|
I am definitely very far out of my depth here, but it's such an interesting question, I just had to ask. I'm hoping for answers in layman's terms that I can follow. The question stems from our @TGunn and @Jaianniah here, where @TGunn shared this link, in which the writer states that yes, the sun is actually cold. I, like @Jai, had not heard of such a thing before. I thought it was fascinating, but the info in the linked article being too much (for me) to absorb all at once, I picked out just one small part and shared it below to ask you all about it. Is this true? "Over one hundred years ago ... the eminent astronomer Sir William Herschel suggested that the Sun may be inhabited and that the inhabitants may no more suffer from the intense heat than those who live in the tropical regions of Earth! He believed the Sun to be cool body, not a hot, flaming gas ball." --Dr. George Hunt Williamson Scientists today state that the Sun is a gigantic atomic furnace radiating a tremendous amount of heat to the satellite planets each second. The temperature at its surface is said to be thousands of degrees, and the internal temperature is supposedly in the millions of degrees. However, it is unexplainable how superheated gases can act magnetically. For it is an elementary fact of physics that a substance loses its magnetism when heated! Since astronomers have definitely recorded magnetic effects upon the Sun, we have a direct conflict between the Sun's true nature and the suggested temperature. This conflict only indicates that the Sun is not the superheated mass of gases that scientists think it is, but rather a cool body as Herschel said it was." So is that right, that a substance loses its magnetism when heated? And that because of the sun's established magnetic affects, this shows that it cannot actually be very hot? What I think I'm also asking is, if you agree with this, would you please explain why in a simpler way so that I can understand, and if you disagree, would you likewise please explain? I would really love to know what you think. Thank you, Grace :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Edit 3/7/14: This was a clumsily worded question, I apologize. I explained in comments below, but thought it may be helpful to repeat an explanation here: I included the 200 year old pseudo-science quote from Hershel above because the bit from the link that I wanted to ask about referred to it, I wish now that I hadn't, my mistake! I actually hesitated to do so, but just assumed folks here would know that I wasn't taking that suggestion seriously, but had questions on the overall premise - of the structure and properties of our sun. It's just that I have seen so many of our much-lauded modern scientific "facts" completely reversed in my lifetime, that when I see see something that diametrically opposes established scientific "fact", I try not to dismiss it without question, or I feel we will simply continue blindly following a different brand of pseudo-science - our own! :)
showing 1 of 7
show 6 more comments
|
|
There's so much faulty thinking in that linked page, I don't know where to begin. Let's examine some of his assumptions, shall we? I could go into great detail debunking all of his claims, but I will only focus on one, which is that he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how heat works. What is heat? In simple terms, it is the vibration of molecules. The faster the molecules in an object vibrate, the hotter an object is. The author spends some time discussing what boils down to a singular question: if the sun is so hot, then why is space so cold? The answer to that is quite simple; there isn't much matter in space, or at least not in the empty, interstellar space that the author is talking about. Very little matter means very little heat. By the author's own admission, if you put a thermometer in space (in low earth orbit), it would only read about 4 kelvins * if you blocked the sun's rays from the thermometer. But if you do that, aren't you basically removing the sun's influence from the thermometer? Tha author claims that, if you let the sun strike the thermometer, it will raise the temperature of the thermometer to 200 degrees. So the thermometer will read 200 degrees from a heat source that is 93 million miles away! I'll only mention one other thing. The author states that:
Well, this is just gibberish. A Morphogenetic Field is a group of cells which coordinate the differentiation process of stem cells into organs like the stomach and the heart. It is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field. It has absolutely nothing to do with temperature. Radiation and refraction are two different things, and if you're behind a tree, you're shielded from the sun's heat and light radiation. *4 degrees above absolute zero, the temperature at which all molecular movement stops. But he could do the Kessel run in 12 parsecs.
(06 Mar '14, 00:33)
ursixx
1
Thank you @Vesuvius. I hear your frustration - I can imagine, having a clear understanding of such things, this question must be infuriating for you. :) Being mostly ignorant of these things, it all sounds like Swahili to me. ;) I have one question, though; you mention space being cold because it hasn't much matter. I thought space was mostly filled with dark matter (?).
(06 Mar '14, 16:03)
Grace
@ursixx that was from Battle Star Glatica! I remember that. Also another unit of time, the centon or was that a unit of money? I used to watch that show all the time in the 80's :-)
(06 Mar '14, 16:14)
Wade Casaldi
@Grace: Conductive heat occurs due to the density of matter. You can feel that a rock is cold because it has the right density of matter in order for the heat sensors in your hand to detect a temperature. The dark matter in interstellar space is of a much lower density.
