Hello Y'all!
- Thread starter Helio
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I enjoys astronomy as well.
What’s your favorite galaxy or star? How many light years away are they? Interesting concepts in these threads concerning hypothesis and theory ( most here thinks it’s the same within the scientific community ) and seem confused over what a law is. A lot of acceptance of the demonstrably improbable. So to be clear, you think a fact can only be based off of a law?
So the sun is roughly 8 light minutes away correct? Is the speed of light a theory or a fact?
Ever heard of Dr. Deborah Haarsma? She’s the current president of BioLogos and a astronomer. A handful of her Journal publications are there too.
What’s your favorite galaxy or star? How many light years away are they? Interesting concepts in these threads concerning hypothesis and theory ( most here thinks it’s the same within the scientific community ) and seem confused over what a law is. A lot of acceptance of the demonstrably improbable. So to be clear, you think a fact can only be based off of a law?
So the sun is roughly 8 light minutes away correct? Is the speed of light a theory or a fact?
Ever heard of Dr. Deborah Haarsma? She’s the current president of BioLogos and a astronomer. A handful of her Journal publications are there too.
Great question and if we this becomes a tangent, would it be possible for a moderator to create and move this to another thread?
The real story, from my research, stems from the fact that the Sun is a yellow star as a way to qualify it based on its spectrum. Modern textbooks and papers seem to qualify this more and more, as opposed to suggest a yellow color is the color of the Sun seen visually. [Since color is only seen visually, it's still odd.
]
So, in the mid 1800s, IIRC, when it was determined that a narrow beam of light would produce a spectrum, and that if done carefully, it would reveal strange narrow dark bands with all those colors, then things started to get interesting. Then it was discovered from lab experiments that things like Na (sodium) and other elements had the same dark lines at the same places in those colors, it became obvious that the composition of stars could be determined. Father Secchi, College Romano, was the Jesuit astronomer who pioneered the effort to categorize stars by their spectrum. He visually observed and drew (in color) likely hundreds of these spectrums. Fortunately for him, new photography techniques allowed him to image these spectrums, though in black and white. He cataloged about 4000 stars.
Perhaps a chronological outline will minimize my blather:
1817 - Joseph Fraunhofer studied stellar spectra and found them dissimilar to the Sun, though the Moon’s light was similar (of course). He also demonstrated that the lines were not likely telluric, meaning due to atmospheric effects.
1855 – Father Angelo Secchi (College Romano) began his work with spectroscopy.
1860 – Kirchoff showed metal gasses were familiar with the sun’s atmosphere. This spurred renewed interest in spectroscopy in Italy, England and in America.
1860 – Kirchoff showed metal gasses were familiar with the sun’s atmosphere. This spurred renewed interest in spectroscopy in Italy, England and in America.
1861 – Rutherford (Columbia Obs.) pub. In 1862 his spectral classification for stars.
Reddish or golden stars’ lines resemble the sun’s. These include Capella, Beta Geminorum, alpha Orionis, Aldebaran, gamma Leonis, Arcturus, Procyon
The white stars, sp. unlike the Sun. Sirius
White stars that show no lines – alpha Virginis and Rigel
1862 – Givoanni Donati (Florence) published in 1862 a classification based on star colors.
White stars – Sirius, Vega, Procyon, Fomalhaut and Rigel
Yellow stars - Altair and Capella
Orange stars - Arcturus and Pollux
Red stars – Aldebaran, Betelgeuse, and Antares
1862 – Father Secchi resumes his spectral work, publishing his improved classifications from 1863 to 1868, thanks to better instruments. He studied over 4000 stars.
1867 – Fr. Secchi published his three types:
Type I – white stars. Vega
Type II – Yellow stars. Arcturus
Type III – Orange and red stars. Betelgeuse
[My finger slipped and this was prematurely posted, so ....]
The real story, from my research, stems from the fact that the Sun is a yellow star as a way to qualify it based on its spectrum. Modern textbooks and papers seem to qualify this more and more, as opposed to suggest a yellow color is the color of the Sun seen visually. [Since color is only seen visually, it's still odd.
