Sun
« on: November 02, 2015, 07:55:48 PM »
I have been reading about the "spotlight sun"
How does the spotlight create enough heat to melt Tarmac, buckle railway lines, what is it's energy source?

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Sun
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2015, 08:46:43 PM »
I have been reading about the "spotlight sun"
How does the spotlight create enough heat to melt Tarmac, buckle railway lines, what is it's energy source?

Unknown.  There have been several assumptions made about the sun's energy source even among round earth scientists.  In the 1800s, it was presumed that the gas pressure and the sun's own gravity created the heat.  The mathematics involved implied that the age of the sun was 32 million years.

Today, the assumption that hydrogen fusion is the source of the energy implies that the age of the sun is about 4-5 billion years. 

Both were considered correct at the time, neither may be accurate.  We just don't know. (and that's okay!)

Re: Sun
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2015, 12:01:31 AM »
I wondered if anything could resist that kinda heat, so as to form a "lampshade" and I just came across this
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3178616/Have-scientists-invented-real-life-adamantium-New-alloy-highest-melting-point-known-substance-4-126-C.html

Surprisingly the article doesn't mention that temperature's nearly as hot as the sun's surface.
So I guess it's possible to have a lampshade.

Re: Sun
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2015, 07:06:45 AM »
I have been reading about the "spotlight sun"
How does the spotlight create enough heat to melt Tarmac, buckle railway lines, what is it's energy source?

Unknown.  There have been several assumptions made about the sun's energy source even among round earth scientists.  In the 1800s, it was presumed that the gas pressure and the sun's own gravity created the heat.  The mathematics involved implied that the age of the sun was 32 million years.

Today, the assumption that hydrogen fusion is the source of the energy implies that the age of the sun is about 4-5 billion years. 

Both were considered correct at the time, neither may be accurate.  We just don't know. (and that's okay!)

If the sun was just burning gas, maybe it would burn in a few million years. However, we have learned alot about fusion since the 18' hundreds and specially thanks to Einstein. And we know how fusion reactions work, we can calculate the size of the sun, and see what it is made of. This makes it very clear that fusion has to take place in the core of the sun. And that also makes perfect sence with the energy output. We can even recreate the same conditions in fusion reactors on the surface of earth. To say we don't know what fuels the sun, is ignorant.

Re: Sun
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2015, 03:51:26 PM »
There is no such thing as the spotlight sun; the FAQ is wrong and has to be modified one of these days.

Re: Sun
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2015, 04:02:43 PM »
This makes it very clear that fusion has to take place in the core of the sun.

But it doesn't.

You simply haven't done your homework.

Here is the faint young sun paradox.

The complete demonstration that the age of the Sun cannot exceed some ten million years (that is, we find ourselves right at the beginning of the main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, when no fluctuations in luminosity could have taken place); over the past 25 years there have been several attempts made to try to explain the paradox, all such efforts have failed, see the six links below.


http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf (a classic work)

http://creation.com/young-sun-paradox#txtRef15 (takes a look at Toon and Wolf's work, it debunks their earlier work in 2010: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2010/06/03/early-earth-haze-likely-provided-ultraviolet-shield-planet-says-new-cu )


“Paradox Solved” – no, hardly, as the estimates for the young Earth CO2 levels were considerably less as pointed out by a recent paper in GRL, and this paper is based upon climate models which are unable to replicate even the Holocene, RWP, MWP, LIA, 20th and 21st centuries.

A recent paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the ‘Faint young Sun problem’ has become “more severe” because to solve the problem using conventional greenhouse theory would require CO2 to comprise 0.4 bar or about 40% of the young Earth atmosphere, far greater than CO2 partial pressures today [0.014 bar or 28 times less] or those estimated for the young Earth [0.06 bar]. According to the authors, “Our results suggest that currently favored greenhouse [gas] solutions could be in conflict with constraints emerging for the middle and late Archean [young Earth].”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054381/abstract



http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.html

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581#p149562

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/full/nature09961.html



(excerpts from two works signed Dr. Danny Faulkner and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati)

Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes.

According to evolution, about four billion years ago when life supposedly first arose on Earth, the temperature had to have been close to what the temperature is today. But if that were the case, the subsequent increase in the Sun's luminosity would have made Earth far too hot for life today. One could naively suggest that Earth began cooler than it is today and has been slowly warming with time. But this is not an option because geologists note that Earth's rock record insists that Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life. This problem is called the early faint Sun paradox.

Evolution proposes that the early atmosphere contained a greater amount of greenhouse gases (such as methane) than today. This would have produced average temperatures close to those today, even with a much fainter Sun. As the Sun gradually increased in luminosity, Earth's atmosphere is supposed to have evolved along with it, so that the amount of greenhouse gases have slowly decreased to compensate for the increasing solar luminosity.

