A revolution in thought

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The Sun is not a ball of fire.

Yep, it's another "molecules of light" type situation. In Lessans' defense, he was dumb as dog shit.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Sorry, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

I think my explanation was pretty clear. Read it again and tell me what part you don't understand.

I never claimed that the Sun was not on the line, that is your strawman, and another logical fallacy. I stated that the sun was on the line, from which the photons came, but 8.5 minutes ago. The Sun might have a relatively stationary position in the sky but the observer on Earth is moving, so the observers view of the sun will be changing position in the sky.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I never claimed that the Sun was not on the line, that is your strawman, and another logical fallacy. I stated that the sun was on the line, from which the photons came, but 8.5 minutes ago. The Sun might have a relatively stationary position in the sky but the observer on Earth is moving, so the observers view of the sun will be changing position in the sky.

With a stationary Sun it is not possible for the Sun to have ever been on that line. The Sun's rays cannot emanate from a point where the Sun previously was, as the Sun hasn't moved. The Earth and observer have. The Earth and observer move onto a new radial from the Sun, which is the same line along which the light now at your eye has always been traveling.

[thedoc]

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.

Lessans was using incorrect terminology out of ignorance, he didn't know what they meant but he used them to try and look smart. But anyone who knew the terms would see that he didn't understand them, and that improper usage just made him look more stupid. And the word used to describe an object does matter, to help others understand what is being described, and most would describe Lessans as an ignorant, arrogant, buffoon, the rest have no understanding of him at all. And probably don't care.

[davidm]

We can easily show that it is possible for the real and apparent location of an object in the sky to be identical, regardless of the speed of light.

The key is that the sun is stationary with respect to the earth; the motion of the sun across the sky, obviously, is apparent and not real. It is a function of the earth rotating on its axis.

Consider three models:

Model One: Draw a circle on top of a sheet of paper, and label it “sun.” Draw a circle on the bottom of the paper, and label it “earth.” Pretend that both circles do not move in any way: They do not revolve around each other, and neither turns on its axis.

Now imagine God turns on the sun at noon (tip o’ the ol’ hat to Seymour Lessans ). There is a dot on the circle labeled earth that is an eye. Eight and a half minutes pass and the light from the sun arrives at the eye. So the eye sees the sun as it looked eight and a half minutes in the past, but the real and apparent locations of the sun are identical, right? This should be pretty obvious.

Model Two: Pretend as you look down on your sheet of paper you are looking “down” at the earth and sun, so that the North Pole is a circle within the circle of the earth. The circle labeled “earth” is rotating along the axis of the pole, say from left to right in a circular direction. The eye on the surface of the earth is moving with it.

Again, God turns on the sun at noon. The earth is rotating and the eye is rotating with it. Eight and a half minutes later, the light arrives at the eye on the rotating surface. But, again, because the sun itself is stationary with respect to the rotating earth, the apparent and real location of the sun in the sky will be identical, regardless of the actual speed of light.

Model Three: The sun is racing across the sky with respect to the earth. We can imagine an animation in which the circle labeled “sun” is moving across the top of the page from left to right. Let’s suppose God turns on the sun at noon when the sun is at the left-most edge of the page. The light will take eight and a half minutes to propagate to the eye on earth. By the time the light reaches the eye, the sun will have advanced some distance on the page toward the right. So, in this case the real and apparent locations of the sun in the sky will be different, owing to the delay in seeing the light coupled with the fact that the sun is in motion with respect to the earth.

But that is not how things actually are, obviously. The sun is not racing across the sky with respect to the earth, but is actually stationary with respect to it. So Model Two holds, and even though we see the sun as it was some eight and a half minutes in the past, the real and apparent location of the sun in the sky will be identical.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

With a stationary Sun it is not possible for the Sun to have ever been on that line. The Sun's rays cannot emanate from a point where the Sun previously was, as the Sun hasn't moved. The Earth and observer have. The Earth and observer move onto a new radial from the Sun, which is the same line along which the light now at your eye has always been traveling.

Yes, and the photons that left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago are on a different radial that will miss the observer on the Earth.

But the Sun is moving through space very fast, so it was in a different position 8.5 minutes ago when the photons left the Sun. The observer and the photons will intersect 8.5 minutes after the photons have left the Sun, and those photons will have traveled a straight line, but the Sun will not be in that position, nor in that same position in the sky relative to the observer on the Earth.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, and the photons that left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago are on a different radial that will miss the observer on the Earth.

