Is the Sun really hot?

Reading this thread made me wonder why we see that the Sun hot at the corona, but the planets are cooler. Shouldn't they be the analogous? But if we think of energy rather than just heat, then we see that on planets they are. That is to say, there is MUCH more energetic activity in the atmosphere than on the surface. For example, earthquakes and volcanoes are violent but quite rare compared to cyclones, which are permanently active, span far greater areas and have a much greater effect on life every single day.

I also think it's more proper to regard the Oceans as "subterranean" or liquid atmosphere rather than a component of the surface, considering currents and how they interact with gaseous atmosphere. Cyclones and currents flow according to the same fluid dynamics; the differences we perceive are all based on temporal and spacial factors, so when we take time and space to be non-existent, conceptually they behave in exactly in same way.

So looking at it from this perspective, the difference between the total atmospheric energy and surface energy (including sea bed) is even greater, much what we see in the Sun, where we can perhaps liken flares, CMEs and other energetic bursts with the energetic surface phenomena on Earth, they too pale in comparison compared to the constant heat and EM activity we see in the Sun's atmosphere, in terms of energetic "output".

The question I would have then is, why does the energy in what we perceive as the Sun's visible atmosphere appear go outwards from the surface whereas on Earth we see it (on average) travel inwards towards the surface?. This perception seems to me to somewhat verify G. on the Sun being an Absolute for Organic Life on Earth, because there is no tangible (as opposed to theoretical) connection between Suns/Stars for us, therefore it is impossible to directly perceive 'All Suns' or even a Galaxy as a complete body or entity as we so clearly the Sun as a 'single object'; for us, they are Fingerprints in Space. And it can be downscaled to 2nd Density too if what Ouspensky conjectured is correct: to them, there would be no directly perceived unity between the the Sun's visible recurrences and Organic Life or Earth itself would be their Absolute. . How the Earth and other planets might be "outputting" cosmologically, if they are, is even more incomprehensible to me, unless it really is just simply in terms of pure soul/conscious energy i.e. feeding 4D STS.
 
Saieden said:
For example, earthquakes and volcanoes are violent but quite rare compared to cyclones, which are permanently active, span far greater areas and have a much greater effect on life every single day.
Click to expand...

Just want to point out that there are dozens of earthquakes everyday around the world. So I wouldn't classify this phenomenon as rare in any way unless you are talking about a specific [higher] magnitude. The earth is geologically permanently active as far as I know.
 
Wielu moich czytelników dziwi się napewno mojej postawie. Niby mam rozum, a rzeczywiście upieram się przy czymś takim, jak absurdalnie niska temperatura na powierzchni Słońca i żadnemu z nich chyba nie przychodzi do głowy, że musiało być coś, co mnie skłoniło przyznać (na tym etapie) rację analizom przeprowadzonym przez prof. Bazijewa.

Tak się składa, że znamy się osobiście. Podczas wizyty u mnie, profesor przywiózł rękopisy, w których rozwiązywał właśnie to zagadnienie. Niczego podobnego nigdy w życiu nie widziałem.

Wychodząc z kilku parametrów:

- czasu "życia" Słońca - 5*10^9;

- masy "fotonu" – równej masie elektrino;

- stałej słonecznej równej 1360 W/m^2

i "dzieląc" jądro Słońca na dwie warstwy, a całe Słońce na 71 warstw, on ręcznie przeliczył wszystkie te warstwy w ten sposób, że dla każdej warstwy podał 25 parametrów i osiągając pełną zgodność między nimi wyszedł na wartość stałej słonecznej 1360 W/m^2 .

To była tytaniczna robota. 25 wariantów (przybliżeń), po 25 parametrów dla 71 warstw. W sumie to daje 25x25x71 =44375 parametrów !!!

I co ciekawe, gdy Bazijew przyjmował temperaturę powierzchni Słońca równą 6000 K to z obliczeń wynikało jednoznacznie, że za czas swojego życia Słońce wypaliłoby już ponad 99% swojej masy, a to jest, jak sami przyznacie idiotyczny rezultat.

