/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15205877]

Before nuclear science what theories accounted for the light and heat of the sun?

[Anonymous No.15205879]

big fire

[Anonymous No.15205880]

>>15205879
where did they think the oxygen came from?

[Anonymous No.15205946]

>>15205880
From the air, dummy.

[Anonymous No.15205953]

>>15205946
was the concept of fusion or space being a vacuum first theorized?

[Anonymous No.15205955]

>>15205877
>>15205880
They didn't know.

[Anonymous No.15205963]

The best guess they had before knowledge of nuclear fusion was that gravitational contraction caused the sun to heat. Though this was insufficient because the amount of energy emitted by the sun was nowhere near what could be explained by gravity. This is why it was an open question for many years.

[Anonymous No.15205965]

>>15205877
How far back do you want to go? Confucius thought the stars were literally holes into heaven and so shone because of divine light.

[Anonymous No.15205967]

>>15205965
i meant the time leading up to the discovery of fusion

[Anonymous No.15205972]

>>15205967
This >>15205955

They had observations but no answers.

[Anonymous No.15206230]

>>15205877
>he thinks the current theory is the correct one and not just the latest in a long line of misunderstandings

[Anonymous No.15206380]

>>15205967
I think you know but you want to hear it again so you can go ohhh how interesting

[Anonymous No.15207508]

>>15205877
Lord Kelvin thought the sun to be a crash site.

"...it must be concluded as most probable that the sun is at present merely an incandescent liquid mass cooling."

https://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_age_of_the_suns_heat.html

[Anonymous No.15207530]

>>15207508
>an incandescent liquid mass cooling

How very specific.

[Anonymous No.15207606]

The Sun puts out way more energy than what we expectd for the temperature at its core. We figured out that quantum tunneling is responsible for it.

[Anonymous No.15207950]

>>15205877
sausage
they thought it was big spicy meatball

[Anonymous No.15210336]

>>15205877
the funny part is how the nuclear furnace model of Sol is blatantly wrong
there's no fusion in the core whatsoever, and there's not really much of a core to speak of anyway
all the activity is occurring in the outer layers, powered by interstellar Birkeland currents entering through the poles, and all the fusion occurs in those surface layers as a product of this (fusion is a byproduct, not a cause)

[Anonymous No.15210343]

>>15210336
pseud pls

[Anonymous No.15210350]

>>15210343
just the facts
the nuclear furnace model has so many holes in it, and is totally incompatible with a wide variety of observed phenomena
let's face it, it's at this point just as archaic of an explanation as the great fireball in the sky model
also, the electric Sol model perfectly explains the biggest and most mysterious unanswered question in Solar physics, i.e. the coronal heating problem

[Anonymous No.15210396]

>>15210350
What's your opinion of the Electric Universe theory?

[Anonymous No.15210409]

>>15210396
electric universe theory is very broad in its scope, and doesn't exactly refer to any single set of predictions, but some sort of plasma cosmology with electromagnetism being the fundamental force does seem to be correct, and in line with the electric Sol model

[Anonymous No.15210457]

>>15210409
The electric sol theory and electric universe theory both go against everything which we consider standard knowledge in modern day astrophysics. I won't dispute you if you really believe that but I suggest writing a paper for a peer reviewed journal. If the theory is correct you would become a world renowned scientist. If there are already studies about these behaviours though, I'd like to see them

[Anonymous No.15210481]

>>15210457
>The electric sol theory and electric universe theory both go against everything which we consider standard knowledge in modern day astrophysics.
not even remotely true
this is typically something people subscribing to the archaic nuclear furnace model say to hand-wave away the actual facts
in reality everything we know about astrophysics is completely consistent with plasma cosmology and an electric Sol, nothing else
the idea that you can "just write a paper bro" is pretty ridiculous, because we all know that's not how academia works
as the adage goes, science progresses one funeral at a time
>If there are already studies about these behaviours though, I'd like to see them
the closest you'll get is probably the work of Hannes Alfvén
he was first ridiculed for his ideas in his time, but then awarded the Nobel Prize in physics, and today most physicists recognize the greatness of his work
he clearly described how the universe is by far best described by a plasma cosmology, and also wrote about how there are interstellar Birkeland currents (and probably intergalactic ones too) connecting with the Solar system through the poles of Sol, much like the Birkeland currents we see on a smaller scale at the poles here on Earth
looking into the work of Birkeland himself (who was nominated for the Nobel Prize no less than 7 times, yet his work was also mocked and ridiculed when he first proposed it) is also highly recommended, as well as that of Halton Arp

[Anonymous No.15211576]

>>15205877
they thought it was a big spicy sausage

[Anonymous No.15211997]

