The SUN (lets take a look see)

[anthonyjmcgirr]

*blind post...I don't know if this has been brought up in this thread before*

 

I don't think scientists have a clue about the sun.  They have their ideas, but deny that when a comet hits the sun, the sun has no reaction.  But we have witnessed MANY occurances of comets hitting the sun and a CME resulting and science still says it's a coincidence because it just isn't possible!  *gasp!*

 

[LookingForAnswers]

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130204094608.htm

 

 

 

Thanks.  Have you been following the thread?

 

This same Article was posted by Jerry earlier, Here: 

 

See discussion after

 

 

Missed that he posted it.  So, now you have twice seen one theory to address your "dagger", guess your dagger is not all that sharp any more

[Enoch2021]

Missed that he posted it.  So, now you have twice seen one theory to address your "dagger", guess your dagger is not all that sharp any more

 

 

In you're own Mind.... Do you think you just post an Article and then it all goes away??  I know you do because you've done it a number of times in the past....and you're doing it again.  You did it with the Neutrinos because you just read the headline without digging in to verify anything.... and then told me to verify my questions with the sources provided.  That's why most people are in the position their in.  They take what people tell them "Headline" without Due Diligence.  It's an Ad Hoc hypothesis...as a matter of fact, it's the same hypothesis that they been saying all along.  They just added on top of that teetering hypothesis, what I've been telling you on this whole thread.

 

That article didn't tell me anything that I didn't know already and what I have demonstrated in the OP and the continuing discussion.  All they did was add: WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ....."Stars generate heat through thermonuclear reactions in their core and the temperature decreases towards the star's surface."

 

And???  I already told you in the OP that this is their theory.  All they did was repeat it    So?

 

Then this.....

 

"It is believed that the cause of the increased temperature is due to magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves"  Well thank you Northumbria University for that....of Course, Hannes Alfven (See OP Cosmic Plasma)  Knew this in 1970. http://www.science20.com/news_releases/the_mystery_of_our_suns_heat

 

It's what I have been saying this whole thread. Thanks Again 

 

 

Please show me Evidence of this in the article------> "Stars generate heat through thermonuclear reactions in their core and the temperature decreases towards the star's surface."

 

Saying it over and over again isn't proof...it's just saying it over and over again.

 

 

Appears Old Paradigms die hard.

 

And you didn't address what I specifically termed a Dagger.......THE CONVECTION Problem

 

Will get to that after we resolve this issue.

[jerryR34]

 

 

No, I read the whole thing - I guess I could have copied and pasted the whole thing...  You still have not given a reasonable answer as to why the corona being hotter than the photosphere violates the second law.

 

 

 

========================================================================

 

 

 

You still have not given a reasonable answer as to why the corona being hotter than the photosphere violates the second law.

 

It's actually shocking that I would even have to....but did numerous times anyway.

 

 

No, you haven't.  You gave a erroneous analogy of a stove and the sun. 

 

Not sure what your point about Nagasaki is...or this whole thread for that matter.  Even if what you posted is correct, it's the beauty of science...self-correcting.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

======================================================================

 

 

Lets try this:

 

In Accordance with 2LOT:

 

Heat Source (Hot)----------------------------------------------------------------------> Cooler

                                             Distance from Heat Source------>

 

 

In Violation of 2LOT:

 

Heat Source (Hot)---------------------------------------------------------------------> HOTTER

                                            Distance from Heat Source-------->

 

 

 

Not sure what your point about Nagasaki is

 

On August 9 1945 the US dropped a HYDROGEN BOMB on Nagasaki.  It was real HOT there that day.....not so much in Tokyo it was further away.

 

The SUN (According to The Standard Model) is a BIG Hydrogen Bomb.  But 3,000 KM away from the Source it's HOTTER.

[LookingForAnswers]

Enoch,

Yes, in my mind the dagger is dull and in yours the current views are crumbling. We both have our points of view and we both disagree with the other. Not really sure what is gained by repeating this fact time and again.

