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

71–80 of 244 posts

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

#71

Post by asveikau »

robotbikes wrote: post #35

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

I thought helium was named for the sun (Helios), by spectral analysis of sunlight. In hindsight it's weird that they can know that in the 19th century (per Wikipedia of Helium) and the next conclusion has to wait until 1925, with controversy.

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

#74

Post by perilunar »

cft wrote: post #56

Apparently it was Darwin developing his theory of evolution, who first realized that the Earth and thus the Sun must be much older than a chemical burning process would support. That left him very puzzled since there was no physics theory that could support that.

Although Charles Lyell had already suggested the Earth was much older than 6000 years in Principles of Geology in 1830. Darwin took the first volume of Lyell's book with him on the Beagle.

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

#75

Post by dboreham »

litoE wrote: post #51
gerdesj wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

I've heard the argument that God did create everything about 6,000 years ago in HIS reference frame but that due to relativistic time dilation/contraction its been 13+ billion years in OUR reference frame.

Alternative facts.

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

#76

Post by foobar1962 »

gerdesj wrote: post #53
zamadatix wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'd be surprised about how many really do believe the Earth is nearly that young https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creati... "People you know" is a very unreliable way to get an idea about various populations. Regardless I think the comment was about applying current "solutions" to prior times and seeing if agrees with what we'd call a good solution in retrospective, not what people beli…

No, I would not really. I have some pretty odd ideas myself and I trained as a Civ Engr, run an IT company and have subscribed to New Scientist for about 30 years. Sometimes I notice aspects of my own woolly thinking and sort them out but I've no doubt that many remain. The funny thing is that "woolly" is in the eye of the beholder or something. I'm not daft enough to have misplaced 85% of the entire universe unlike…

Not misplaced, unaccounted for based on what is visible (or more accurately, detectable).

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

#77

Post by tialaramex »

ufo wrote: post #64
tialaramex wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it's helpful to describe this 1863 article as "reasoned bollocks" In this same timeframe Kelvin supposes the Earth cannot possibly be billions of years old because it's warm underground. You can measure and verify that the Sun can't be keeping the Earth this warm, if it was just down to the Sun this place would be uninhabitable. Nothing could be this warm after cooling down for billions of years with jus…

Actually, main thing that kelvin got wrong is that the Earth has a liquid mantle. Convection in the mantle means that the surface receives more heat from the interior and takes longer to cool down to the present temperatures. Radioactive decay inside the earth also adds to the age of the earth but not as much as the convection in the mantle does.

That's fair, a "convective mantel" model which accepts Kelvin's other assumptions gives 2-3 billion years, so it's at least ballpark compatible with biology. I think you'd have struggled to hide the mismatch eventually but it does pass a laugh test unlike 20 million years.

Unlike radioactivity, Kelvin could have considered convection and so that's his fault.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

whymauri wrote: post #55
zamadatix wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'd be surprised about how many really do believe the Earth is nearly that young https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creati... "People you know" is a very unreliable way to get an idea about various populations. Regardless I think the comment was about applying current "solutions" to prior times and seeing if agrees with what we'd call a good solution in retrospective, not what people beli…

My older brother has founded two separate isotope dating companies, one for C-14 dating and the other for rare isotopes. At this point, he has about 15 years of experience in the field and a decent clientele. He believes the Earth is 6000 years old, though. He rationalizes the science he works on as (the biblical) God testing his faith. My father, who works at his C-14 company, also believes this. I will never unders…

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by gerdesj »

tialaramex wrote: post #59
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…

I'm not sure it's helpful to describe this 1863 article as "reasoned bollocks" In this same timeframe Kelvin supposes the Earth cannot possibly be billions of years old because it's warm underground. You can measure and verify that the Sun can't be keeping the Earth this warm, if it was just down to the Sun this place would be uninhabitable. Nothing could be this warm after cooling down for billions of years with jus…

Assume a spherical planet. OK an ablate spheroid. OK a ...

Now assume Lord Kelvin is talking bollocks. Just because you invent "really cold, bordering on quite nippy" doesn't mean you can overlook things like half lives and red shift. If Lord Kelvin lived now I suspect he might have other conclusions - he evaluated the evidence available at the time.

I was deliberately provocative and I'm glad I was. I've got far better responses as a result. I never thought to mention Kelvin and you have dived in and filled in that gap.

The article in SA was and is absolute bollocks. Bear in mind that your and my definition of bollocks may be dissimilar and I am not being disrespectful. The article is very short and does not provide working. It is of its time and I suspect the working is available somewhere else. It gives us a short glimpse of popular science writing 150 odd years ago.

Post reply on HN