The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Redingold on July 22, 2009, 01:02:08 PM
-
Come on, simple question. What would provide enough energy for a disc 32 miles wide to shine for billions of years?
-
It is possible that the Sun is bioluminescent. I have been considering this possibility for quite some time. It strikes me that the Egyptian Atenists might have been onto something (and so might their opponents in the Priesthood of Ra have been).
-
um... what?
This can't be with the emmision spectrum of sun(near to black body radiation).
Also, any organic compound wouldn't be stable in that temperature and have luminescency properties.
Also, luminescency can not last for thousands of years.
-
um... what?
This can't be with the emmision spectrum of sun(near to black body radiation).
Also, any organic compound wouldn't be stable in that temperature and have luminescency properties.
Also, luminescency can not last for thousands of years.
You're making the mistake of equating life on Earth with life on the Sun. There is little reason to suspect that they would be even remotely the same sort of thing. Luminescency can perfectly well last for thousands of years, why couldn't it?
-
um... what?
This can't be with the emmision spectrum of sun(near to black body radiation).
Also, any organic compound wouldn't be stable in that temperature and have luminescency properties.
Also, luminescency can not last for thousands of years.
You're making the mistake of equating life on Earth with life on the Sun. There is little reason to suspect that they would be even remotely the same sort of thing. Luminescency can perfectly well last for thousands of years, why couldn't it?
What about the line spectra? Can your organisms explain that?
Edit: In fact, claiming bioluminescence does absolutely nothing to answer my question. My question was as to where the energy comes from. You still need energy for bioluminescence.
Also, does bioluminescence last for billions of years?
-
It is possible that the Sun is bioluminescent. I have been considering this possibility for quite some time. It strikes me that the Egyptian Atenists might have been onto something (and so might their opponents in the Priesthood of Ra have been).
So now the sun is a massive metallic disc that is also bioluminescent.
Metallic and biological eh. Fascinating science.
-
Lol, they're making new theories up on the spot. I have never seen anybody ever claim existence of a bioluminescent Sun before.
They can't come up with one definitive theory. How silly is that? Oh, and before you say that neither can RET, I'm pretty certain that RET doesn't have that many.
-
It is possible that the Sun is bioluminescent. I have been considering this possibility for quite some time. It strikes me that the Egyptian Atenists might have been onto something (and so might their opponents in the Priesthood of Ra have been).
So now the sun is a massive metallic disc that is also bioluminescent.
Metallic and biological eh. Fascinating science.
A surface moldlike animal on what is mainly a metal object is far more likely than a big fat metal living thing.
-
Squat, they're making new theories up on the spot. I have never seen anybody ever claim existence of a bioluminescent Sun before.
I'm not just making this up, I've been carefully considering it for quite some time. This is the first time I have brought it to light (no Sun-pun intended).
-
Squat, they're making new theories up on the spot. I have never seen anybody ever claim existence of a bioluminescent Sun before.
For sure.
Change of username - change of theory.
-
A surface moldlike animal on what is mainly a metal object is far more likely than a big fat metal living thing.
Food source?
Reproduction?
-
A surface moldlike animal on what is mainly a metal object is far more likely than a big fat metal living thing.
Food source?
Reproduction?
Well the Earth manages to have a closed system of biology, why wouldn't the Sun?
-
A surface moldlike animal on what is mainly a metal object is far more likely than a big fat metal living thing.
Food source?
Reproduction?
Well the Earth manages to have a closed system of biology, why wouldn't the Sun?
The Earth has a closed system of biology? So it's not constantly receiving energy from the Sun?
-
Arghhh... It's about chemistry, not biology! even with 100% quantum efficiency you couldn't get enougth light output. Don't try to use modern vis vitalis.
-
Well the Earth manages to have a closed system of biology, why wouldn't the Sun?
Why wouldn't it indeed. It's your theory, it can have whatever it wants.
-
Well the Earth manages to have a closed system of biology, why wouldn't the Sun?
Why wouldn't it indeed. It's your theory, it can have whatever it wants.