]So, in the mid 1800s, IIRC, when it was determined that a narrow beam of light would produce a spectrum, and that if done carefully, it would reveal strange narrow dark bands with all those colors, then things started to get interesting. Then it was discovered from lab experiments that things like Na (sodium) and other elements had the same dark lines at the same places in those colors, it became obvious that the composition of stars could be determined. Father Secchi, College Romano, was the Jesuit astronomer who pioneered the effort to categorize stars by their spectrum. He visually observed and drew (in color) likely hundreds of these spectrums. Fortunately for him, new photography techniques allowed him to image these spectrums, though in black and white. He cataloged about 4000 stars.
Perhaps a chronological outline will minimize my blather:
1817 - Joseph Fraunhofer studied stellar spectra and found them dissimilar to the Sun, though the Moon’s light was similar (of course). He also demonstrated that the lines were not likely telluric, meaning due to atmospheric effects.
1855 – Father Angelo Secchi (College Romano) began his work with spectroscopy.
1860 – Kirchoff showed metal gasses were familiar with the sun’s atmosphere. This spurred renewed interest in spectroscopy in Italy, England and in America.
1860 – Kirchoff showed metal gasses were familiar with the sun’s atmosphere. This spurred renewed interest in spectroscopy in Italy, England and in America.
1861 – Rutherford (Columbia Obs.) pub. In 1862 his spectral classification for stars.
Reddish or golden stars’ lines resemble the sun’s. These include Capella, Beta Geminorum, alpha Orionis, Aldebaran, gamma Leonis, Arcturus, Procyon
The white stars, sp. unlike the Sun. Sirius
White stars that show no lines – alpha Virginis and Rigel
1862 – Givoanni Donati (Florence) published in 1862 a classification based on star colors.
White stars – Sirius, Vega, Procyon, Fomalhaut and Rigel
Yellow stars - Altair and Capella
Orange stars - Arcturus and Pollux
Red stars – Aldebaran, Betelgeuse, and Antares
1862 – Father Secchi resumes his spectral work, publishing his improved classifications from 1863 to 1868, thanks to better instruments. He studied over 4000 stars.
1867 – Fr. Secchi published his three types:
Type I – white stars. Vega
Type II – Yellow stars. Arcturus
Type III – Orange and red stars. Betelgeuse
[My finger slipped and this was prematurely posted, so ....]
continued....
Anyway,, Secchi noted that the Sun's spectrum was similar to Capella, so the Sun went into this spectral class, which happened to be where his "yellow" stars were.
It's ironic that we note the color of all the stars we see but one because it's too bright! Looking directly at the Sun, in case there is any on the planet that has never tried, is painful to the eye. It is about 10,000x too bright for our normal color (photopic) vision range. When something is too bright, our color cones produce a far more white color of any object, so color distortion takes place.
So it made sense to put the Sun in the class based on its spectrum.
IMO, they might have assumed they didn't have the science to do a far better color determination for the Sun and stars. They actually did thanks to Lord Rayleigh's work on atmospheric scattering, but stellar color was simply not that interesting compared the wealth of information that comes from their spectra, no doubt.
There is a lot more to this story. I'll, reluctantly, give you a link to the 3rd part of 3 in a scientific blog, but I went full-bore tongue-n-cheek in trying to entertain the reader, here.... The color the Sun.
Anyway,
, Secchi noted that the Sun's spectrum was similar to Capella, so the Sun went into this spectral class, which happened to be where his "yellow" stars were. It's ironic that we note the color of all the stars we see but one because it's too bright! Looking directly at the Sun, in case there is any on the planet that has never tried, is painful to the eye. It is about 10,000x too bright for our normal color (photopic) vision range. When something is too bright, our color cones produce a far more white color of any object, so color distortion takes place.
So it made sense to put the Sun in the class based on its spectrum.
IMO, they might have assumed they didn't have the science to do a far better color determination for the Sun and stars. They actually did thanks to Lord Rayleigh's work on atmospheric scattering, but stellar color was simply not that interesting compared the wealth of information that comes from their spectra, no doubt.
There is a lot more to this story. I'll, reluctantly, give you a link to the 3rd part of 3 in a scientific blog, but I went full-bore tongue-n-cheek in trying to entertain the reader, here.... The color the Sun.
This is not too unreasonable in a religious forum, and a lot depends on just what those demonstrations are. Unfortunately, there is always some subjective element(s) for any objective claim, so only when the evidence reveals that a certain viewpoint must be considered, well, silly, then will change take place. This can take great time and patience.
Why would any number even look like a theory?