And yes, I think I can post an article that responds to your objections to the current view and then move on. We have a different view on how to support our views. You take the work of others and rephrase it into short sentences with pretty pictures and lots of drama. I prefer to let the experts speak for themselves as they can say it better than I ever could.

Then you dismiss an article because it is not a science book and the author did not feel the need to try and make it so. If you want the evidence on how a star works you should turn to a science book. Any evidence that can be provided in a short article would not be worth printing. These things are not supported by a couple 100 words but but a couple 100 books. By the same token they cannot be crumbled by a few words and some pretty pictures. Not even if you make some if the words bigger.

You may well be 100% correct in your view and it is interesting to read your views. I think we would all be better served if you spent more time supporting your views and less trying to change the minds of most of us. I truly find what you are posting fascinating and it has led me to dig more and might over time even change my views. But, when you start speaking of daggers and krakens my initial reaction is one of going on the defensive, and that seems to be the same for most who respond to your post.

Just my 2 cents

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

 

 

======================================================================

 

 

Lets try this:

 

In Accordance with 2LOT:

 

Heat Source (Hot)----------------------------------------------------------------------> Cooler

                                             Distance from Heat Source------>

 

 

In Violation of 2LOT:

 

Heat Source (Hot)---------------------------------------------------------------------> HOTTER

                                            Distance from Heat Source-------->

 

 

 

Not sure what your point about Nagasaki is

 

On August 9 1945 the US dropped a HYDROGEN BOMB on Nagasaki.  It was real HOT there that day.....not so much in Tokyo it was further away.

 

The SUN (According to The Standard Model) is a BIG Hydrogen Bomb.  But 3,000 KM away from the Source it's HOTTER.

 

So, according to your example above, Mercury (57.9m miles from the sun) should be warmer than Venus (67.2m miles from the sun).  Well it's not.  Care to guess why?  Maybe distance from the source of energy is not the only factor for heat?  You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the second law.  The corona being hotter than the photosphere in NO WAY violates the second law anymore than Venus being hotter than Mercury does (or do you dispute that Venus is hotter than Mercury).   Hopefully you can see that distance isn't the only factor in heat (temperature).

Edited March 13, 2014 by jerryR34

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

=========================================================================

 

Yes, in my mind the dagger is dull and in yours the current views are crumbling.

 

Agreed, in your mind.

 

 

We both have our points of view and we both disagree with the other. Not really sure what is gained by repeating this fact time and again.

 

Here's the difference:

 

1.  You said we both disagree.  Disagreement is based on opinion and is usually Subjective and supported by very little Actual Data.  This isn't about our opinion; IN FACT, OPINION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.  We're not talking about favorite colors or what we think of Republicans or Democrats. 

Were evaluating concepts and theories...BASED ON EVIDENCE whether something is TRUE Or NOT.

 

In this Specific OP, You have not provided Any Refutation Whatsoever (Neutrinos in one moment) on any of the Supporting Evidence's I have Provided,  ZERO.  Only "scientists" saying that "The Sun is a Thermo-Nuclear Reactor".  Well We already know that's what "THEY THINK"....I provided THAT in the OP.

 

Providing "articles" REPEATING with WORDS the Same thing over and over again isn't evidence SIR.....It's Basically just Propaganda.  And it's the same "Theory" I told you they have in the OP.

 

You posted an article regarding the "Found" "Different Flavors" missing Neutrinos from Hugh Ross. No Problem.  However, these Neutrinos and "so-called" Flavors have different sources or Causes.  Just because you Observe something doesn't show Causality.  In fact, it's a Logical Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent....

 

If X then Y

Observe Y

Therefore X

 

If the Sun is a Thermo-Nuclear Reactor then we'll see Neutrinos

We see Neutrinos (Maybe in this case)

Therefore: The Sun is a Thermo-Nuclear Reactor    

 

That's why I asked those Questions to PROVE CAUSALITY.

