Energy output of the Sun

  • 29 Replies
  • 5208 Views
Energy output of the Sun
« on: March 25, 2013, 01:46:50 AM »
I'm researching FET for a seminar on critical analysis, and I came up with a question that (so far) I haven't seen addressed. I'm totally ok with the FET calculation of the size and distance of the Sun using trigonometry and assuming a flat surface instead of a round one. What I want to know is if (as physics can demonstrate through spectrographic analysis) the Sun is a giant sphere of hydrogen fusing into helium, 32 miles across, does its power output match the size and distance? I would imagine that measuring the solar radiation (light, heat, uv, etc.) would be unaffected by differences between fe/re models. I have no solid data, but considering the tremendous power output of thermonuclear weapon tests, which were miniscule compared to a 32-mile diameter sphere of continuously reacting fuel, 3000 miles seems an awfully close distance, especially if the "spotlight" model for the sunlight (as far as I understand) focuses all the sun's energy onto the flat earth disk. why are we not all dying of skin cancer and why are the oceans not boiling?

or does the Sun not run on hydrogen fusion?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22796
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2013, 02:41:51 AM »
I think it's an electric sun, the same as we have an electric universe or what we perceive as a universe.
I think this nuclear sun is far fetched and simply (like most things) made up.

Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2013, 03:39:25 AM »
is all nuclear fusion "far-fetched" (us/ussr h-bomb was a propaganda device to make regular fission bombs seem more dangerous, which implies a pretty large but not altogether implausible conspiracy, as far as conspiracy theories go), or is even fission made up? (i would have a very hard time believing the latter)

how does an "electric" sun work? does fet accept that the sun is composed of mostly hydrogen and some helium or is spectographic analysis (used to identify gases on earth as well as in "the sky") a complete lie? if I'm not mistaken, you can measure it yourself using some basic equipment stolen/borrowed from a HS science lab.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2013, 08:42:38 AM »
The Sun is well known to be a quark-gluon plasma with an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of other elements. It produces energy by the mutual annihilation of quarks and anti-quarks, which is then converted into visible radiation by absorption and re-emission within its atmosphere, producing the spectrum often misinterpreted as evidence of nuclear fusion.

As an aside, this means that the Sun was larger in the past and will continue to get smaller into the future as quarks and anti-quarks are used up. Over time, it will lose mass to the point where it is no longer able to retain its atmosphere, and the shielding effect of the hydrogen will be lost, directly exposing us to high-energy gamma radiation. Unless we can find a way to replenish the Sun's mass, convert the gamma radiation into useful energy or leave the Earth, the human race will die of radiation poisoning.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2013, 08:52:18 AM »
The Sun is well known to be a quark-gluon plasma with an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of other elements. It produces energy by the mutual annihilation of quarks and anti-quarks, which is then converted into visible radiation by absorption and re-emission within its atmosphere, producing the spectrum often misinterpreted as evidence of nuclear fusion.

As an aside, this means that the Sun was larger in the past and will continue to get smaller into the future as quarks and anti-quarks are used up. Over time, it will lose mass to the point where it is no longer able to retain its atmosphere, and the shielding effect of the hydrogen will be lost, directly exposing us to high-energy gamma radiation. Unless we can find a way to replenish the Sun's mass, convert the gamma radiation into useful energy or leave the Earth, the human race will die of radiation poisoning.

That's an interesting theory. Never heard it before. If the sun was larger in the past, would that not mean there would be physical evidence of this on Earth?

Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2013, 08:54:37 AM »
The Sun is well known to be a quark-gluon plasma with an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of other elements. It produces energy by the mutual annihilation of quarks and anti-quarks, which is then converted into visible radiation by absorption and re-emission within its atmosphere, producing the spectrum often misinterpreted as evidence of nuclear fusion.