Francis Collins, who founded BioLogos, is, perhaps was, a member of the ASA (Am. Scientific Affiliation). This is an organization where full membership is only allowed for degreed scientists and theologians who are Christians. [Check out ASA3.org.]
Why would any number even look like a theory?
Francis Collins, who founded BioLogos, is, perhaps was, a member of the ASA (Am. Scientific Affiliation). This is an organization where full membership is only allowed for degreed scientists and theologians who are Christians. [Check out ASA3.org.]
Thanks I’ll definitely check it out.
As for the speed of light I agree it’s not a theory I was just trying to see what exactly you believed to avoid digging into another debate that I’m not that interested in. I see a lot of misuses of speed of light in religious forums because they reject stars being so far away, or that there are is these crazy implications such as light created before stars and it looks like it’s the light from stars and ect…
I like Francis Collins and enjoyed his book and the podcast by BioLogos named after it “The Language of God “.
Yes, I could tell. . The constancy of the speed of light, however is a hypothesis, and the basis to Special Relativity.
Getting one’s head around the distance and time implications of BBT is understandably difficult. It‘s tricky to see how light from space expanding faster than light can and does reach us.
. The constancy of the speed of light, however is a hypothesis, and the basis to Special Relativity.Getting one’s head around the distance and time implications of BBT is understandably difficult. It‘s tricky to see how light from space expanding faster than light can and does reach us.
Great question and if we this becomes a tangent, would it be possible for a moderator to create and move this to another thread?
The real story, from my research, stems from the fact that the Sun is a yellow star as a way to qualify it based on its spectrum. Modern textbooks and papers seem to qualify this more and more, as opposed to suggest a yellow color is the color of the Sun seen visually. [Since color is only seen visually, it's still odd.]
So, in the mid 1800s, IIRC, when it was determined that a narrow beam of light would produce a spectrum, and that if done carefully, it would reveal strange narrow dark bands with all those colors, then things started to get interesting. Then it was discovered from lab experiments that things like Na (sodium) and other elements had the same dark lines at the same places in those colors, it became obvious that the composition of stars could be determined. Father Secchi, College Romano, was the Jesuit astronomer who pioneered the effort to categorize stars by their spectrum. He visually observed and drew (in color) likely hundreds of these spectrums. Fortunately for him, new photography techniques allowed him to image these spectrums, though in black and white. He cataloged about 4000 stars.
Perhaps a chronological outline will minimize my blather:
1817 - Joseph Fraunhofer studied stellar spectra and found them dissimilar to the Sun, though the Moon’s light was similar (of course). He also demonstrated that the lines were not likely telluric, meaning due to atmospheric effects.
1855 – Father Angelo Secchi (College Romano) began his work with spectroscopy.
1860 – Kirchoff showed metal gasses were familiar with the sun’s atmosphere. This spurred renewed interest in spectroscopy in Italy, England and in America.
1860 – Kirchoff showed metal gasses were familiar with the sun’s atmosphere. This spurred renewed interest in spectroscopy in Italy, England and in America.
1861 – Rutherford (Columbia Obs.) pub. In 1862 his spectral classification for stars.
Reddish or golden stars’ lines resemble the sun’s. These include Capella, Beta Geminorum, alpha Orionis, Aldebaran, gamma Leonis, Arcturus, Procyon
The white stars, sp. unlike the Sun. Sirius
White stars that show no lines – alpha Virginis and Rigel
1862 – Givoanni Donati (Florence) published in 1862 a classification based on star colors.
White stars – Sirius, Vega, Procyon, Fomalhaut and Rigel
Yellow stars - Altair and Capella
Orange stars - Arcturus and Pollux
Red stars – Aldebaran, Betelgeuse, and Antares
1862 – Father Secchi resumes his spectral work, publishing his improved classifications from 1863 to 1868, thanks to better instruments. He studied over 4000 stars.
1867 – Fr. Secchi published his three types:
Type I – white stars. Vega
Type II – Yellow stars. Arcturus
Type III – Orange and red stars. Betelgeuse
[My finger slipped and this was prematurely posted, so ....]
The real story, from my research, stems from the fact that the Sun is a yellow star as a way to qualify it based on its spectrum. Modern textbooks and papers seem to qualify this more and more, as opposed to suggest a yellow color is the color of the Sun seen visually. [Since color is only seen visually, it's still odd.