Hooray for making up physics on the spot!
-
Well the Earth manages to have a closed system of biology, why wouldn't the Sun?
Because the Sun isn't the Earth?
-
Surely many things which are not other things have attributes which those other things have.
-
It is possible that the Sun is bioluminescent. I have been considering this possibility for quite some time. It strikes me that the Egyptian Atenists might have been onto something (and so might their opponents in the Priesthood of Ra have been).
Is this that kind of theory where we must throw all telescopes to recycling bin and make a face like they never existed?
-
It is possible that the Sun is bioluminescent. I have been considering this possibility for quite some time. It strikes me that the Egyptian Atenists might have been onto something (and so might their opponents in the Priesthood of Ra have been).
Is this that kind of theory where we must throw all telescopes to recycling bin and make a face like they never existed?
No, what possible fact about the Sun which is observable with a telescope suggests that it is not alive?
-
There is no chemical reaction that could power the sun for millions of years.
Get over that.
-
There is no chemical reaction that could power the sun for millions of years.
Get over that.
If that ridiculous proposition were true, how would the Sun emit light at all, regardless of what shape the Earth is?
-
Surely many things which are not other things have attributes which those other things have.
But there are many more spherical, rotational celestial bodies than there are biological systems. In fact, all large bodies in space are spherical. The Earth is large, and it is moving through space, making it a large body in space. So therefore, the argument for the Earth being spherical on these grounds alone is much stronger than the argument for the sun having biological entities, since there is only one other celestial body where biological entities are known to reside.
-
Is this that kind of theory where we must throw all telescopes to recycling bin and make a face like they never existed?
No, what possible fact about the Sun which is observable with a telescope suggests that it is not alive?
Not alive but something about bioluminescence. It's not hot light and with telescopes we can observe solar flares. Of course, maybe they are not flares but the bioluminescent organisms just jump there up and down.
-
Is this that kind of theory where we must throw all telescopes to recycling bin and make a face like they never existed?
No, what possible fact about the Sun which is observable with a telescope suggests that it is not alive?
Not alive but something about bioluminescence. It's not hot light and with telescopes we can observe solar flares. Of course, maybe they are not flares but the bioluminescent organisms just jump there up and down.
Solar flatulence?
(http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/sun_solar_flare.jpg)
-
Not alive but something about bioluminescence. It's not hot light and with telescopes we can observe solar flares. Of course, maybe they are not flares but the bioluminescent organisms just jump there up and down.
Solar flatulence?
Which goes from one anus to another or to somewhere else. But it's also a idea :)
-
Surely many things which are not other things have attributes which those other things have.
But there are many more spherical, rotational celestial bodies than there are biological systems. In fact, all large bodies in space are spherical. The Earth is large, and it is moving through space, making it a large body in space. So therefore, the argument for the Earth being spherical on these grounds alone is much stronger than the argument for the sun having biological entities, since there is only one other celestial body where biological entities are known to reside.
There are no spherical, rotational celestial bodies in space. See how your predetermined globularist convictions shape your own justifications of the theory. It's a circular belief system.
Solar flatulence?
(http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/sun_solar_flare.jpg)
Since flatulence is a characteristic of living things, surely the presence of Solar flatulence would actually be evidence IN FAVOUR of the notion that the Sun is bioluminescent rather than against it?
-
There are no spherical, rotational celestial bodies in space. See how your predetermined globularist convictions shape your own justifications of the theory. It's a circular belief system.
There aren't? Then those things I saw in my telescope are flecks of dust placed on the lens by some members of a vast global conspiracy? That makes far more sense than there being other planets out there, thanks guys.
-
Squat, nice pin man. You've really got him running. 8)
Is it enough that Mr. James has been "considering this POSSIBILITY for quite some time." to make it real?
Where are the numerous pages of careful mathematical calculations to back this up? we certainly have these for the round world explanations of such things. It seems all that we have for the flat world explanations is what Mr. James has been considering for a period. Hmm, I'm convinced, sign me up!