The Sun is emitting light rays on ALL radials. The rays heading towards where the observer on Earth was 5min ago will miss him. The ones hitting the observer's eye now do not miss, and those photons have always been traveling in a straight line along that same radial which the observer has now moved onto.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But the Sun is moving through space very fast ...

But the earth is moving with it. Therefore the sun is stationary with respect to the earth -- which is the whole key to understanding this.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

So Model Two holds, and even though we see the sun as it was some eight and a half minutes in the past, the real and apparent location of the sun in the sky will be identical.

No, the real and apparent positions will be different by 8.5 minutes. Forget about God turning the Sun on at noon, that is just a wild fantasy of Lessans that has no bearing on reality. If the photons arrive instantly we will see the sun where it is now, but if the Sun's light takes 8.5 minutes to get here the observer on Earth will have moved and the Sun will appear to be in a different position than it actually is.

[thedoc]

I have repeatedly stated that the sun is changing position in the sky of the Earth over time, Does anyone here disagree with this statement?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

But the earth is moving with it. Therefore the sun is stationary with respect to the earth -- which is the whole key to understanding this.

Yes, the Sun and everything in the solar system, including the Earth, are moving together through space, but the Earth is rotating on it's axis, and the position of the Sun appears to move in the Sky of the Earth. Photons emitted at one time from the Sun will arrive after the Earth has rotated on it's axis.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, the Sun and everything in the solar system, including the Earth, are moving together through space, but the Earth is rotating on it's axis, and the position of the Sun appears to move in the Sky of the Earth. Photons emitted at one time from the Sun will arrive after the Earth has rotated on it's axis.

The photons from the Sun move in straight lines outwards from the Sun within the reference frame in which the Sun is not moving. Hence the observer moves onto a new radial along which the received photons have always been moving, which puts the Sun exactly where it appears to be. You have the photons hopping off from the Sun and moving outwards from a point the Sun has only appeared to leave behind, like students jumping off a moving bus and heading towards a house directly from the point on the road where they left the bus. That is not what actually happens.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have repeatedly stated that the sun is changing position in the sky of the Earth over time, Does anyone here disagree with this statement?

Of course, but this motion is only apparent. It is entirely due to the rotation of the earth on its axis. Therefore the real and apparent location of the sun in the sky not only is not different, it cannot be different -- though we are seeing the sun as it was 8.5 minutes in the past.

The only way you can get a dislocation between real and apparent location in the sky, is in the case of the other celestial bodies, like Mars: Mars is in actual motion with respect to the earth; and it is this actual motion, coupled with the finite speed of light, that makes the apparent location of Mars in the sky, and its real location, different. See my Model 3 for reference.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The photons from the Sun move in straight lines outwards from the Sun within the reference frame in which the Sun is not moving. Hence the observer moves onto a new radial along which the received photons have always been moving, which puts the Sun exactly where it appears to be. You have the photons hopping off from the Sun and moving outwards from a point the Sun has only appeared to leave behind, like students jumping off a moving bus and heading towards a house directly from the point on the road where they left the bus. That is not what actually happens.

It has been repeatedly stated on this forum, in this thread, that the sun is not in the sky where we see it. It has been stated that we see the Sunset 8.5 minutes after the Sun has actually disappeared below the horizon. Has that opinion changed in the last few days?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course, but this motion is only apparent. It is entirely due to the rotation of the earth on its axis. Therefore the real and apparent location of the sun in the sky not only is not different, it cannot be different -- though we are seeing the sun as it was 8.5 minutes in the past.

The only way you can get a dislocation between real and apparent location in the sky, is in the case of the other celestial bodies, like Mars: Mars is in actual motion with respect to the earth; and it is this actual motion, coupled with the finite speed of light, that makes the apparent location of Mars in the sky, and its real location, different. See my Model 3 for reference.

I understand what you are saying and I think we have been talking past each other, you have been referring to one thing and I have been saying something different.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It has been repeatedly stated on this forum, in this thread, that the sun is not in the sky where we see it.

Then those people have made the same mistake that you have.

Originally Posted by thedoc

It has been stated that we see the Sunset 8.5 minutes after the Sun has actually disappeared below the horizon. Has that opinion changed in the last few days?

