Hight of the Sun

Okay, I've read on here that the sun and the moon are both 3000 feet above the earth, and all of the stars are 3100 feet above earth. My question to you is how is it possible that seceval mountain peaks are much higher than the sun moon and stars? This is a serious question I really want to understand this.
Also, since the stars move in the sky above earth how is it that constellations appear constantly at certain times each night during certain parts of each year? Again, a true question to understand because I am genuinely curious. Thank-you.

Please reread the FAQ.  It says that the sun and moon are approximately 3000 miles above the flat earth, not 3000 feet.

Still, how come we don't to death because of the Sun being so close.

It's not as hot as you have been told it is.

Do solar flares still exist?

Do solar flares still exist?

ofcourse, you can see them.

okay just making sure

the fes does not dismiss things you can see but sometimes the fes will not agree with what we are told we are seeing

Okay that's fair. That's one of the most sensible ways I've heard the FES thinks. I can agree with and respect that.

Ok, the sun being 3000 miles away*facepalm*, it not being very hot*facepalm*, go touch it man and see.

Ok, the sun being 3000 miles away*facepalm*, it not being very hot*facepalm*, go touch it man and see.

What's with the facepalms?  Can you give a specific problem you have with either of these statements?

Quote from: futballz on April 06, 2012, 01:09:00 PM

Ok, the sun being 3000 miles away*facepalm*, it not being very hot*facepalm*, go touch it man and see.

What's with the facepalms?  Can you give a specific problem you have with either of these statements?

Yes. The Wiki (two articles) and EnaG give three different values. The technique suggested gives a different value for every latitude (ignoring North versus South). Furthermore, using the RADAR-determined distance to Venus, a single observer can determine that the Sun is much farther away than Venus and face-palm-worthy farther away the FET claims. Reference: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=400

Yes, spectroscopy tells us that the Sun is as hot as RET claims. FET is wrong. Reference: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=126

Yes, spectroscopy tells us that the Sun is as hot as RET claims. FET is wrong. Reference: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=126

Spectroscopy tells us the Sun's surface temperature is 5880 Kelvin (5605 Celsius/10,124 Farenheit) - all other ridiculous temperatures mentioned are purely mathematical and based upon the current mainstream "theoretical understanding of the way the Sun works".  Now I'd say 5600C seems about right for an object 3000 miles away, but the idea of getting a bad sunburn from a 5600C heat source allegedly 93,000,000 miles away - and through the alleged near absolute zero of a vacuum - seems rather laughable.

Now I'd say 5600C seems about right for an object 3000 miles away, but the idea of getting a bad sunburn from a 5600C heat source allegedly 93,000,000 miles away - and through the alleged near absolute zero of a vacuum - seems rather laughable.

That's because sunburn is caused by UV radiation, not by IR (heat) radiation.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 07, 2012, 05:40:37 PM

Yes, spectroscopy tells us that the Sun is as hot as RET claims. FET is wrong. Reference: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=126

Spectroscopy tells us the Sun's surface temperature is 5880 Kelvin (5605 Celsius/10,124 Farenheit) - all other ridiculous temperatures mentioned are purely mathematical and based upon the current mainstream "theoretical understanding of the way the Sun works".  Now I'd say 5600C seems about right for an object 3000 miles away, but the idea of getting a bad sunburn from a 5600C heat source allegedly 93,000,000 miles away - and through the alleged near absolute zero of a vacuum - seems rather laughable.

why not educate yourself before making such stupid comments. dont you think sunbeds would be a rather risky buisness? people would be able to chuck the sunday roast in it while they get a nice tan.

Quote from: Piper on April 08, 2012, 10:45:27 AM

Now I'd say 5600C seems about right for an object 3000 miles away, but the idea of getting a bad sunburn from a 5600C heat source allegedly 93,000,000 miles away - and through the alleged near absolute zero of a vacuum - seems rather laughable.

That's because sunburn is caused by UV radiation, not by IR (heat) radiation.

The exact same thing applies to the IR heat radiation you feel on your face on a sunny day.  Feeling a 5600C IR heat source from 93 million miles away would be like feeling the heat of a stove from hundreds of thousands of miles away.

why not educate yourself before making such stupid comments. dont you think sunbeds would be a rather risky buisness? people would be able to chuck the sunday roast in it while they get a nice tan.

As far as I am aware sunbeds do not use 30-mile wide 5600C lamps at a distance of 3000 miles, so I am not sure what your point is.  If you wish to clarify please try to do so without feeling the need to throw around insults.

Quote from: markjo on April 08, 2012, 10:53:24 AM

Quote from: Piper on April 08, 2012, 10:45:27 AM

Now I'd say 5600C seems about right for an object 3000 miles away, but the idea of getting a bad sunburn from a 5600C heat source allegedly 93,000,000 miles away - and through the alleged near absolute zero of a vacuum - seems rather laughable.

That's because sunburn is caused by UV radiation, not by IR (heat) radiation.

The exact same thing applies to the IR heat radiation you feel on your face on a sunny day. Feeling a 5600C IR heat source from 93 million miles away would be like feeling the heat of a stove from hundreds of thousands of miles away.

I'd love to hear how you arrived at that outlandish claim. Perhaps you might want to do some math for us. Oh, Not all of the heat of the Sun felt on Earth is IR. Other wavelengths are adsorbed and their energy re-radiated as heat, for example.