-
The only direction I am running is towards the truth. Notice, that I haven't even really proclaimed with any certainty that the Sun is alive, I've just raised the possibility. Of course, trust globularists to put words in my mouth.
-
What object other than a rotating sphere could exhibit this type of motion?
The only thing I can think of is a man-made circular image of a sphere, but we didn't make Jupiter.
-
That's a tragically obvious piece of CGI. They even forgot to paste stars into the background.
-
Ummm. . .k, then explain how I saw almost an identical bit of footage when I was in elementary school, please. And before you say CGI, I was in elementary school between 1981 and 1986, and again, before anyone starts in with "supercomputers," my grandfather was one of the original computer programmers in the 70s and he was jazzed about what they could do, which was about as much as a modern copy machine, provided they had punch cards fed in at regular intervals.
-
Ummm. . .k, then explain how I saw almost an identical bit of footage when I was in elementary school, please. And before you say CGI, I was in elementary school between 1981 and 1986, and again, before anyone starts in with "supercomputers," my grandfather was one of the original computer programmers in the 70s and he was jazzed about what they could do, which was about as much as a modern copy machine, provided they had punch cards fed in at regular intervals.
That footage was probably just made with a model on a wire, then. I bet it was grainy and fairly unclear, no High-Definition back in the early 80's.
I've seen all manner of ridiculous globularist propaganda in a variety of different media. Do you honestly think the only reason I still think the Earth is flat is that I just happen not to have seen any of this stuff? Did you think that by posting it I would suddenly realise my terrible mistake?
-
No, that's not what I personally thought at all. I am just intrigued at what your responses will be considering you are defending a ridiculous set of notions.
-
That's a tragically obvious piece of CGI. They even forgot to paste stars into the background.
??? Why should there be stars visible in the background? Have you been taking photography lessons from Tom Bishop?
-
No, no hi-definition, but the media was not nearly as grainy as one might expect. It was almost precisely like what was shown there. And seriously, I still am not seeing what the gain of making all this crap up. I'm no scientist, but I have been involved in entertainment tech/production for 20 years and I can assure you that whatever "conspiracy" would spend a hefty sum creating the kind of hoaxes assumed here, especially prior to the advent of computers. The profit margin after "faking" tons of equipment (which I've seen personally), footage, photos, and "performances" would be mighty slim, considering the numbers of people who'd have to be on their payroll. It would have to be more profitable for each and every person involved to spend a lot of energy keeping this secret than to spill it.
NASA's 2008 budget was just over $17B. People Magazine is happy to pay $10M for pictures of Brangelina's twins; how much do you think they'd pay for one little bit of proof of a global conspiracy? How about some of the harder news media like Time or Newsweek? How about Fox News? Hell, they could have a field day, blaming and bringing down all the "crazy lefties," and maybe stave off the right-wing collapse for a couple decades, given that information.
If there were only 1700 people on the Conspiracy's payroll, they'd each get $10M. Roughly 200 staffers are required to bring an average-sized opera through to closing night. Do we suspect that a global conspiracy would take less than ten times as many people to produce/maintain than an opera? And that doesn't even take into consideration the "props--" vehicles, sets, falsified pictures, potential bribes, etc etc. As we've seen with the various governmental bailouts, $17B doesn't buy a whole lot these days.
-
^Not from NASA.^
Explain it, please, if you will.
-
No-one has satisfactorily explained yet where the energy used to power the Sun comes from.
-
There are no spherical, rotational celestial bodies in space. See how your predetermined globularist convictions shape your own justifications of the theory. It's a circular belief system.
That is just such a excuse that you levelitarists could come up. Anything that threatens you you just bash down with demagogy. But anyway, as you didn't require us to deny the existence of the telescopes then you must be aware that people observe the sun and other planets through telescopes. And you can observe sub spots moving. They disappear from one edge and the reappear from another. And so with the moons which circle around planets.
Since flatulence is a characteristic of living things, surely the presence of Solar flatulence would actually be evidence IN FAVOUR of the notion that the Sun is bioluminescent rather than against it?