As an aside, this means that the Sun was larger in the past and will continue to get smaller into the future as quarks and anti-quarks are used up. Over time, it will lose mass to the point where it is no longer able to retain its atmosphere, and the shielding effect of the hydrogen will be lost, directly exposing us to high-energy gamma radiation. Unless we can find a way to replenish the Sun's mass, convert the gamma radiation into useful energy or leave the Earth, the human race will die of radiation poisoning.
Do you mind linking to the research papers etc where this well known information comes from.
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2013, 08:59:08 AM »
The Sun is well known to be a quark-gluon plasma with an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of other elements. It produces energy by the mutual annihilation of quarks and anti-quarks, which is then converted into visible radiation by absorption and re-emission within its atmosphere, producing the spectrum often misinterpreted as evidence of nuclear fusion.

As an aside, this means that the Sun was larger in the past and will continue to get smaller into the future as quarks and anti-quarks are used up. Over time, it will lose mass to the point where it is no longer able to retain its atmosphere, and the shielding effect of the hydrogen will be lost, directly exposing us to high-energy gamma radiation. Unless we can find a way to replenish the Sun's mass, convert the gamma radiation into useful energy or leave the Earth, the human race will die of radiation poisoning.

I would love to read some documentation of this well-known fact.  I have never seen any indication that a Quark-Gluon plasma naturally occurred anywhere in the universe, much less on our astronomical doorstep.  Could you post a link or resource where I might learn more about this? 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2013, 12:01:32 PM »
That's an interesting theory. Never heard it before. If the sun was larger in the past, would that not mean there would be physical evidence of this on Earth?

It must have been really big during the ice ages. or are those also a lie?

?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2013, 12:14:31 PM »
That's an interesting theory. Never heard it before. If the sun was larger in the past, would that not mean there would be physical evidence of this on Earth?

It must have been really big during the ice ages. or are those also a lie?

We're still in an ice age, just in a warm phase of it. But generally in the past of earth history temperature was higher than today. Since after the exepted model the young sun should have been weaker than it's now, this is known as the "faint young sun paradox":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox

Just for the sake of discussion.

*

sokarul

  • 16126
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2013, 02:20:35 PM »
The Sun is well known to be a quark-gluon plasma with an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of other elements. It produces energy by the mutual annihilation of quarks and anti-quarks, which is then converted into visible radiation by absorption and re-emission within its atmosphere, producing the spectrum often misinterpreted as evidence of nuclear fusion.

As an aside, this means that the Sun was larger in the past and will continue to get smaller into the future as quarks and anti-quarks are used up. Over time, it will lose mass to the point where it is no longer able to retain its atmosphere, and the shielding effect of the hydrogen will be lost, directly exposing us to high-energy gamma radiation. Unless we can find a way to replenish the Sun's mass, convert the gamma radiation into useful energy or leave the Earth, the human race will die of radiation poisoning.
Discounting all the other made up stuff, how does a gas mixture of hydrogen and helium stop gamma radiation?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2013, 05:44:10 PM »
The Sun is well known to be a quark-gluon plasma with an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of other elements.

And by well known he means he means not well known at all and probably just made up. Since your avatar is a dude in a lab coat the perceived likelihood of a non-nutter response is somewhat higher, so I'll ask some questions:

a) if this sun is a quark-gluon plasma (!?!) why do the spectra demonstrate conveniently that the proportion of helium to hydrogen is equal to that of what would be expected to occur from hydrogen fusion.
b) how dafuq (and by what mechanism) does it get hot enough to produce a quark-gluon plasma.
c) how do you know a quark-gluon plasma even exists, when the only demonstrable experiment I'm aware of was at CERN. Do you agree with their other findings as well?
d) how hot is the sun? How do you reconcile this temperature with the radiation emitted by it?
e) how does this sun produce energy? A quark-gluon plasma is just a proposed state of matter, where does the heat come from?