Quote from: Piper on April 08, 2012, 11:08:54 AM

The exact same thing applies to the IR heat radiation you feel on your face on a sunny day. Feeling a 5600C IR heat source from 93 million miles away would be like feeling the heat of a stove from hundreds of thousands of miles away.

I'd love to hear how you arrived at that outlandish claim. Perhaps you might want to do some math for us. Oh, Not all of the heat of the Sun felt on Earth is IR. Other wavelengths are adsorbed and their energy re-radiated as heat, for example.

I was specifically discussing IR heat being felt at such great distances through the near absolute-zero of "space" and not the other types of radiation.  Let's say a stove radiates a very low 56C degrees of heat, just to make it easier, as felt a few feet away from it.  The Sun's surface, according to spectroscopy, is a mere 100 times hotter, or 5600C degrees.  Yet the Sun, only 100 times hotter, is alleged to be hundreds of millions of times further away.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 08, 2012, 01:52:06 PM

Quote from: Piper on April 08, 2012, 11:08:54 AM

The exact same thing applies to the IR heat radiation you feel on your face on a sunny day. Feeling a 5600C IR heat source from 93 million miles away would be like feeling the heat of a stove from hundreds of thousands of miles away.

I'd love to hear how you arrived at that outlandish claim. Perhaps you might want to do some math for us. Oh, Not all of the heat of the Sun felt on Earth is IR. Other wavelengths are adsorbed and their energy re-radiated as heat, for example.

I was specifically discussing IR heat being felt at such great distances through the near absolute-zero of "space" and not the other types of radiation.  Let's say a stove radiates a very low 56C degrees of heat, just to make it easier, as felt a few feet away from it.  The Sun's surface, according to spectroscopy, is a mere 100 times hotter, or 5600C degrees.  Yet the Sun, only 100 times hotter, is alleged to be hundreds of millions of times further away.

It is however putting out much more than 100 times more energy than a stove, which is the issue here.

It is however putting out much more than 100 times more energy than a stove, which is the issue here.

Spectroscopic analysis shows the body of the Sun to have a temperature of 5600C degrees, all other numbers are purely theoretical.  Changing its size and total energy output does not change that fact.  A 200-foot tall wood stove would still not be felt from a mile away.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 08, 2012, 01:52:06 PM

Quote from: Piper on April 08, 2012, 11:08:54 AM

The exact same thing applies to the IR heat radiation you feel on your face on a sunny day. Feeling a 5600C IR heat source from 93 million miles away would be like feeling the heat of a stove from hundreds of thousands of miles away.

I'd love to hear how you arrived at that outlandish claim. Perhaps you might want to do some math for us. Oh, Not all of the heat of the Sun felt on Earth is IR. Other wavelengths are adsorbed and their energy re-radiated as heat, for example.

I was specifically discussing IR heat being felt at such great distances through the near absolute-zero of "space" and not the other types of radiation.  Let's say a stove radiates a very low 56C degrees of heat, just to make it easier, as felt a few feet away from it.  The Sun's surface, according to spectroscopy, is a mere 100 times hotter, or 5600C degrees.  Yet the Sun, only 100 times hotter, is alleged to be hundreds of millions of times further away.

I point you again to the challenge in the post. Can you answer it or will you continue to make baseless claims?

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on April 08, 2012, 10:18:01 PM

It is however putting out much more than 100 times more energy than a stove, which is the issue here.

Spectroscopic analysis shows the body of the Sun to have a temperature of 5600C degrees, all other numbers are purely theoretical.  Changing its size and total energy output does not change that fact.  A 200-foot tall wood stove would still not be felt from a mile away.

I am confused, whats wrong with theoretical numbers (and we actually knows its luminosity, which perfectly correlates with the amount of hydrogen being fused, which can then give us an exact power output in watts).  Do you have some evidence that they are incorrect?

Quote from: markjo on April 08, 2012, 10:53:24 AM

Quote from: Piper on April 08, 2012, 10:45:27 AM

Now I'd say 5600C seems about right for an object 3000 miles away, but the idea of getting a bad sunburn from a 5600C heat source allegedly 93,000,000 miles away - and through the alleged near absolute zero of a vacuum - seems rather laughable.

That's because sunburn is caused by UV radiation, not by IR (heat) radiation.

The exact same thing applies to the IR heat radiation you feel on your face on a sunny day.  Feeling a 5600C IR heat source from 93 million miles away would be like feeling the heat of a stove from hundreds of thousands of miles away.

Are you suggesting that a 32 mile diameter, 5600C IR heat source 3000 miles or so away is more plausible than a 1 million mile diameter, 5600C IR heat source 93 millinon miles away?

Hola dumbass! This may surprise you but temperature and heat energy are different things.

Hola dumbass! This may surprise you but temperature and heat energy are different things.

markjo gives the temperature of the sun, and then says it is an IR heat source.  What is the problem with that? 

The sun is a source of many different wavelengths of energy.

The sun is a source of many different wavelengths of energy.

Furthermore, the Earth's atmosphere absorbs some of the Sun's energy and re-emits at differing wavelengths. So you don't know at what wavelength the heat on your face from the shining Sun was originally emitted.