(11 Mar '14, 16:08)
Vesuvius
@Wade Casaldi - "that was from Battle Star Glatica!" - Actually, the quote ( "Kessel run in 12 parsecs" ) comes from the Cantina scene in "Star Wars - A New Hope". It is also confusing because a parsec is a unit of distance mathematically derived from the Earth's orbit. So either George Lucas was implying a shorter-distance concept (but the Earth is not in a galaxy far, far away) or, most likely, he was a bit ignorant about this astronomical terminology. But, hey, it's just a movie :)
(05 Aug '14, 01:37)
Stingray
showing 2 of 5
show 3 more comments
|
|
Hey Grace. Yes, it's true that a material loses its magnetic properties as it is heated beyond a certain point. A magnetic field is created because of movement of charges. In a bar magnet, this is caused by electrons "spinning" in the same direction. When heated this becomes chaotic and they no longer all "spin" in the same direction, thus losing magnetism. However, in the sun these charges are much freer to move about than they could in a bar magnet. They are able to flow all around the sun and so "spin" alone is not the main movement of the charges (cause of magnetic field), but their flow around the sun is. They flow due to the sun rotating, due to moving from hot parts of the sun to cooler parts of the sun and other possible reasons which we might not even have a clue about yet. It is why the sun's magnetic field is not static like a bar magnet, but sort of all over the place. That is the proposed mechanism at the moment, anyhow, called "dynamo theory" (and applies to other planets and stars too, not just the sun). There are still many questions and mysteries about it though, so it is not a bad thing to question. :) Oh and for your personal information, I personally agree with the established theory at the moment though still think it deserves questioning. I looked at the site linked and something that stuck out to me was the idea of archangel Michael living in the sun etc. I have sometimes noticed some people trying to fit spiritual ideas into a materialistic philosophy. It is odd to me and I still don't quite understand it. They may believe, or want to believe in angels (for example), but they cannot handle the idea of angels being in a spiritual form. They want to find them some damned angel skeleton, or have the angels physically living in the sun or some other such idea. They actually, perhaps even unknown to themselves, have a very materialistic worldview and believe purely in things they can see and so try and settle their cognitive dissonance in the most amazing ways. @Liam - Thanks much for explaining, and for your observations, I appreciate this. You made me think of how people continually insist the "no life is possible" on this or that planet or such and such environment. As if life could only exist in the form we enjoy. ;)
(07 Mar '14, 11:03)
Grace
|
|
HIya, @Grace....:) I assure you, the Sun is very, very hot. It is about 15 million degrees Kelvin-, and we are lucky to be 93 million miles away from it! The idea that anything biological could be living inside the Sun is absolutely preposterous. The interior pressure of the Sun is so huge It is beyond imagining-- assuming you could withstand the heat! The Sun is very magnetic, ad its effects extend well beynod Pluto. Go here for the facts about our Sun. Thank you for everything, btw, and love to you! Jai. @Jaianniah - My pleasure. ;) And thanks for your answer. I don't think anyone has mentioned one bit I was wondering about... Do you know if it's true that substance loses its magnetism when heated? If that's true, I don't know where to fit it in my mind regarding the sun, and if it isn't, I wonder what the author could be thinking of.
(06 Mar '14, 16:11)
Grace
@Frace...will call u. o. As far as I know, metals lose their magnetism, but not helium and hydrogen suns!!!!
(06 Mar '14, 18:51)
Jaianniah
|
|
Oh Grace i really love your question, it reminds me of blubird's question «is the hidden half of the sun cold and obscur ?», and it also reminds me of when i was about 12 years old when i started seeing black light ... light energy can be white, but light energy can also be black, as in yin yang
When you start to perceive this kind of apparently obscure, contradictory idea like that the sun, a hot, bright, positive object can also have an opposing side to it that is cold, dark and negative then ... be happy and joyful
because it's an indication that you are at the center of your being. The concept of paradox itself can be used as a tool to recognize that you are appraoching a very powerful place, that is, the center of your power, These two apparently opposing ideas «the sun is hot» and «the sun is cold», are two ideas that are co-existing within you simultaneously and reveals to you that you must be in the middle ground from which they both come.