If it is a flatulence. Flatulence consists of gases and you usually can see gases when they burn. So, if it is burning faltulence on the picture then the Sun can't be bioluminescent because luminescence is cold light. And if the Sun is bioluminescent then you actually claim that we can't distinct between cold and hot light.
-
RE: "Saturn" video. No stars in the background. It practically looks like a chalk drawing.
-
I don't see why you'd doubt the legitimacy of the video; it doesn't prove that much, either way. Last time I looked at Saturn though my telescope it looked exactly like that.
Also, I don't see why "no stars" necessitates a faked video. The video was shot with a 480x magnification. The entire view is probably at most about twice as wide as the apparent diameter of the sun, and so it's conceivable that there weren't any bright stars right next to the planet, considering the amount of light pollution in Germany. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e3/Light_pollution_europe.jpg
-
Guys, we're getting off topic. FET still needs to produce a fuel source that can provide loads of energy, the observed line spectra and can last for billions of years.
-
Everybody forget about physics?
If that ridiculous proposition were true, how would the Sun emit light at all, regardless of what shape the Earth is?
nuclear fusion! People, i was teached to try to answer any question on my own before asking! Do some research before asking about everything.
Also, how could everybody forget about one thing:
temperature of the sun is about ~5,778K - in that state, almos every compound and element is at gaseous state(tungsten, rhenium and maybe some salts like carbides would be liquid) - if there is no gravity, nothing would held the sun together, so why is it still a circle/sphere/whatever? it would diffuse into space. Also, if it would be tungsten, rhenium or some salt - there would be no reaction that would power the sun.
-
I know about nuclear fusion. My rhetorical statement was a direct response to this:
There is no chemical reaction that could power the sun for millions of years.
Get over that.
Which is false, by obvious virtue of the existence of nuclear fusion. I thought that was implicit in my rather sarky response.
-
IMO it's true, And i could make some calculations about that, but that is useless because i will get no response, as i got no response after Andromeda's blueshift calculations.
-
IMO it's true, And i could make some calculations about that, but that is useless because i will get no response, as i got no response after Andromeda's blueshift calculations.
But you don't believe it's true because you literally just blurted out that the process of nuclear fusion can light the sun for millions of years. You are contradicting yourself on a post-by-post basis here.
-
nuclear
fusion
is
not
chemical
reaction
Or you were thinking otherwise, or i dont know what it's all about.
-
nuclear
fusion
is
not
chemical
reaction
Or you were thinking otherwise, or i dont know what it's all about.
You said "chemical process". I consider nuclear fusion to be a chemical process.
-
chemical proces (and/or reaction) -> rearrangement of chemical bonds. nuclear fussion/fission -> rearrangement of strong interaction forces setup.
-
RE: "Saturn" video. No stars in the background. It practically looks like a chalk drawing.
The reason there are no stars is because the telescope is not powerful enough to see them. And you have to remember it is zoomed in, stars will become less dense that way.
-
RE: "Saturn" video. No stars in the background. It practically looks like a chalk drawing.
And let me ask you, how could this random person gain from faking a video of Saturn?
Go buy a telescope.
See it with your own eyes.
-
You said "chemical process". I consider nuclear fusion to be a chemical process.
Nuclear fusion -> nuclear reactions. Chemical process -> chemical reactions. They definitely aren't the same. And you still haven't answered, how cold light can be so hot?
-
The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
-
The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
So you retreat from your theory the Sun being bioluminescent? Because the luminescence is cold light.
It is possible that the Sun is bioluminescent. I have been considering this possibility for quite some time. It strikes me that the Egyptian Atenists might have been onto something (and so might their opponents in the Priesthood of Ra have been).
-
The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
So you retreat from your theory the Sun being bioluminescent? Because the luminescence is cold light.
There is nothing particular about bioluminescence which precludes its accompaniment with the emission of heat.
-
The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
So you retreat from your theory the Sun being bioluminescent? Because the luminescence is cold light.