I tak, krok po kroku, poprawka po poprawce, przybliżenie po przybliżeniu doszedł do temperatury 117 K.
Click to expand...
http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/
Its form waldemar.m blog, and Ark should be aware of that ( he is on his favorite list)
In short : Temperature of sun surface is 117 K.
 
Just thought about something else, the superconducting sun theory reminds me of what the C's have said about our very own planet's core.

Session 31 October 2001 said:
Q: (A) What is the main thing that is important, and that is lacking from this [mainstream] model?
A: Crystalline ammonia core.

[...]

Q:[...]Why is this ammonia important for the magnetic field because of what properties?
A: Super conducting.
Q: (A) According to what we know it's very hot inside the earth because of the pressure. Now, is this ammonia also hot, as much as iron?
A: Grows alternately cold and hot.
Q: (A) Is it super conducting even if when it is very hot?
A: No.
Q: (A) When it gets cold, how cold does it get?
A: 55 degrees below absolute zero.
Q: (L) What is absolute zero? (A) That is something you can't get below. That's why it's called absolute zero. It's a new thermo-dynamics. (L) How often does it alternate?
A: Close to hour long periods.
Q: (L) So when it gets so cold and becomes super conducting, the act of super-conducting is what heats it up? Is that it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Well once it heats up, how does it then get cold again?
A: It stops conducting.
Click to expand...

So here we have superconducting bodies - both for our sun and planet. Then we have temperatures below absolute which have been found to be possible as it was related on SOTT (Mr. Scott's reply).

Quite interesting.

Gmork said:
http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/
Its form waldemar.m blog, and Ark should be aware of that ( he is on his favorite list)
In short : Temperature of sun surface is 117 K.
Click to expand...

Interesting find. That would make the temperature around -156°C (close to the freezing point of krypton). I have no idea if that makes sense or not but I don't see either why the sun would have be so hot (ie. millions of degrees).
 
Gmork said:
Wielu moich czytelników dziwi się napewno mojej postawie. Niby mam rozum, a rzeczywiście upieram się przy czymś takim, jak absurdalnie niska temperatura na powierzchni Słońca i żadnemu z nich chyba nie przychodzi do głowy, że musiało być coś, co mnie skłoniło przyznać (na tym etapie) rację analizom przeprowadzonym przez prof. Bazijewa.

Tak się składa, że znamy się osobiście. Podczas wizyty u mnie, profesor przywiózł rękopisy, w których rozwiązywał właśnie to zagadnienie. Niczego podobnego nigdy w życiu nie widziałem.

Wychodząc z kilku parametrów:

- czasu "życia" Słońca - 5*10^9;

- masy "fotonu" – równej masie elektrino;

- stałej słonecznej równej 1360 W/m^2

i "dzieląc" jądro Słońca na dwie warstwy, a całe Słońce na 71 warstw, on ręcznie przeliczył wszystkie te warstwy w ten sposób, że dla każdej warstwy podał 25 parametrów i osiągając pełną zgodność między nimi wyszedł na wartość stałej słonecznej 1360 W/m^2 .

To była tytaniczna robota. 25 wariantów (przybliżeń), po 25 parametrów dla 71 warstw. W sumie to daje 25x25x71 =44375 parametrów !!!

I co ciekawe, gdy Bazijew przyjmował temperaturę powierzchni Słońca równą 6000 K to z obliczeń wynikało jednoznacznie, że za czas swojego życia Słońce wypaliłoby już ponad 99% swojej masy, a to jest, jak sami przyznacie idiotyczny rezultat.

I tak, krok po kroku, poprawka po poprawce, przybliżenie po przybliżeniu doszedł do temperatury 117 K.
Click to expand...
http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/
Its form waldemar.m blog, and Ark should be aware of that ( he is on his favorite list)
In short : Temperature of sun surface is 117 K.
Click to expand...

A most surprising result. I would be interested to see a more detailed explanation of how this conclusion was reached.
 
JayMark said:
Just want to point out that there are dozens of earthquakes everyday around the world. So I wouldn't classify this phenomenon as rare in any way unless you are talking about a specific [higher] magnitude. The earth is geologically permanently active as far as I know.
Click to expand...