]So, in the mid 1800s, IIRC, when it was determined that a narrow beam of light would produce a spectrum, and that if done carefully, it would reveal strange narrow dark bands with all those colors, then things started to get interesting. Then it was discovered from lab experiments that things like Na (sodium) and other elements had the same dark lines at the same places in those colors, it became obvious that the composition of stars could be determined. Father Secchi, College Romano, was the Jesuit astronomer who pioneered the effort to categorize stars by their spectrum. He visually observed and drew (in color) likely hundreds of these spectrums. Fortunately for him, new photography techniques allowed him to image these spectrums, though in black and white. He cataloged about 4000 stars.
Perhaps a chronological outline will minimize my blather:
1817 - Joseph Fraunhofer studied stellar spectra and found them dissimilar to the Sun, though the Moon’s light was similar (of course). He also demonstrated that the lines were not likely telluric, meaning due to atmospheric effects.
1855 – Father Angelo Secchi (College Romano) began his work with spectroscopy.
1860 – Kirchoff showed metal gasses were familiar with the sun’s atmosphere. This spurred renewed interest in spectroscopy in Italy, England and in America.
1860 – Kirchoff showed metal gasses were familiar with the sun’s atmosphere. This spurred renewed interest in spectroscopy in Italy, England and in America.
1861 – Rutherford (Columbia Obs.) pub. In 1862 his spectral classification for stars.
Reddish or golden stars’ lines resemble the sun’s. These include Capella, Beta Geminorum, alpha Orionis, Aldebaran, gamma Leonis, Arcturus, Procyon
The white stars, sp. unlike the Sun. Sirius
White stars that show no lines – alpha Virginis and Rigel
1862 – Givoanni Donati (Florence) published in 1862 a classification based on star colors.
White stars – Sirius, Vega, Procyon, Fomalhaut and Rigel
Yellow stars - Altair and Capella
Orange stars - Arcturus and Pollux
Red stars – Aldebaran, Betelgeuse, and Antares
1862 – Father Secchi resumes his spectral work, publishing his improved classifications from 1863 to 1868, thanks to better instruments. He studied over 4000 stars.
1867 – Fr. Secchi published his three types:
Type I – white stars. Vega
Type II – Yellow stars. Arcturus
Type III – Orange and red stars. Betelgeuse
[My finger slipped and this was prematurely posted, so ....]
Although, yes, the Sun is too bright to not see white, this intensity can easily be reduced enough to avoid this problem. One way is by using a simple pinhole in thin material, say aluminum, which will allow a projected image of the Sun, and one that is just right in viewing its color. Of course, this is done on Earth so all the atmospheric effects (extinctions) will not produce the same exact color distribution in the image.
The pinhole projections will always be white if on a clear day with a high-altitude Sun under normal clean air conditions. This is the key to why the Sun isn't yellow.
Since our atmosphere scatters predominately the blue end of the spectrum (violet, cyan, blue, green), producing a blue sky, then it is this small amount of the blue end colors that would need to added to the white disk. So, can we add blue light to a white disk and get yellow. Nope!
Astronaut Don Pettit aboard the ISS was hoping to do a pin-hole experiment for this purpose. He and I visited about this after he and his astrophotography friend, Robert Reeves, lead a team that was the first to ever successfully send a light signal into space and be seen by anyone up there (Flash the Station).
Another way is to visit a solar observatory since they have nice projection rooms. Here is an image taken from the McMath-Pierce solar telescope (Kitt Peak, AZ). Dr. Potter and Roy Lorenz added the color pieces, per request, to demonstrate this is a near true color image.
The pinhole projections will always be white if on a clear day with a high-altitude Sun under normal clean air conditions. This is the key to why the Sun isn't yellow.
Since our atmosphere scatters predominately the blue end of the spectrum (violet, cyan, blue, green), producing a blue sky, then it is this small amount of the blue end colors that would need to added to the white disk. So, can we add blue light to a white disk and get yellow.
Nope!Astronaut Don Pettit aboard the ISS was hoping to do a pin-hole experiment for this purpose. He and I visited about this after he and his astrophotography friend, Robert Reeves, lead a team that was the first to ever successfully send a light signal into space and be seen by anyone up there (Flash the Station).
Another way is to visit a solar observatory since they have nice projection rooms. Here is an image taken from the McMath-Pierce solar telescope (Kitt Peak, AZ). Dr. Potter and Roy Lorenz added the color pieces, per request, to demonstrate this is a near true color image.