There is nothing particular about bioluminescence which precludes its accompaniment with the emission of heat.
Yes, a little heat. Not such a heat which travels 3000 miles and still burns quite much.
-
The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
So you retreat from your theory the Sun being bioluminescent? Because the luminescence is cold light.
There is nothing particular about bioluminescence which precludes its accompaniment with the emission of heat.
Yes, a little heat. Not such a heat which travels 3000 miles and still burns quite much.
We've trascended beyond qualitative statements here. "A little" doesn't mean anything to me. 1 celsius is a little. Is 32 farenheit a little? What about 20 celsius? 3 Kelvins?
-
We've trascended beyond qualitative statements here. "A little" doesn't mean anything to me. 1 celsius is a little. Is 32 farenheit a little? What about 20 celsius? 3 Kelvins?
Let's say that little is something below 1000 degree celsius. But you can show me some luminescence which produces 1000 degree of celsius or even more.
-
The Sun.
-
The Sun.
Circular Flat Earth Logic for you, right there, kids.
"What causes the sun's heat?"
"Bio luminescence."
"Bio luminescence doesn't cause that much heat."
"It could."
"Show me one thing that bio luminesces that puts off that much heat."
"The sun."
Wow. Stellar (if you'll pardon the pun).
-
The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
cold-light emitter.
cold-light
You can't get cold light. All light contains energy e=h*f.
-
The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
cold-light emitter.
cold-light
You can't get cold light. All light contains energy e=h*f.
The cold light claim has irritated me enough to make me register.
I'd like to point out, along with Redingold, that light is made up of photons.... which have energy as described by E = H * F where:
"E" is the energy of the photon,
"H" is Planck's Constant, 6.626x10^-34 Joule seconds, and a Joule second is (kg*m^2)/s or kilograms times meters squared divided by seconds
and "F" is the frequency of the photon in hertz, which is one cycle per second
This allows you to multiple Planck's constant of 6.626*10^-34 Js by hertz (cycle/second).
The seconds cancel, leaving you with an energy value, "E" in terms of joules.
Wow look at that. It appears that there is no such thing as "Cold light". So while the energy input from the moon may be minimal compared to the sun, it still definitely exists.
And when is someone going to try and answer the original question? If the sun is only 32 miles across, how exactly is it putting out this much energy, constantly?
-
The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
cold-light emitter.
cold-light
You can't get cold light. All light contains energy e=h*f.
The cold light claim has irritated me enough to make me register.
I'd like to point out, along with Redingold, that light is made up of photons.... which have energy as described by E = H * F where:
"E" is the energy of the photon,
"H" is Planck's Constant, 6.626x10^-34 Joule seconds, and a Joule second is (kg*m^2)/s or kilograms times meters squared divided by seconds
and "F" is the frequency of the photon in hertz, which is one cycle per second
This allows you to multiple Planck's constant of 6.626*10^-34 Js by hertz (cycle/second).
The seconds cancel, leaving you with an energy value, "E" in terms of joules.
Wow look at that. It appears that there is no such thing as "Cold light". So while the energy input from the moon may be minimal compared to the sun, it still definitely exists.
And when is someone going to try and answer the original question? If the sun is only 32 miles across, how exactly is it putting out this much energy, constantly?
Well put, Pete. I'd rep you if this forum had reputation.
-
The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
cold-light emitter.
cold-light
You can't get cold light. All light contains energy e=h*f.
The cold light claim has irritated me enough to make me register.
I'd like to point out, along with Redingold, that light is made up of photons.... which have energy as described by E = H * F where:
"E" is the energy of the photon,
"H" is Planck's Constant, 6.626x10^-34 Joule seconds, and a Joule second is (kg*m^2)/s or kilograms times meters squared divided by seconds
and "F" is the frequency of the photon in hertz, which is one cycle per second
This allows you to multiple Planck's constant of 6.626*10^-34 Js by hertz (cycle/second).
The seconds cancel, leaving you with an energy value, "E" in terms of joules.