More importantly, how do you demonstrate the validity of any of your answers?
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 05:47:32 PM by jason_85 »
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

Sculder

  • 113
  • Me and Mully
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2013, 05:59:25 PM »
The Sun is well known to be a quark-gluon plasma with an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of other elements. It produces energy by the mutual annihilation of quarks and anti-quarks, which is then converted into visible radiation by absorption and re-emission within its atmosphere, producing the spectrum often misinterpreted as evidence of nuclear fusion.

As an aside, this means that the Sun was larger in the past and will continue to get smaller into the future as quarks and anti-quarks are used up. Over time, it will lose mass to the point where it is no longer able to retain its atmosphere, and the shielding effect of the hydrogen will be lost, directly exposing us to high-energy gamma radiation. Unless we can find a way to replenish the Sun's mass, convert the gamma radiation into useful energy or leave the Earth, the human race will die of radiation poisoning.

I would love to read some documentation of this well-known fact.  I have never seen any indication that a Quark-Gluon plasma naturally occurred anywhere in the universe, much less on our astronomical doorstep.  Could you post a link or resource where I might learn more about this?

I'm also very interested in reading about this. As far as I'm aware, to this date, Quark-Gluon plasma has not been proven to exist anywhere outside of very large particle colliders.
I don't want to believe.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17266
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2013, 06:39:39 PM »
why are we not all dying of skin cancer and why are the oceans not boiling?

You're assuming that the sun needs to output as much energy as it does in RET to heat the earth. Since it's much closer, it can output much less.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2013, 06:47:16 PM »
why are we not all dying of skin cancer and why are the oceans not boiling?

You're assuming that the sun needs to output as much energy as it does in RET to heat the earth. Since it's much closer, it can output much less.

This seems contradictory to the well known quark-gluon plasma hypothesis, in which the sun's core would have to be trillions of degrees and of significantly higher mass to retain said temperatures (assuming you believe in gravity). Do you not agree with that theory then?
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17266
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2013, 06:49:40 PM »
why are we not all dying of skin cancer and why are the oceans not boiling?

You're assuming that the sun needs to output as much energy as it does in RET to heat the earth. Since it's much closer, it can output much less.

This seems contradictory to the well known quark-gluon plasma hypothesis, in which the sun's core would have to be trillions of degrees and of significantly higher mass to retain said temperatures (assuming you believe in gravity). Do you not agree with that theory then?

I'm not familiar with what the theory predicts in terms of energy output.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2013, 07:31:03 PM »
I'm not familiar with what the theory predicts in terms of energy output.

Parsifal, I believe I have now gathered bipartisan evidence that your theory is not in fact, well known, as you claimed. Do you concede that this is the case?
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2013, 07:36:14 PM »
The Sun is well known to be a quark-gluon plasma with an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of other elements. It produces energy by the mutual annihilation of quarks and anti-quarks, which is then converted into visible radiation by absorption and re-emission within its atmosphere, producing the spectrum often misinterpreted as evidence of nuclear fusion.

As an aside, this means that the Sun was larger in the past and will continue to get smaller into the future as quarks and anti-quarks are used up. Over time, it will lose mass to the point where it is no longer able to retain its atmosphere, and the shielding effect of the hydrogen will be lost, directly exposing us to high-energy gamma radiation. Unless we can find a way to replenish the Sun's mass, convert the gamma radiation into useful energy or leave the Earth, the human race will die of radiation poisoning.

That's an interesting theory. Never heard it before. If the sun was larger in the past, would that not mean there would be physical evidence of this on Earth?

Not if its distance from the surface were proportionally further in the past as well. Obviously, the sun would descend as its mass decreased.

Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2013, 07:47:03 PM »
why are we not all dying of skin cancer and why are the oceans not boiling?

You're assuming that the sun needs to output as much energy as it does in RET to heat the earth. Since it's much closer, it can output much less.