I am aware of that, the context here is relative to atmospheric "events", considering more the total energy transfer, in whatever form, we see in each. Perhaps it is less of a difference than it seems because we only hear of reported quakes, but nonetheless those that we do hear of are like blips on the radar compared to the sheer, unceasing, activity that the atmosphere and oceans have. We only see cyclones for a fraction of their lifetime, and seldom ever at the peaks of their power which is usually out at sea. In a similar fashion, osit, the Sun's energetic output from CMEs and flares (surface events) would be much less than it's radially uniform output of energy (corona/atmosphere) if we were to take the average over a reasonable amount time.
 
Here it is, but in polish.

http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/167269,117-k-na-powierzchni-slonca-cz-1

http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/167444,117-k-na-powierzchni-slonca-cz-2

http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/167487,117-k-na-powierzchni-slonca-cz-3

http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/167601,117-k-na-powierzchni-slonca-cz-4

http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/168405,117-k-na-powierzchni-slonca-cz-5

http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/175548,117-k-na-powierzchni-slonca-cz-6
 
Gmork said:
Here it is, but in polish.

http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/167269,117-k-na-powierzchni-slonca-cz-1

http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/167444,117-k-na-powierzchni-slonca-cz-2

http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/167487,117-k-na-powierzchni-slonca-cz-3

http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/167601,117-k-na-powierzchni-slonca-cz-4

http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/168405,117-k-na-powierzchni-slonca-cz-5

http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/175548,117-k-na-powierzchni-slonca-cz-6
Click to expand...

Sadly, I don't understand Polish :P
 
psychegram said:
Gmork said:
Wielu moich czytelników dziwi się napewno mojej postawie. Niby mam rozum, a rzeczywiście upieram się przy czymś takim, jak absurdalnie niska temperatura na powierzchni Słońca i żadnemu z nich chyba nie przychodzi do głowy, że musiało być coś, co mnie skłoniło przyznać (na tym etapie) rację analizom przeprowadzonym przez prof. Bazijewa.

Tak się składa, że znamy się osobiście. Podczas wizyty u mnie, profesor przywiózł rękopisy, w których rozwiązywał właśnie to zagadnienie. Niczego podobnego nigdy w życiu nie widziałem.

Wychodząc z kilku parametrów:

- czasu "życia" Słońca - 5*10^9;

- masy "fotonu" – równej masie elektrino;

- stałej słonecznej równej 1360 W/m^2

i "dzieląc" jądro Słońca na dwie warstwy, a całe Słońce na 71 warstw, on ręcznie przeliczył wszystkie te warstwy w ten sposób, że dla każdej warstwy podał 25 parametrów i osiągając pełną zgodność między nimi wyszedł na wartość stałej słonecznej 1360 W/m^2 .

To była tytaniczna robota. 25 wariantów (przybliżeń), po 25 parametrów dla 71 warstw. W sumie to daje 25x25x71 =44375 parametrów !!!

I co ciekawe, gdy Bazijew przyjmował temperaturę powierzchni Słońca równą 6000 K to z obliczeń wynikało jednoznacznie, że za czas swojego życia Słońce wypaliłoby już ponad 99% swojej masy, a to jest, jak sami przyznacie idiotyczny rezultat.

I tak, krok po kroku, poprawka po poprawce, przybliżenie po przybliżeniu doszedł do temperatury 117 K.
Click to expand...
http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/
Its form waldemar.m blog, and Ark should be aware of that ( he is on his favorite list)
In short : Temperature of sun surface is 117 K.
Click to expand...

A most surprising result. I would be interested to see a more detailed explanation of how this conclusion was reached.
Click to expand...


Well here's a google translate version of this text, it gives you the gist.

google said:
Many of my readers are surprised certainly my attitude. Apparently I have a reason, and in fact insist on such a thing as absurdly low temperature on the surface of the sun, and none of them probably can not think that it had to be something that prompted me to admit (at this stage) right analysis conducted by prof. Bazijewa.

It just so happens that we know each other personally. While visiting my professor brought manuscripts, in which the issue was resolved. Nothing like I had never seen before.