I don't believe I have previously expressed any opinion on the matter.

Try explaining what you think is happening from the reference frame of another person on the surface of the Sun (taking that point to be stationary). You should see why it doesn't make sense.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I understand what you are saying and I think we have been talking past each other, you have been referring to one thing and I have been saying something different.

No, we're talking about the exact same thing. I'm showing you why we see the sun as it was 8.5 minutes in the past, but why the apparent and actual location of the sun in the sky are the same.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It has been repeatedly stated on this forum, in this thread, that the sun is not in the sky where we see it. It has been stated that we see the Sunset 8.5 minutes after the Sun has actually disappeared below the horizon. Has that opinion changed in the last few days?

If this has been stated, it's wrong. Hell, I may have stated it myself. But, who raised this whole issue that started this current discussion, admits he got it wrong earlier until he thought about. It's an easy mistake to make. It just conflates apparent motion with actual motion. When you separate the two out, you get the right answer.

At sunset, we see the sun as it was 8.5 minutes in the past, but its apparent location and actual location are the same. You can actually pretty easily demonstrate this with a diagram.

But this is a special case and does not change the fact that apart from the sun, the apparent and real locations of other celestial bodies, with respect to earth, are different because of the light speed delay. The sun is a different special case because its motion is apparent and not actual.

If the sun were actually setting on the horizon; i.e., if it were moving with respect to earth, then, yes, by the time the light got to us on the horizon, the actual sun would be below the horizon. The apparent and real locations would be different. But the motion of the sun is not actual with respect to earth, so this is not the case.

[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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

But this is a special case and does not change the fact that apart from the sun, the apparent and real locations of other celestial bodies, with respect to earth, are different because of the light speed delay. The sun is a different special case because its motion is apparent and not actual.

The original claim was that the Sun was not moving in the sky, and that was what I was arguing against. Thanks for moving the goalposts.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The original claim was that the Sun was not moving in the sky, and that was what I was arguing against. Thanks for moving the goalposts.

Huh? What?? Someone was arguing that the sun was not moving in the sky? You mean, like, But, or spacemonkey, or someone, was arguing that there was no motion at all, either real or apparent? Really? Can you link me those posts?

No, what you did not understand (and I don't know whether you understand it even now) is how it is possible that we see the sun as it was 8.5 minutes in the past, while at the same time its apparent and actual locations are the same. Do you understand that now, or not? Don't accuse me of moving the goalposts. That's complete BS. Everyone here, including me, was specifically addressing your misconceptions.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still haven't showed me the conceptual error.

Yes, I have. He takes derivatives with respect to coordinate time, not proper time. Probably because, like you, he has no understanding of the difference. He's a crackpot.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I believe that she realizes that there is a contradiction if she were to honestly answer the questions, so she avoids them and then lies about answering them.

It could be. But there is only one way to take away your suspicion: plainly and simply answer the questions. Obviously Peacegirl prefers to be seen as a liar and a physics' nitwit, as answering these questions.

Nah, Peacegirl: what are you? A liar and a physics' nitwit, or an honest discussion partner, trying to find where truth lies?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Definitions can be useful to serve one's purpose but that does not mean the definition itself reflects reality in any way.

The purpose of definitions is to assure that we are talking about the same thing. Your 'we have no free will, whatever the definition' shows you have not even understood this simple fact.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is
concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun;
regardless of how much there is I don’t know about this ball of fire
does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world.

Your mindset is set in the stone of your oracle.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You won't know who is right if you don't hear the explanation. How can you?

You won't understand anything as long as you do not see what the function of definitions is, and how they relate to reality. Your father's remark 'Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned.' is BS. Yes, definitions are not reality, but they have a relationship with reality. How else could we ever talk about reality??

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It has been repeatedly stated on this forum, in this thread, that the sun is not in the sky where we see it. It has been stated that we see the Sunset 8.5 minutes after the Sun has actually disappeared below the horizon. Has that opinion changed in the last few days?

The sunset thing isn't 8.5 minutes and it's an atmospheric effect where the Earth's atmosphere refracts the sunlight. I explicitly said I'm ignoring atmospheric effects here.

Also, if you haven't noticed, I said that I tried to use this argument before and then I acknowledged that it doesn't work.