My point/claim is that, if (according to FET) the Sun is 32 miles in diameter and only 3000 miles away, and if it consists of reactive hydrogen, the energy output would still be much higher than what we observe/feel. Remember that since the energy would expand/dissipate in three dimensions, it would be inversely proportional to the square of the distance (like "gravity"), so 9.3x10^7 miles vs 3x10^3 miles, distance is 3.1x10^4 farther in RET, heat would be more than 9x10^8 more direct (I admit I might be doing some "creative" math here, but as far as dimensionless ratios go, it's a fair assessment). Now for the size itself, diameter ratio would be 8.6x10^5 miles (RET) to 3.2x10^1 miles (FET), so let's approximate it to be roughly 2.5x10^4, volume of a sphere is cubic, so that makes the RET sun 1.6x10^13 more voluminous. Although, I suppose what is really important is the mass of hydrogen, which AFAIK needs to be above a critical density in order for it to ignite and sustain the fusion reaction (shit I remember from an astronomy elective years ago). So perhaps we can't say for sure how the energy of a much smaller (in volume, at least) but much closer sun would compare, but it seems to be another point that needs to be thought through. At least so you can come up with some pseudoscience to address the differences.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #18 on: March 25, 2013, 07:53:28 PM »
The Sun is well known to be a quark-gluon plasma with an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of other elements. It produces energy by the mutual annihilation of quarks and anti-quarks, which is then converted into visible radiation by absorption and re-emission within its atmosphere, producing the spectrum often misinterpreted as evidence of nuclear fusion.

As an aside, this means that the Sun was larger in the past and will continue to get smaller into the future as quarks and anti-quarks are used up. Over time, it will lose mass to the point where it is no longer able to retain its atmosphere, and the shielding effect of the hydrogen will be lost, directly exposing us to high-energy gamma radiation. Unless we can find a way to replenish the Sun's mass, convert the gamma radiation into useful energy or leave the Earth, the human race will die of radiation poisoning.

That's an interesting theory. Never heard it before. If the sun was larger in the past, would that not mean there would be physical evidence of this on Earth?

Not if its distance from the surface were proportionally further in the past as well. Obviously, the sun would descend as its mass decreased.

Why would the sun descend as its mass decreased?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #19 on: March 25, 2013, 08:42:51 PM »
Why wouldn't it?

*

Wolf

  • 133
  • Flat Earth non-believer
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2013, 02:56:01 AM »
Hmmm... I've raised this a few times. Been well ignored every time.

Here
Here
Here
lol - they actually believe the earth is flat!

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #21 on: March 26, 2013, 04:16:41 AM »
Why wouldn't it?

Because there is a universal accelerator acting on it to keep it accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2, same as the Earth. Why do you think it would descend?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Sculder

  • 113
  • Me and Mully
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #22 on: March 26, 2013, 06:49:38 AM »
The Sun is well known to be a quark-gluon plasma with an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of other elements. It produces energy by the mutual annihilation of quarks and anti-quarks, which is then converted into visible radiation by absorption and re-emission within its atmosphere, producing the spectrum often misinterpreted as evidence of nuclear fusion.

As an aside, this means that the Sun was larger in the past and will continue to get smaller into the future as quarks and anti-quarks are used up. Over time, it will lose mass to the point where it is no longer able to retain its atmosphere, and the shielding effect of the hydrogen will be lost, directly exposing us to high-energy gamma radiation. Unless we can find a way to replenish the Sun's mass, convert the gamma radiation into useful energy or leave the Earth, the human race will die of radiation poisoning.

We're still waiting for reading materials on this well know fact.
I don't want to believe.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #23 on: March 26, 2013, 03:49:32 PM »
We're still waiting for reading materials on this well know fact.

I'm starting to think it might not be as well known as he led on  :o
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

Sculder

  • 113
  • Me and Mully
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2013, 07:13:37 AM »
We're still waiting for reading materials on this well know fact.

I'm starting to think it might not be as well known as he led on  :o

It saddens me greatly that he's giving us the cold shoulder now. I was looking forward to reading about that well-known fact.  :(
I don't want to believe.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2013, 02:01:43 AM »
why are we not all dying of skin cancer and why are the oceans not boiling?