Wow look at that. It appears that there is no such thing as "Cold light". So while the energy input from the moon may be minimal compared to the sun, it still definitely exists.
And when is someone going to try and answer the original question? If the sun is only 32 miles across, how exactly is it putting out this much energy, constantly?
Well put, Pete. I'd rep you if this forum had reputation.
Thanks, I've been lurking a long time, mostly coming on to unwind at the comedy of this place.... only when i realized that it was being suggested that the Sun's light is really produced by bio-luminescent fungi or something, and that it was also suggested that the Moon "emits" a form of light that doesn't have energy, my brain nearly imploded.
I really really want to know the average age and educational details of the FE's... because NO ONE who paid attention in high school could possibly come away thinking the Moon "emits" light, that light doesn't have energy, or that Nuclear Fusion is a chemical reaction... ::)
-
The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
cold-light emitter.
cold-light
You can't get cold light. All light contains energy e=h*f.
It has been proven by direct observation and experimentation that the Moon emits a kind of light which is not attended by heat in the slightest.
-
The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
the Moon is a cold-light emitter.
cold-light emitter.
cold-light
You can't get cold light. All light contains energy e=h*f.
It has been proven by direct observation and experimentation that the Moon emits a kind of light which is not attended by heat in the slightest.
Except that's IMPOSSIBLE according to the laws of physics, you imbecile. Show me the math supporting your heatless light.
-
Let's say that little is something below 1000 degree celsius. But you can show me some luminescence which produces 1000 degree of celsius or even more.
The Sun.
Then it's not luminescence and cold light if it puts out so much heat that it burns people to black(in Africa). If body radiates such massive amount of heat then it can't be cold itself. And cold light is radiated from cold body. If you insist that the Sun really emits such massive amount of heat then you must back down with your bioluminescence theory.
-
Let's say that little is something below 1000 degree celsius. But you can show me some luminescence which produces 1000 degree of celsius or even more.
The Sun.
Then it's not luminescence and cold light if it puts out so much heat that it burns people to black(in Africa). If body radiates such massive amount of heat then it can't be cold itself. And cold light is radiated from cold body. If you insist that the Sun really emits such massive amount of heat then you must back down with your bioluminescence theory.
Not to be nit-picky, and I doubt the FE's are aware of this, but technically they aren't burnt, the increased radiant energy in equatorial climes merely makes it advantageous for them to adapt to increase melanin production.
But I do agree
-
It has been proven by direct observation and experimentation that the Moon emits a kind of light which is not attended by heat in the slightest.
No it hasn't James.
Tom Bishop says you cannot prove anything astronomical by direct observation. You can observe and you can come to conclusions but you can't do any real science to prove it. There are no scientific instruments on the moon providing you direct evidence that the moon is producing light but not heat. You cannot experiment on the moon.
-
Tom Bishop says you cannot prove anything astronomical by direct observation. You can observe and you can come to conclusions but you can't do any real science to prove it.
I'm glad someone gets it.
-
So now that we're agreed that "cold light" is utter garbage, what does power the sun?
-
So now that we're agreed that "cold light" is utter garbage, what does power the sun?
Hot light.
HTH
-
So now that we're agreed that "cold light" is utter garbage, what does power the sun?
Hot light.
HTH
Well, thats what we're getting. I want to hear the FE explanation for what power's the Sun. I mean, I believe the Sun is a star powered by nuclear fusion of Hydrogen nuclei into Helium. But I want to know what process sustains the FE Sun.
-
Ooops, sorry again, I meant to only leave that up for a minute or two.
However, it is similar to many answers you will get from FE'ers and in particular Tom Bishop. In fact it is just the sort of answer you will get from Tom Bishop unless he tells you to read ENaG or the FAQ.
It would appear that there is no single line of thought for the actual layout of the flat earth, what the sun and moon are made of, how they or the stars move or anything. There may only be one FES but the are a number of FE Theories.