The precise tuning of this alleged co-evolution is nothing short of miraculous. The mechanism driving this would have to be a complex system of negative feedbacks working very gradually, though it is not at all clear how such feedbacks could occur. At any point, a slight positive feedback would have completely disrupted the system, with catastrophic consequences similar to those of Venus or Mars. For instance, the current makeup of Earth's atmosphere is in a non-equilibrium state that is maintained by the widespread diversity of life. There is no evolutionary imperative that this be the case: it is just the way it is. Thus the incredibly unlikely origin and evolution of life had to be accompanied by the evolution of Earth's atmosphere in concert with the Sun.

The implausibility of such a process has caused Lovelock to propose his Gaia hypothesis. According to this, the biosphere (consisting of Earth's oceans, atmosphere, crust, and all living things) constitutes a sort of super organism that has evolved. Life has developed in such a way that the atmosphere has been altered to protect it in the face of increasing solar luminosity. Lovelock's hypothesis has not been generally accepted, largely because of the spiritual implications. Indeed, it does seem to lead to a mystical sort of view.


If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3 C. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.

The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.

A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.


Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.


As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary, laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.

This apparent contradiction, between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water, has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'


See also: http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm (collapsing tests of time)

Electrical Sun: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm


DATING METHODS OF THE PAST:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735


The Faint Young Sun Paradox remains to this day one of the most devastating proofs against the spherical earth hypothesis (not nearly enough time for the earth's formation/evolution).


The best minds of modern science, for the past 50 years, have tried in vain to solve the faint young sun paradox, it cannot be done.


Moreover, no fusion can take place at the core of the sun.


Sun Neutrino Paradox

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume9/issue2/features/cull2.html

The explanation offered in the 1930s by H. Bethe (thrown out of Germany for incompetence) is completely wrong, and the modern arguments using the tau-neutrino/muon-neutrino (from electron-neutrino), and a fourth type of neutrino, do not work either.

A work which shows that the sun neutrino problem has not been solved at all:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

The 'missing neutrinos' problem is a serious one. *Corliss considers it 'one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy.' (W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 40.)


It is hoped that some type of 'barrier' will yet be found which is shielding the earth so that solar neutrinos which ought to be there since the hydrogen fusion theory 'has to be correct'will yet be discovered. But Larson takes a dim view of the situation.

'The mere fact that the hydrogen conversion process can be seriously threatened by a marginal experiment of this kind emphasizes the precarious status of a hypothesis that rests almost entirely on the current absence of any superior alternative. 'Dewey B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984), p. 11.


Scientists have searched for incoming solar neutrinos since the mid-1960s, yet hardly any arrive to be measured. Yet, they dare not accept the truth of the situation, for that would mean an alternative which would shatter major evolutionary theories.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 04:11:03 PM by sandokhan »

Re: Sun
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2015, 04:34:31 PM »
Get a grip, man! You have to understand there is a lot we don't understand about the sun of course, but we are beginning to understand the prosess of fusion pretty good, we can also recreate the conditions.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 04:48:08 PM by ISeeColours »

Re: Sun
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2015, 07:48:53 PM »
what is it's energy source?
The earth is the sun's source.  We are all in it together. 

The sun is just a focus of energy much similar to the bright spot that burns ants as you hold a magnifying glass above them. 

If you can grasp that the energy burning the ants is NOT a physical object, then you can begin to understand that sun that turns above your head. 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

Re: Sun
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2015, 08:11:38 PM »
what is it's energy source?
The earth is the sun's source.  We are all in it together. 

The sun is just a focus of energy much similar to the bright spot that burns ants as you hold a magnifying glass above them. 

If you can grasp that the energy burning the ants is NOT a physical object, then you can begin to understand that sun that turns above your head.
Wait.. The earth fuels the sun??

Re: Sun
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2015, 01:57:36 AM »
Wait.. The earth fuels the sun??
Wait... The sun fuels the earth??
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

Re: Sun
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2015, 06:34:07 AM »
Yes that is what you implied
what is it's energy source?
The earth is the sun's source.  We are all in it together. 


Second Opinion

Re: Sun
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2015, 05:42:59 PM »
what is it's energy source?
The earth is the sun's source.  We are all in it together. 

The sun is just a focus of energy much similar to the bright spot that burns ants as you hold a magnifying glass above them. 

If you can grasp that the energy burning the ants is NOT a physical object, then you can begin to understand that sun that turns above your head.
Wait.. The earth fuels the sun??

The magnifying glass is a very good thought.
Perhaps that would explain why summer occurs when the earth is farthest from the sun.
Just the right focus.