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

61–70 of 244 posts

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

#61

Post by YarickR2 »

caseysoftware wrote: post #45
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 think the implication was at the time this article was written that was a common belief. Therefore, the possibility that something was millions - or hundreds of millions - of years old would have been against the current orthodoxy and therefore would have been banned.

Exactly .

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

#62

Post by yongjik »

_bxg1 wrote: post #7

My personal favorite "old science" theory: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether > Luminiferous aether or ether[1] ("luminiferous", meaning "light-bearing") was the postulated medium for the propagation of light.[2] It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do. The assumption of a spatial plenum o…

It wasn't that far-fetched as it sounds now: using Maxwell's equation, one can easily derive the speed of light, c. But then the question is: speed relative to what? Because Maxwell's equation doesn't tell exactly what it is relative to.

But, as we all know, speed is relative, so it must be relative to something - then the something ought to be the medium for light. So people started looking for it - and it refused to show up even when it should! The famous Michelson–Morley experiment.

Of course, it was resolved by theory of relativity: it turns out the speed of light is relative to everything! You just have to slow down time itself, no big deal.

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

#63

Post by unholythree »

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 .

The issue there might be more that there is a single “publisher” in that media that gets to do all the gatekeeping. I’m sure American Scientist 1863 would have declined to publish lots of ideas, but didn’t have the market cornered.

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

#64

Post by ufo »

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…

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.

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

#65

Post by YarickR2 »

gerdesj wrote: post #36
YarickR2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm talking about 1863, and referring to discussion happened yesterday, about videos removed from Youtube due to being not supported by currently prevailing scientific views and opinions . Apologies for not being as clear as I want myself to be )

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

#66

Post by throw_away »

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…

How do they reconcile when they give customers answers > 6000 years and the whole "thou shalt not lie" bit?

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

#67

Post by gerdesj »

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…

I can only initially rationalise that as "start from God and work back" and "start from science and work forwards".

Whether you ever get to the bottom of this, keep loving them both. That is something that does not need a god or science or even a capital letter - I'll assert: Love is the fundamental thing that transcends any ideology.

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

#68

Post by mirimir »

Damorian wrote: post #54
mirimir wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, such Bible-based estimates are far older. I found a review that seems comprehensive, albeit reaching an incomprehensible (to me, anyway) conclusion.[0] 0) https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the...

To clarify, the modern young Earth creationism that formed as an alternative to scientific consensus. We've had strong evidence that the Earth is very, very old for hundreds of years, which was the scientific and religiously backed conclusion in the early 1800s. At the time this article was written, it would have been well understood and accepted, with no religiously driven explanation counter to scientific evidence.…

> We've had strong evidence that the Earth is very, very old for hundreds of years, which was the scientific and religiously backed conclusion in the early 1800s.

Sure, among experts. But what about popular opinion? And did the Scopes trial (1925) mark a resurgence in creationism?

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

#69

Post by gerdesj »

tempestn wrote: post #57
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 wouldn't even say it's nonsense. Edit: just realized the precise word you used was in fact 'bollocks'. I wouldn't say it's that either. The logic behind the sun not burning a fuel like coal is entirely sound. From there an alternate theory is proposed based on the limits of understanding of the time. Not as fact, but as a best guess theory that fits the evidence at that point. The theory was wrong of course, but it…

"The logic behind the sun not burning a fuel like coal is entirely sound"

That is precisely why I called it "reasoned bollocks" - perhaps a bit colourful for HN. As you say the theory was wrong but the article was describing current theory at the time and is of course ... science.

I really am praising a long running science magazine as best I can. I am a massive fan.

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

#70

Post by wolfram74 »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #43
saagarjha wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White dwarfs are quite small, making their heat loss to radiation fairly low.

Not to mention insanely dense and hot, so there is a lot of heat reserves.

And unless I'm misremembering my stat mech, the heat capacity of fermi gases is pretty high.
Post reply on HN