the sun the super simplified answer is there is no heat loss...the complicated one is it depends on which particles you are talking about and how they decay. Also are you refering to particle that reach our atmosphere? Because most are diflected by the Earth's magnetosphere.

posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 02:47 AM
I didn't create the theory, I'm just having fun with it. :-D I think I was referring to photon particles if I recall, but everytime I've posted on my thread thus far, I've been very tired, lol. As far as the theory goes, just think about it for a second. Is it possible for the sun to actually be a gigantic ball of liquid hydrogen with the fumes being the only thing lit (just like gasoline)? Although, hydrogen needs oxygen to burn.

Anyways, I just posted it for fun. I was seeing if anyone would really look into theory and try and see if it truly is possible. Scrutinize the link I posted a little more. :-D I'm fairly familiar with everything you posted, but I also have a very open mind for new ideas. And remember, physics has been proved wrong before - look at the Theory of Relativity, it changed everything that we know!

As I've said in almost all my post on here, I'm not believing or disbelieving it. Anything is possible in this universe. :-D

posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 03:32 AM
I think the largest problem with that theory is that it can't explain the neutrino's that are coming from the sun. We have exactly the predicted amount (if we keep in mind neutrino oscillations) that should come from the sun according to current theories. I think helioseismology can probably tell us something about the validity of that theory as well, but I don't no much about it.

There are different reasons why Mercury isn't heated that much. Space is a very very poor conductor of heat, so the heat can't reach Mercury through conduction. Radiation is the only way it can reach Mercury. The W/m^2 of the solar radiation near the orbit of Mercury is much lower than the W/m^2 of the radiation near the surface of the sun.

The energy that was near the sun distributed along a sphere with a surface of 4*pi*(696*10^6)^2 m^2 has to be distributed along of a with a surface of 4*pi*(5,79*10^10)^2 m^2. The W/m^2 therefore is (5,79/696)^2*10^8 = 6920 times lower.

Earth also gets energy from the heat in the core and from radioactive decay processes.

[edit on 19-7-2004 by amantine]

posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 03:39 AM
The Electric Universe Theory

I've been reading about this theory lately. Where electricity is one of the major forces on the universe, but not looked at by the mainstream.

he made some interest predictions about comets, that were verified what the recent flyby. You know the one that left the scientists dumbfounded and unable to explain the steep walled craters, etc...

Anyway the sun is supposedly like a big ball of electricity or lightning if you will.


posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 04:44 AM
About that site....

Something doesn't add up here.

Just as there is no invisible dark matter required in the galaxy to save the electric universe theory, there is no invisible Oort cloud of comets required to provide a theoretical comet source. In the electric universe - what you see is all you need.

Any similarities to this "believe what we tell and show to you, there's nothing else" ideology?

After all, we can't see electricity.... so we don't need it.

posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 09:39 PM

Thanks for the coming to the thread. Your information has been very enlightening, as usual. :-D Still, how is it possible for the temperature to drop that much? The sun's corona is millions of degrees, how can it drop to a maximum heat range of a little over +800 degrees F (on Mercury)? Space is a very poor conductor, but solar radiation shouldn't have such a huge drop-off in temperature.

Anyways, I'm just having fun with this - I'm not arguing with ya. :-D

[Edited on 7-20-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:22 AM
It's not that the particles have "cooled" (they don't have temperature. They have activity). It's that the "inverse square law" is at work.

Simple Newtonian physics.


posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 01:09 AM
And good example of it is campfire or fireplace, go to distance of two meters from it and you won't notice pretty much anything... but go to distance of one meter and you notice heat. (especially face is sensitive for it)

And you can make further test.
Put hand between your face and fire and you notice that while it now heats your hand it doesn't heat your face anymore so you can notice that this form of heat transfer is radiation which acts same way like visible light.

And about sun's corona.
Gas in corona is hot but it has so low density and there are only "few" particles that it can't really radiate much heat or any other radiations because its total energy density is too low.
(remember that heat is movement of particles)

Here's other example of same thing:

The Voyager spacecraft discovered that the inner portions of Jupiter’s rapidly rotating magnetosphere contain an extremely hot gas-like mixture of positive ions and free electrons known as a plasma. Voyager instruments found that the temperature of this plasma is astoundingly high, exceeding 300 million degrees Kelvin. That is much hotter than the interior of the sun, but it is so thin that it generates only a tiny fraction of the sun’s energy.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:24 AM
The inverse square law is quite relevant (that GodSlapper as well as Byrd brought up), but I still don't think it answers my question. I think I'm asking the wrong question, lol. Hmm, I need some time to come up with the right question to ask. :-D

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 09:58 AM

Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence

Thanks for the coming to the thread. Your information has been very enlightening, as usual. :-D Still, how is it possible for the temperature to drop that much? The sun's corona is millions of degrees, how can it drop to a maximum heat range of a little over +800 degrees F (on Mercury)? Space is a very poor conductor, but solar radiation shouldn't have such a huge drop-off in temperature.

I'll try to calculate an estimated temperature of Mercury based only on radiation. The calculation will be based on a lot of assumptions, but also on the laws of nature.

The output of the sun is 0,39*20^27 W. The W/m^2 = 0.39*20^27/(4*pi*(696*10^6)^2) = 640,6*10^5 W/m^2

The W/m^2 drops with a facter 6920 as calculated above: W/m^2 at Mercury is 640,6*10^5/6920 W/m^2 = 9258,2 W/m^2.

I assume that the light that reaches mercury is all the light in a circle with the radius of mercury: pi*(2,439*10^6)^2 = 1,868*10^13. That is a total of 1,868*10^13 * 9258,2 = 1,730*10^17 W. I now assume that Mercury has an uniform temperature, density and heat coefficent of 0,82*10^3 J/kg/K (the same as granite and basalt) and we use Q=mc(dT). This means the sun adds total of dT = Q/(m*c) = 1,730*10^17/(0,33*10^24*0,82*10^3) = 6,394*10^-10 K to the planet mercury every second.

Assuming mercury is a black body, we use the Stephen-Boltzmann law (source): W = sigma*T^4. We assume that all blackbody radiation is radiated into space, never to be seen again. When there is a equilibrium, sigma*T^4*surface of mercury/(mass of mercury*heat constant of mercury) - 6,394*10^-10 K = 0. This is a solvable equation:

5,67051*10^-8*T^4*4*pi*(2,439*10^6)^2/(0,33*10^24*0,82*10^3) - 6,394*10^-10 K = 0

1,56649*10^-20*T^4 - 6,394*10^-10 K = 0
T^4 = 6,394*10^-10/1,56649*10^-20
T = 449,4 K

This is a very reasonable temperature. Ofcourse mercury has an atmosphere that absorbs the radiation from the planet. Ofcourse the heat coefficient is not 0,82*10^3 for the entire planet. Ofcourse the heat distribution is not uniform. Ofcourse mercury also reflects part of the sunlight. But this number is a raw measure and shows that mercury does not have to be millions of degrees hot according to the laws of physics.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:18 PM
Thanks for the info Amantine! :-D You've more than answered my question.

top topics


log in