-
So now that we're agreed that "cold light" is utter garbage, what does power the sun?
cold light is not garbage. em waves in the visual part of the spectrum do not heat anything. what you experience as heat is infrared radiation and nothing else. if a body reflects visual em waves but absorbs infrared waves there won't be any heat coming from it. it's clear that light carries energy. as you said E=hf, but for visual waves f is to large to induce molecular vibrations in matter that could be experienced as heat.
actually cold light is used in medicine and microscopy where any heat could cause severe damage
-
but for visual waves f is to large to induce molecular vibrations in matter that could be experienced as heat.
Prove it.
And the only thing that comes up under "cold light" on a Google search is fluorescent lighting, which is only "cold" when compared to incandescent.
-
DUH!!!
(http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l121/pawelli/duh.jpg)
-
but for visual waves f is to large to induce molecular vibrations in matter that could be experienced as heat.
Prove it.
i dunno how good your physical education is so i'll try to make it easy: atoms have a inertial mass. for being able to absorb energy an molecule would need to be able to follow the frequency of the incoming wave. the amount of inertial mass limits the abiltity of the atoms to change the direction of movement. that means when passing a certain frequency the amount of energy being transferred into kinetic of the atoms becomes negligable. these higher frequencies don't stimulate a whole molecule, instead the energy is absorbed by the elementary particles in the single atoms. ofc in both cases this is only true when the incoming wave matches a resonance frequency of the material.
And the only thing that comes up under "cold light" on a Google search is fluorescent lighting, which is only "cold" when compared to incandescent.
the majority of incandescent radiation is infrared. that's why light bulbs tend to become hot. it's not the light itself...
the german wiki article (no english entry) defines cold light as light with very little infrared parts.
just for the record, i'm an re'er, too. so i appreciate your efforts, but i think it's only fair to have a look at the arguments of fellow re'ers, too.
-
DUH!!!
(http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l121/pawelli/duh.jpg)
Nice one. ;D
Thanks for this.
This is showing them the ridiculousness of what they actually believe.
-
but for visual waves f is to large to induce molecular vibrations in matter that could be experienced as heat.
Prove it.
i dunno how good your physical education is so i'll try to make it easy: atoms have a inertial mass. for being able to absorb energy an molecule would need to be able to follow the frequency of the incoming wave. the amount of inertial mass limits the abiltity of the atoms to change the direction of movement. that means when passing a certain frequency the amount of energy being transferred into kinetic of the atoms becomes negligable. these higher frequencies don't stimulate a whole molecule, instead the energy is absorbed by the elementary particles in the single atoms. ofc in both cases this is only true when the incoming wave matches a resonance frequency of the material.
And the only thing that comes up under "cold light" on a Google search is fluorescent lighting, which is only "cold" when compared to incandescent.
the majority of incandescent radiation is infrared. that's why light bulbs tend to become hot. it's not the light itself...
the german wiki article (no english entry) defines cold light as light with very little infrared parts.
just for the record, i'm an re'er, too. so i appreciate your efforts, but i think it's only fair to have a look at the arguments of fellow re'ers, too.
Oh, we agree on the definition of cold light then. I thought you were trying to claim that there is a sort of light composed of photons that doesn't impart any energy when it impacts matter.
For example, photons from sunlight impart energy to plants, when the photon impacts a molecule of chlorophyll, it excites the electrons in the chlorophyll molecule, and those excited electrons are used to drive ATP production in the plant in some process that I learned in Gen Bio but can't remember anymore.
-
im traveling to the ice wall next friday to get pics, as my resources are limited you can come with me and supply some money and teh lulz plzzzzz!
-
im traveling to the ice wall next friday to get pics, as my resources are limited you can come with me and supply some money and teh lulz plzzzzz!
This thread is about the sun, not the ice wall. Please stay on topic.
-
im traveling to the ice wall next friday to get pics, as my resources are limited you can come with me and supply some money and teh lulz plzzzzz!
This thread is about the sun, not the ice wall. Please stay on topic.
Although James is the only FE'er so far to propose a theory, which is that the Sun is bio-luminescent.
