Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 244 posts

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#31

Post by YarickR2 »

gerdesj wrote: post #15

I had absolutely no idea that SA is so old. New Scientist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist is a mere whippersnapper. It doesn't matter that the article is bollocks. It is reasoned bollocks. That is basically what science is all about! I would prefer if there was some more working shown to back up the article but it seems to imply that some might be available rather than just simple assertions. We live in…

Now, imagine video with the scientist narrating this new finding (Sun is 400m years old, and gives heat and light because of meteors falling on it) is being removed by youtube, because these views are so dissenting with prevailing opinion of the world being 6000 years old max, and could harm minds of a general population, turning people away from God .

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#33

Post by Damorian »

senectus1 wrote: post #25
Damorian wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this article predates young Earth creationism, which is fairly modern, by 50-100 years.

embarrassing really isn't it.

Not particularly, in my opinion. Look at any group derided, not by the scientific community, but by the laymen who accept scientific consensus; Antivaxers, climate change deniers, YECs. They raise one or two, often valid, objections to the current state of affairs and rather than getting a reasonable, coherent explanation for why it's the scientific consensus, they're mocked, again, by laymen who really couldn't answer their questions anyway. They questioned the divinity of popular science, and as heretics, deserve to be burned. People are reasonable and logical by default. We form our beliefs from knowledge and experience, and these groups are no exception.

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#34

Post by jedberg »

empath75 wrote: post #19

To me, I think what this demonstrates more than anything else is that the human mind is limited by the metaphors it has access to. Leaving astronomy out of it— just look at the how we describe the mind — it’s been variously described as breath, or hydraulics, or clockworks and now as a computer. Probably in 100 years we’ll be looking back at our primitive understanding of how the brain works and laughing. They though…

The metaphors are just how we explain it to people so they can understand.

We've known for a long time that brains don't work like computers. They they are analog systems with weights and thresholds.

But that is hard to describe to a layperson.

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#35

Post by robotbikes »

In fact when Cecilia Payne proposed that the Sun and other stars were composed of Hydrogen and Helium in her Doctoral thesis in 1925 the conclusion was rejected by her advisor because of the conventional wisdom of the time that the earth and the sun were composed of the same elements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilia_Payne-Gaposchkin

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#36

Post by gerdesj »

YarickR2 wrote: post #31
gerdesj wrote: post #15

I had absolutely no idea that SA is so old. New Scientist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist is a mere whippersnapper. It doesn't matter that the article is bollocks. It is reasoned bollocks. That is basically what science is all about! I would prefer if there was some more working shown to back up the article but it seems to imply that some might be available rather than just simple assertions. We live in…

Now, imagine video with the scientist narrating this new finding (Sun is 400m years old, and gives heat and light because of meteors falling on it) is being removed by youtube, because these views are so dissenting with prevailing opinion of the world being 6000 years old max, and could harm minds of a general population, turning people away from God .

[Please move away from the DV button - I like to encourage discussion around here]

You forgot the conclusion. The prevailing opinion about the world's age is not 6000 years. I think some fundamentalist Christians might try for 4004 BC so 6000 years ... ish but I don't even know anyone who subscribes to that nonsense. I'm sure there are some who do but they are not my mates. They are certainly not general population.

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#37

Post by jeremyjh »

empath75 wrote: post #19

To me, I think what this demonstrates more than anything else is that the human mind is limited by the metaphors it has access to. Leaving astronomy out of it— just look at the how we describe the mind — it’s been variously described as breath, or hydraulics, or clockworks and now as a computer. Probably in 100 years we’ll be looking back at our primitive understanding of how the brain works and laughing. They though…

I don't think it is a matter of metaphors at all, but simply a limited understanding of laws and forces. There wasn't a force known at the time that could produce so much light and heat for so long with the mass of the sun. The only conceivable way to produce light and heat like that was to burn vast quantities of fuels.

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#38

Post by _bxg1 »

Finnucane wrote: post #14
jaggederest wrote: post #8

This is really interesting, because we had a lot of the machinery in place to make accurate observations, but not a lot of the theory to link them together. We've known about sunspots since the Han dynasty and had accurate measurements of its size, distance, and temperature since the mid-1800s when spectroscopy became available. But it took Einstein himself and the legendary E=MC^2 equation to demonstrate a theoretic…

It was definitely a conundrum for scientists. Throughout the 19th century, evidence kept piling up from geology supporting longer and longer time periods for the age of the earth, but there was no known source of energy that could keep the sun burning for that much time.

I wonder if anyone became worried that the sun could burn out at any time

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#39

Post by wonnage »

YarickR2 wrote: post #31
gerdesj wrote: post #15

I had absolutely no idea that SA is so old. New Scientist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist is a mere whippersnapper. It doesn't matter that the article is bollocks. It is reasoned bollocks. That is basically what science is all about! I would prefer if there was some more working shown to back up the article but it seems to imply that some might be available rather than just simple assertions. We live in…

Now, imagine video with the scientist narrating this new finding (Sun is 400m years old, and gives heat and light because of meteors falling on it) is being removed by youtube, because these views are so dissenting with prevailing opinion of the world being 6000 years old max, and could harm minds of a general population, turning people away from God .

there are plenty of flat earth and creationism videos on youtube, find a new slant

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#40

Post by _bxg1 »

dang wrote: post #22
kristianp wrote: post #2

(1863)

I added it. In a way it's dodgy though, because SA isn't providing the original article or even a photo of it. This is just a single-paragraph quote, and they've milked that cow before: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1jym5d/in_the_s... , which I ran across while failing to track down the original article.

You mean this isn't the original web page? :)
Post reply on HN