PDA

View Full Version : Sun isn't a star???


Donnmathan
August 22, 2003, 02:38 PM
Might shock you guys, but the fellow who wrote the paper about how the sun isn't a star (http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/thesun.htm) actually answered an email I sent him. The email's text is posted on this thread. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60986) I thought some of you might have been interested in his answer - the guy actually dropped one of his points when I linked him to and article that shot it down (of course, it didn't hurt that the article was on AiG).

His reply:1. Convection of Energy Up from the Core: The accepted view of how the Sun transports its energy from its central core outward to its surface is the mechanism dubbed "non stationary convection." The granules that are visible on the photosphere are claimed to be the tops of laminar columns that penetrate down toward the core. Supposedly, heat (energy) is smoothly transported outward from the core in this "convection zone" via these tubes. This convection process is said to take hundreds of thousands of years. But then, why do the "granules" change shape and even disappear in a period of hours? There are some additional problems with this idea.2. Temperature Minimum Below the Corona: Near the Sun's surface, its atmosphere is coolest - the photosphere - only about 6000 Kelvin. But then, as we go farther away from the photospheric surface, the temperature of the atmosphere first begins to rise smoothly and then abruptly jumps wildly to about 2 million Kelvin in the tenuous lower corona. If radiant energy is produced at the core and radiated at the tops of those convection columns, per the thermonuclear fusion model, this wide temperature leap is not easily explained - certainly not without reference to the electric phenomena that are obviously occurring.3. Acceleration of the Solar Wind Ions: The positive ions that are the main constituent of what mainstream astronomers euphemistically call the solar "wind" move faster and faster the farther away from the Sun they get. They accelerate! Nothing in the fusion model predicts nor explains this observed phenomenon. Any student of physics who has heard of electric charge and electric fields, knows that the easiest way to get electrically charged particles to accelerate is to apply an electric field to them. The acceleration of the positively charged solar "wind" particles is clearly an electrical phenomenon. It is accurately predicted by the Electric Sun model.


I know the convection argument is off, you just have to look at a thundercloud to see that, and I know some of the science behind it. Anyone know the rest?

(To the moderators - I know this is probably in the wrong place, and I am sorry, but the addressee was someone who was putting forth bad proof of creationism, so...)

Heathen Dawn
August 22, 2003, 02:55 PM
Oh, he cites the Electric Universe model (www.holoscience.com). Just so you know: this is a brain-child of the followers of Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky was a crackpot catastrophist, citing various Biblical and mythological sources as "evidence" for planetary catastrophes. The neo-Velikovskians continue in this vein with their Electric Universe model. They oppose the Big Bang theory, among other things.

wade-w
August 22, 2003, 03:21 PM
Ummmm.... What does any of that have to do with the whether or not the sun is a star?

wdog
August 22, 2003, 05:52 PM
well gee, if dave the CPA thinks so, then so do I!!!

caravelair
August 22, 2003, 06:32 PM
that's the most blatanly moronic email i've ever read, including spam.

ex-xian
August 22, 2003, 06:58 PM
Did you get his permission to post the email? Just asking b/c I had part of a post deleted for posting a private email exchange and I didn't want that to happen to you.

Donnmathan
August 22, 2003, 10:10 PM
Good point - I feel sheepish...if a moderator would please delete the quote, excepting for the three points I need help on? I think that, at least, would be OK to keep...

Jet Black
August 23, 2003, 10:30 AM
isn't 3) just radiation pressure?

Worldtraveller
August 26, 2003, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Spike Spiegel
isn't 3) just radiation pressure?

Actually, there are 2 significant mistakes made in #3.
First, the "solar wind" commonly reffered to in popular literature, and mainstream science refers to the actual light photons leaving the sun. Photons already travel at (or near) the speed of light, they don't accelerate (AFAIK).
Second, the sun, like the earth, has a very significant, magnetic field that actually reverses polarity every 11 year or so! (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm) So I don't know how the claim that Nothing in the fusion model predicts nor explains this observed phenomenon. Any student of physics who has heard of electric charge and electric fields, knows that the easiest way to get electrically charged particles to accelerate is to apply an electric field to them.
has any weight at all.

I remember asking about the temperature difference mentioned in 2 in my college astronomy class, and current fusion models of the sun expect exactly that! Go figure...:rolleyes:
I don't feel like doing a google search on that one at the moment though. So sue me. :p :)

[edited to add this link (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sun2view.htm) to explain the temperature of the chromosphere] Damn my inquisitive mind!!

And I'm not even sure how to address the first one...I don't understand what the problem with observable changes in the sun granules have to do with disproving the fusion model.
:confused:

Just my rapidy deflating $0.02
Cheers,
Lane

Jack the Bodiless
August 26, 2003, 08:31 AM
Even if he manages to establish that the Sun is NOT powered by nuclear fusion: how would this indicate that the Sun is not a star?

He hasn't even begun to make a case that the Sun and the stars are powered by different processes.

Apparently his ONLY relevant argument is that the authors of the Bible didn't treat the Sun as a star.

Shadowy Man
August 26, 2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Worldtraveler

First, the "solar wind" commonly reffered to in popular literature, and mainstream science refers to the actual light photons leaving the sun.

Though some people may misinterpret "solar wind" to mean the photons leaving the sun, this is not what is referred to in either the popular literature or mainstream science.

SiliconWolf
August 30, 2003, 02:40 AM
The goal of this paper is to prove, using only the Bible, that the Sun is NOT a star

Ah, that wonderful Hebrew science textbook again. That's sure to explain everything! I wonder if he's seen any bats with feathers or four-legged birds around? :rolleyes:

This sounds like a case of "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts." I don't see what we could possibly accomplish by debating this guy.