My theory is that the Sun is a massive sphere of superhot gasses and plasma, and at the core, under intense pressure, hydrogen nuclei undergo fusion into Helium, the resulting energy which powers the Sun. :P
-
but for visual waves f is to large to induce molecular vibrations in matter that could be experienced as heat.
Prove it.
i dunno how good your physical education is so i'll try to make it easy: atoms have a inertial mass. for being able to absorb energy an molecule would need to be able to follow the frequency of the incoming wave. the amount of inertial mass limits the abiltity of the atoms to change the direction of movement. that means when passing a certain frequency the amount of energy being transferred into kinetic of the atoms becomes negligable. these higher frequencies don't stimulate a whole molecule, instead the energy is absorbed by the elementary particles in the single atoms. ofc in both cases this is only true when the incoming wave matches a resonance frequency of the material.
And the only thing that comes up under "cold light" on a Google search is fluorescent lighting, which is only "cold" when compared to incandescent.
the majority of incandescent radiation is infrared. that's why light bulbs tend to become hot. it's not the light itself...
the german wiki article (no english entry) defines cold light as light with very little infrared parts.
just for the record, i'm an re'er, too. so i appreciate your efforts, but i think it's only fair to have a look at the arguments of fellow re'ers, too.
Oh, we agree on the definition of cold light then. I thought you were trying to claim that there is a sort of light composed of photons that doesn't impart any energy when it impacts matter.
For example, photons from sunlight impart energy to plants, when the photon impacts a molecule of chlorophyll, it excites the electrons in the chlorophyll molecule, and those excited electrons are used to drive ATP production in the plant in some process that I learned in Gen Bio but can't remember anymore.
sorry if i was unclear. i just wanted to point out that energy is not necessarily transferred into heat if it is absorbed.
-
but for visual waves f is to large to induce molecular vibrations in matter that could be experienced as heat.
Prove it.
i dunno how good your physical education is so i'll try to make it easy: atoms have a inertial mass. for being able to absorb energy an molecule would need to be able to follow the frequency of the incoming wave. the amount of inertial mass limits the abiltity of the atoms to change the direction of movement. that means when passing a certain frequency the amount of energy being transferred into kinetic of the atoms becomes negligable. these higher frequencies don't stimulate a whole molecule, instead the energy is absorbed by the elementary particles in the single atoms. ofc in both cases this is only true when the incoming wave matches a resonance frequency of the material.
And the only thing that comes up under "cold light" on a Google search is fluorescent lighting, which is only "cold" when compared to incandescent.
the majority of incandescent radiation is infrared. that's why light bulbs tend to become hot. it's not the light itself...
the german wiki article (no english entry) defines cold light as light with very little infrared parts.
just for the record, i'm an re'er, too. so i appreciate your efforts, but i think it's only fair to have a look at the arguments of fellow re'ers, too.
Oh, we agree on the definition of cold light then. I thought you were trying to claim that there is a sort of light composed of photons that doesn't impart any energy when it impacts matter.
For example, photons from sunlight impart energy to plants, when the photon impacts a molecule of chlorophyll, it excites the electrons in the chlorophyll molecule, and those excited electrons are used to drive ATP production in the plant in some process that I learned in Gen Bio but can't remember anymore.
sorry if i was unclear. i just wanted to point out that energy is not necessarily transferred into heat if it is absorbed.
Agreed. But now that we've got that settled. I really want someone to tell us where the sun is getting all that energy
-
lol, anyone?
-
im traveling to the ice wall next friday to get pics, as my resources are limited you can come with me and supply some money and teh lulz plzzzzz!
This thread is about the sun, not the ice wall. Please stay on topic.
Although James is the only FE'er so far to propose a theory, which is that the Sun is bio-luminescent.
My theory is that the Sun is a massive sphere of superhot gasses and plasma, and at the core, under intense pressure, hydrogen nuclei undergo fusion into Helium, the resulting energy which powers the Sun. :P
that theory would be too hard to understand by FE'ers