You're assuming that the sun needs to output as much energy as it does in RET to heat the earth. Since it's much closer, it can output much less.

My point/claim is that, if (according to FET) the Sun is 32 miles in diameter and only 3000 miles away, and if it consists of reactive hydrogen, the energy output would still be much higher than what we observe/feel. Remember that since the energy would expand/dissipate in three dimensions, it would be inversely proportional to the square of the distance (like "gravity"), so 9.3x10^7 miles vs 3x10^3 miles, distance is 3.1x10^4 farther in RET, heat would be more than 9x10^8 more direct (I admit I might be doing some "creative" math here, but as far as dimensionless ratios go, it's a fair assessment). Now for the size itself, diameter ratio would be 8.6x10^5 miles (RET) to 3.2x10^1 miles (FET), so let's approximate it to be roughly 2.5x10^4, volume of a sphere is cubic, so that makes the RET sun 1.6x10^13 more voluminous. Although, I suppose what is really important is the mass of hydrogen, which AFAIK needs to be above a critical density in order for it to ignite and sustain the fusion reaction (shit I remember from an astronomy elective years ago). So perhaps we can't say for sure how the energy of a much smaller (in volume, at least) but much closer sun would compare, but it seems to be another point that needs to be thought through. At least so you can come up with some pseudoscience to address the differences.
I think there is a much simpler point. At noon the Sun is just 3000 miles away from you. At mid-afternoon it is already more than 12000 miles away. That means that all the types of radiation, including heat, light, gamma rays and more, should be at least 16 times weaker. But that is not what we know to be true. You can take photos with the same settings of speed and aperture on your camera at noon and at mid afternoon. You can get sunburn at noon and at mid afternoon.You just can't make this "theory" match everyday observations.

?

Sculder

  • 113
  • Me and Mully
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2013, 05:34:55 AM »
The Sun is well known to be a quark-gluon plasma with an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of other elements. It produces energy by the mutual annihilation of quarks and anti-quarks, which is then converted into visible radiation by absorption and re-emission within its atmosphere, producing the spectrum often misinterpreted as evidence of nuclear fusion.

As an aside, this means that the Sun was larger in the past and will continue to get smaller into the future as quarks and anti-quarks are used up. Over time, it will lose mass to the point where it is no longer able to retain its atmosphere, and the shielding effect of the hydrogen will be lost, directly exposing us to high-energy gamma radiation. Unless we can find a way to replenish the Sun's mass, convert the gamma radiation into useful energy or leave the Earth, the human race will die of radiation poisoning.

How's about you back this BS up with some academic source?
I don't want to believe.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2013, 08:56:59 AM »
Parsifal-I saw you were logged in to the site and I was hoping you could let us know if you intend to provide us with your source of knowledge of the sun being a quark-gluon plasma, or if you intend not to.

Thanks!
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Blacksmith

  • 113
  • Debunker of Debauchery
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2014, 04:36:10 PM »
The Sun is well known to be a quark-gluon plasma with an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of other elements. It produces energy by the mutual annihilation of quarks and anti-quarks, which is then converted into visible radiation by absorption and re-emission within its atmosphere, producing the spectrum often misinterpreted as evidence of nuclear fusion.

As an aside, this means that the Sun was larger in the past and will continue to get smaller into the future as quarks and anti-quarks are used up. Over time, it will lose mass to the point where it is no longer able to retain its atmosphere, and the shielding effect of the hydrogen will be lost, directly exposing us to high-energy gamma radiation. Unless we can find a way to replenish the Sun's mass, convert the gamma radiation into useful energy or leave the Earth, the human race will die of radiation poisoning.

You realize that quark-gluon plasma isn't stable and decays within milliseconds?
Tally Count of Every Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth, Ever:

?

guv

  • 1132
Re: Energy output of the Sun
« Reply #29 on: August 28, 2014, 05:01:20 PM »
I hear voices from the other side, spooky.