[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go nitpicking again. Saying the Sun is a ball of fire was perfectly fine in the context of that paragraph. He didn't have to get into detail; that wasn't the purpose. He was trying to help people see that it doesn't matter what word we use to describe an object; what matters is that the word is describing something real. These answers are close enough for me and would have been close enough for him. You will continue to criticize me because that's why you're here. It gives you great satisfaction to call me a liar and join in with everyone else.

Is the Sun really a ball of fire?

Answer A: Yes the sun is constantly "on fire" Though actually, the word "fire" does not do it justice. The sun is in a state of Plasma. The 4th state of matter. At extreme pressures and temperature matter becomes plasma. Extreme nuclear reactions are happening. Many of the complex elements on the periodic table are created within the burning center of a star, such as Uranium and other hvy matter.
Fire as we know it needs oxygen to burn, but in this situation oxygen is not needed. The extreme temperatures and pressures, Hydrogen nuclear reactions fuel a star, the byproducts being the heavier elements.

Answer B: The sun is very massive and very hot. Its mass comes from the hydrogen of which it is mostly composed, and the heat comes from the fusion of hydrogen into helium. As it was mentioned before, there are some metals in the sun, resulting from the fusion of hydrogen and helium into heavier elements.

To more directly answer your question, the sun is a ball of fire, but the fire does not come from the kind of combustion reactions that we are used to on earth. Normal combustion involves a flammable substance combining with oxygen, producing carbon dioxide, water, and heat. This heat excites the particles in the air to the point that their electrons separate from their nuclei, forming a plasma. In the sun, the plasma forms from the heat that comes from the sun's nuclear fusion.

It's not "nitpicking" to point out that the Sun is not a ball of fire. You're just upset because -- once again -- it has been pointed out that Lessans didn't know what he was talking about.


And your source is "Yahoo Answers"? And even your source points out that the Sun is "burning" only if you use inaccurate and incorrect definitions of the words "fire" and "burning."

Burning is a chemical reaction; the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion and is "burning" only if you define "burning" to mean something entirely different from its actual meaning.

Not that making up new definitions to avoid admitting error is anything new to either your or your father.


Calling the Sun a "ball of fire" just makes Lessans sound ignorant.