What powers 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.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

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?

Quote from: Redingold on July 24, 2009, 12:04:39 AM

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

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.

Quote from: Pete on July 24, 2009, 01:15:07 AM

Quote from: Redingold on July 24, 2009, 12:04:39 AM

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

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... 

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

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.

Quote from: Redingold on July 24, 2009, 12:04:39 AM

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

cold-light emitter.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

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.

Quote from: zork on July 23, 2009, 06:25:00 PM

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.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 06:53:25 PM

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

Quote from: Pete on July 24, 2009, 11:00:08 AM

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!!!

Quote from: iznih on July 24, 2009, 11:46:49 AM

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!!!

Nice one. 
Thanks for this.
This is showing them the ridiculousness of what they actually believe.

Quote from: Pete on July 24, 2009, 11:52:24 AM

Quote from: iznih on July 24, 2009, 11:46:49 AM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: p on July 24, 2009, 01:07:36 PM

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. 

Quote from: iznih on July 24, 2009, 12:51:31 PM

Quote from: Pete on July 24, 2009, 11:52:24 AM

Quote from: iznih on July 24, 2009, 11:46:49 AM

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.

Quote

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.   

Quote from: Pete on July 24, 2009, 01:01:18 PM

Quote from: iznih on July 24, 2009, 12:51:31 PM

Quote from: Pete on July 24, 2009, 11:52:24 AM

Quote from: iznih on July 24, 2009, 11:46:49 AM

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.

Quote

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?

Quote from: markjo on July 24, 2009, 01:17:41 PM

Quote from: p on July 24, 2009, 01:07:36 PM

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. 

that theory would be too hard to understand by FE'ers