 

You (and Jerry) then posted the "Rationale" for why the Corona was so much HOTTER than the Source.  Well I already knew that and is The MAIN SUBJECT of the OP.  All they did was confirm what I said and the evidences I provided; THEN: Superimposed that on the Continuing UNSUPPORTED MANTRA of The Sun is a Thermo-Nuclear Reactor.  Well.....LOL

 

See it?

 

 

Over the past few weeks (with more to come), I have posted some of the current Scientific "Theories" that frame our world that I think and can PROVE with Supporting Evidence are HOGWASH!!!  They're just stories/fables that "scientists" have claimed but have very little to ZERO Evidence For; But just repeat over and over again.

 

So to Refute These Evidences I Provide......Provide REFUTING EVIDENCES that support your position.......not repeating mantra's.

 

Pretend your in a Courtroom (which you are, the Worthy Court Room) and treat them as the Judge. Are repeating mantra's or what some people think, Evidences in a Court Room??

 

PROVE IT!!   (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

 

You take the work of others and rephrase it into short sentences with pretty pictures and lots of drama. I prefer to let the experts speak for themselves as they can say it better than I ever could.

 

The funny thing is that's all "Experts" are doing is SAYING. So, Would you like me to recreate the Wheel?  Does that offer some validity....if I start my career again but this time head down the AstroPhysicist Road and come back when I've graduated...then I can speak to this??  You have No Science background Whatsoever do you?  That's Not meant to be derogatory not everybody does or are interested, No Problem.  However, you come on here trying to refute "my claims" and evidence I provide by saying..."Well, these aren't you words....you're not a scientist" ?? 

 

As I said Previously, I'm not an Astrophysicist....my expertise lies in a couple other "Science" disciplines; However, I can read and have a comprehensive background in THE METHODS and I have a MIND.

 

 

These things are not supported by a couple 100 words but but a couple 100 books. By the same token they cannot be crumbled by a few words and some pretty pictures. Not even if you make some if the words bigger.

 

Yea right, obscure the 'Secret Knowledge" in 100's of Books and Create Fallacious Barriers to Entry......And Just take our WORD for it, eh?  HOGWASH!!

 

 

Any evidence that can be provided in a short article would not be worth printing.

 

Then Why did you provide it?

 

 

I think we would all be better served if you spent more time supporting your views

 

 

 

But, when you start speaking of daggers and krakens my initial reaction is one of going on the defensive, and that seems to be the same for most who respond to your post.

 

Well, That begs the question..... Why would you personalize those colorful adjectives in the First Place?  They're are not directed @ you personally or anyone else on these forums.  Is it because you revere the so-called "Science Establishment" and have built your World Views based on what they have TOLD You??

 

I will continue with my Colorful Adjectives.  Thanks for your opinion however.

[jerryR34]

 

 

You (and Jerry) then posted the "Rationale" for why the Corona was so much HOTTER than the Source. 

I never posted that the corona was hotter than the source (nor does any scientist believe that).  I posted that it is hotter than the photosphere (which is closer to the source than the corona).

Edited March 13, 2014 by jerryR34

[Enoch2021]

So, according to your example above, Mercury (57.9m miles from the sun) should be warmer than Venus (67.2m miles from the sun).  Well it's not.  Care to guess why?  Maybe distance from the source of energy is not the only factor for heat?  You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the second law.  The corona being hotter than the photosphere in NO WAY violates the second law anymore than Venus being hotter than Mercury does (or do you dispute that Venus is hotter than Mercury).   Hopefully you can see that distance isn't the only factor in heat (temperature).

 

 

 

=================================================================

 

Jerry,

 

Go back and Re-read the OP slowly.  You're Mercury/Venus spiel is a Strawman.  You're getting confused between the evidences......Heat and Speed of Particles.

 

 

The corona being hotter than the photosphere in NO WAY violates the second law

 

Ahhh, yea.....it does.  It's the Quintessential TextBook Foundation of it.