"Hot" and "cold" are mutually inclusive, that is in our world of duality they are on the same continuum and are relative. In the desert for example 60 degrees is hot and 10 degrees is cold, however for an eskimo 10 degrees is hot and -40 degrees is cold. That middle ground, that point of balance is your place of power from which you have brought into existence the apparently two contradictory ideas that the sun can be hot but it can also be cold, however because you perceive them both, it reveals to you that you are at the center of your creative being, and that you are simply perceiving reflections of the two extremities of the same continuum, expressions of the polarities of your creation ... L&L @jaz - What a beautiful and encouraging surprise of an answer. I'm amazed at your view of my question and it's origins. I thought this question had the potential to draw some scathing ridicule, but I'm just so curious, I have to ask! And here you are, making me seem like a wise and wonderful being. I'm going to pick up what you wrote and take it with me as my own truth. You made my week, thank you so much. :)
(06 Mar '14, 16:22)
Grace
showing 1 of 2
show 1 more comments
|
|
Hi Grace, There are a number of ways to respond to your question. One way would be to give you a scientific explanation of the sun in order to disprove Hershels' theory of a cold, inhabited sun. Other respondents have already done this well enough. I would rather suggest a way to look at this question and any similar question that may arise from a curious, inquisitive mind such as yours. Think of this this a preliminary step to decide whether or not you need more information.Always try to look at things from both a intellectual and intuitive perspective. For this particular question, you really only have to consider two options: A. 200 years ago an astronomer suggested the theory that the sun was actually cold an in fact inhabited. Intellectually: He was an "eminent" scientist of that time so had a current understanding of physics. He had telescopes and limited technology. Intuitively: Hmm cold and inhabited? What does your intuition tell you. Compare that with: B. Today where would Hershel fit in amongst the thousands of Astronomers and scientists specializing in every aspect of Astronomy an research of the sun, and solar system in particular. Intellectually: 200 yrs. worth of additional data collected. A vast amount of technology available: High speed computers for gathering and assessing collected data, space based telescopes with far greater magnification, telescopes designed to detect properties beyond What is visible. Radio wave scopes detect noise, X-ray scopes, gamma ray, infrared and all capable of recording images and minute changes. Intuitively: Who is more qualified to determine the suns true nature? Conclusion: No further inquiry needed on this question. That is what I would conclude, however, that is with the understanding that other may not agree. Again, my intention is to suggest an initial step for questions of this nature. Hope this helps! :) @i4cim2b - :) Thank you for your answer. I should explain, I included the quote from Hershel because the bit from the link I wanted to ask about referred to it, I wish now that I hadn't, my mistake! I actually hesitated to do so, but just assumed folks here would know that I wasn't taking that suggestion seriously, but had questions on the overall premise - of the structure and properties of our sun.
(07 Mar '14, 11:33)
Grace
1
...I have seen so many of our much-lauded modern scientific "facts" completely reversed in my lifetime, that when I see see something that diametrically opposes established scientific "fact", I try not to dismiss it without question, or I feel we will simply continue blindly following a different brand of pseudo-science - our own! :)
(07 Mar '14, 11:34)
Grace
|
|
When I go into the sunlight I feel warmer. If something was sitting in the sunlight for hours, and I put my hand on it, it is warm. The most common thought form about The Sun is that it is 'hot' and that is what we (as a collective) created in our reality. |
If you are seeing this message then the Inward Quest system has noticed that your web browser is behaving in an unusual way and is now blocking your active participation in this site for security reasons. As a result, among other things, you may find that you are unable to answer any questions or leave any comments. Unusual browser behavior is often caused by add-ons (ad-blocking, privacy etc) that interfere with the operation of our website. If you have installed these kinds of add-ons, we suggest you disable them for this website
Kind of adds something to the phase " just chillin' in the sun "
Chillaxin'. ;)
We have progressed since over one hundred years ago. I think I trust NASA more than this man and his postulations about the sun based on surmising of what could be.
what we have now are theories. more knowledge or facts will amend what seems to be the most plausible explanation. some would say it is a lense that focuses cosmic energy upon the planets within its solar system. and when we learn more about these planets and as our probes get closer to this life sustaining body more of the truth will be known
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8307317/Nasa-probes-capture-first-panoramic-images-of-Sun.html
http://m.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24369363
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5244/20131209/nasas-iris-probe-captures-images-violent-dynamic-sun.htm
science is based on observation of what is going on in the universe ... so the observed universe is subject to the level of perception of the scientist, perception is subjective, that is different for each human .... conclusion, science is just another belief system and there is nothing factual about it, that is why it continually evolves with the expansion of consciousness of humans
@jaz: I don't think so. Science is based on facts supported by verifiable and repeatable evidence. While science does evolve in the sense that techniques and methods get better, the fundamental principles behind science do not. Science is based on results; if you get correct results, then by definition the science is factual. I suppose you could claim that "everything is an illusion," but science has nothing to say about such hand-waving.