>>15210336
>eu garbage
into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.15212015]

>>15211997
see: >>15210350
not my fault if you don't like to deal with the facts and would rather cling to the archaic and obviously wrong nuclear furnace model

[Anonymous No.15212344]

>>15206230
the sun is made of phlogiston
this is settled science

[Anonymous No.15212368]

>>15210457
>everything which we consider standard knowledge in modern day astrophysics
not everything, but it doesn't require nearly as many contrivances to make experimentally unfalsifiable extrapolations from "standard model assumptions" fit with each other
for example, there's basically ONLY evidence that interstellar space is awash with charged particles and not, in fact, a neutral void - that alone goes against Lambda CDM's molecular cloud "pure" gravitational collapse, which itself goes against fluid dynamics of gases in vacuum

what we observe is startlingly consistent with large scale charge interactions and a cosmos that is not nearly as "bulk neutral" as standard cosmological "knowledge" (only science communicators call it that, real scientists would call it the current standard theories/models, and science communicators damage the credibility of scientific pursuit every single time they conflate the two) requires it to be to enable its gross simplifications of the evolution of structure in the universe.
for fuck's sake, plasma cosmology predicted the cosmic web (in the form of intergalactic Birkeland currents) before it was observed and then dark matter once again invoked to explain it

>peer review
scientifically worthless when the peers have careers that depend on existing paradigms to persist - would you expect a tenured "professor of creationist biology" to be a suitable peer reviewer of Darwin's works when his entire life's work might be undermined by their implications?

[Anonymous No.15212541]

>>15212368
>scientifically worthless when the peers have careers that depend on existing paradigms to persist - would you expect a tenured "professor of creationist biology" to be a suitable peer reviewer of Darwin's works when his entire life's work might be undermined by their implications?
as we know, science progresses one funeral at a time

[Anonymous No.15212553]

>>15205877
The Sun is just a focal point of light resulting from a spiral of plasma above the flat Earth dome, your pic is a cgi

[Aether king of sci No.15212574]

That's not fire.

That's energy.

[Anonymous No.15212575]

>>15205880
it was theorized to be darkOxygen dummy

[Anonymous No.15212578]

>>15212575
no. 'dark oxygen' was inserted as a correction term to account for that. there is no other reasoning or evidence for such a mechanism or origin.

[Anonymous No.15212579]

>>15212553
not far from the truth, except the flattard part and the "focal point part"
Sol is indeed the result of huge plasma currents converging at a nexus (which is how Sol forms and is sustained)

[Aether king of sci No.15212580]

>>15212575
Kys.

[Anonymous No.15212585]

>>15212579
>not far from the truth, except the flattard part and the "focal point part"
https://archived.moe/sci/thread/15079368

[Anonymous No.15212594]

>>15212585
I've watched Sol for many years, and nothing of the sort is happening
current rise in activity is just the plain old Solar cycle, which has an 11-year period
this has been observed for almost 3 centuries

[Anonymous No.15212608]

>>15212594
i think there's some evidence of longer period modes, but certainly nothing compatible with flerfer delusions
flerfers only really make sense as a false flag discrediting tactic

>>15212580
you will live under the big sky fire
you will breathe the dark oxygen

[Anonymous No.15212643]

>>15212608
yes, there are plenty of observations of longer periodicities that modulate the activity levels, but the 11-year cycle is the by far most notable one
even during longer periods of high activity, there are typically few to no spots or active regions during the 11-year minima

[Aether king of sci No.15212647]

In theory, this thread is retarded

[Anonymous No.15212672]

>>15212608
The sky will get red after the magnetic pole shift. This is explainable in a flat earth model.

[Anonymous No.15212694]

>>15212672
sure is unfortunate how difficult the magnetic poles even existing at all is in flat earth models, then

[Anonymous No.15213891]

>>15212694
it's probably just a trick to test their faith or something

[Anonymous No.15213901]

>sausage thread

[Anonymous No.15213942]

>>15212368
>Lambda CDM's molecular cloud "pure" gravitational collapse, which itself goes against fluid dynamics of gases in vacuum
Tell me about this. Why is gravitational collapse of a cloud not possible?

[Anonymous No.15213967]

it was a big ball of phlogiston

[Anonymous No.15214012]

>>15213942
the cloud has to do work on itself to overcome the tendency of gas to expand, the mathematical "cheat" that just kind of assumes all the gas molecules move in the right direction to initiate collapse is called the "Jeans swindle" wnd the standard model's attempt to cope with it is an embarrassing invocation of dark energy to "exactly cancel out" the problem through the expansion of space... somehow causing increased gas densities