Starting with a few parameters:

- Time of "life" Sun - 5 * 10 ^ 9;

- The masses "photon" - equal to the weight elektrino;

- The solar constant equal to 1360 W / m ^ 2

and "sharing" the heart of the Sun in two layers, and all layers of the Sun at 71, he hand-counted all the layers so that each layer gave 25 parameters and achieving full compatibility between them took the value of the solar constant 1360 W / m ^ 2.

It was a titanic work. 25 variants (approximations) after 25 to 71 layers of parameters. All in all it gives 25x25x71 = 44375 parameters!

And interestingly, when Bazijew accept the Sun's surface temperature equal to 6000 K is a calculation showed clearly that for the time of your life Sun wypaliłoby more than 99% of its mass, and it is, as they admit idiotic result.

And so, step by step, amendment after amendment, bringing the temperature reached approximately 117 K.
Click to expand...
emphasis mine

Sounds like there were some hefty assumptions in their calculations, but their point is that they arrived at a discrepancy between their model and the value of 6000 K for the surface.

In looking through the more in-depth links that Gmork posted, the translation is admittedly bad: "Sun has a hard core of carrot" stuck out at me in particular. Apparently this guy has a series of lectures called "Physics of the Sun" hosted on his own forum. I'm curious if Ark has any take on the validity of this work?
 
Sounds like there were some hefty assumptions in their calculations, but their point is that they arrived at a discrepancy between their model and the value of 6000 K for the surface.

In looking through the more in-depth links that Gmork posted, the translation is admittedly bad: "Sun has a hard core of carrot" stuck out at me in particular. Apparently this guy has a series of lectures called "Physics of the Sun" hosted on his own forum. I'm curious if Ark has any take on the validity of this work?
Click to expand...

Indeed, that is an enormous number of parameters. With that many knobs to twiddle, you can fit almost anything ... an issue that bedevils most every complex mathematical model. And of course, there will not necessarily be any relation to the truth.

I too am curious as to Ark's take, if any.
 
Definitely interesting new research, that much is certain. But even if the sun is 'hot' compared to our own 3D physiology, would that still be considered hot in terms of esoteric science?

We are near the bottom of the ray of creation, where the vibrations are low. In those terms, everything in our perceived reality is cold.

To live "in the moment" means exactly that. Science defines the shortest possible moment as one planck second. The only way to mimic that short a time frame is by employing energies that are so far beyond the abilities of current science as to be unattainable. Such high energies, or rather energy densities, equate to high temperatures. Those temperatures are many orders of magnitudes beyond what the Sun is capable of generating, even in its core.

Another thought experiment which might serve to elucidate is the following. Say one travels in a space ship and attempts to accelerate to the speed of light. We would see that the light reaching us from the space ahead of us would gradually shift to ever higher frequencies just like a black body's thermal radiation spectrum would shift up in frequency as the temperature rises.
 
sarek said:
Those temperatures are many orders of magnitudes beyond what the Sun is capable of generating, even in its core.
Click to expand...

The EU (Electric Universe) folks say that the high temperatures are actually created at the surface, since with an electrical model, you don't need a fusion reactor at the core.
 
I think whatever model will eventually prove to fit our observable universe best, the problem of hot or cold will not go away. And frankly i do not think this is what esoteric teaching is referring to.
In terms of esoteric cosmology there really is barely a difference between 1 K and a million K. If you map esoteric cosmology onto what "science" has found out and if you extrapolate what its saying to its logical limits you will see what is meant here.

I think trying to think not only in words, but also in images could be very helpful here.
 
sarek said:
I think whatever model will eventually prove to fit our observable universe best, the problem of hot or cold will not go away. And frankly i do not think this is what esoteric teaching is referring to.
Click to expand...

The discussion on this topic thus far has been carried out within the framework of traditional science in the 3D human framework - specifically the electric sun model.

[quote author=sarek]
In terms of esoteric cosmology there really is barely a difference between 1 K and a million K. If you map esoteric cosmology onto what "science" has found out and if you extrapolate what its saying to its logical limits you will see what is meant here.
[/quote]
If there is "barely a difference between 1 K and a million K" in whatever esoteric cosmology you are referring to, then it does not "fit the observable universe" at the 3D level.

Not sure what you are trying to get at here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom