Paradoxes

[bluefirecorp]

I've got a paradox...

The established method for calculating the temperature of the sun is by it's colour in reference to molten iron.

Why is a blue LED not hotter than the sun?   

That's just you not understanding basic science.

physicists are made of atoms. a physicist is an attempt by an atom to understand itself.

Trying to understand one's self is NOT a paradox.

Perhaps you would care to explain it if this science is so basic.

The amount of power going into an LED is very, very small. If you were to put more than the power of the sun into an LED, it'd be hotter than the sun -- and a good chance not blue anymore.

The color of an LED doesn't really show it's temperature, as the temperature is invisible to the naked eye (because it's so low). We use shadings to show the color.

This doesn't explain why colour can be used to determine the sun's tempeture but not that of an LED. You've simply stated that the sun has more power.

If I have enough LEDs strung together and power them all with the equivalent power of the sun they still won't be any hotter.

If you pump over 3.83 * 10^26watts into the LED, it would be as hot as the sun.

This is basic science man.

[notbatman]

I've got a paradox...

The established method for calculating the temperature of the sun is by it's colour in reference to molten iron.

Why is a blue LED not hotter than the sun?   

That's just you not understanding basic science.

physicists are made of atoms. a physicist is an attempt by an atom to understand itself.

Trying to understand one's self is NOT a paradox.

Perhaps you would care to explain it if this science is so basic.

The amount of power going into an LED is very, very small. If you were to put more than the power of the sun into an LED, it'd be hotter than the sun -- and a good chance not blue anymore.

The color of an LED doesn't really show it's temperature, as the temperature is invisible to the naked eye (because it's so low). We use shadings to show the color.

This doesn't explain why colour can be used to determine the sun's tempeture but not that of an LED. You've simply stated that the sun has more power.

If I have enough LEDs strung together and power them all with the equivalent power of the sun they still won't be any hotter.

If you pump over 3.83 * 10^26watts into the LED, it would be as hot as the sun.

This is basic science man.

OK, so make a single LED the size of the sun and power it with the energy of the sun. Can you still say it's as hot as the sun?

[bluefirecorp]

I've got a paradox...

The established method for calculating the temperature of the sun is by it's colour in reference to molten iron.

Why is a blue LED not hotter than the sun?   

That's just you not understanding basic science.

physicists are made of atoms. a physicist is an attempt by an atom to understand itself.

Trying to understand one's self is NOT a paradox.

Perhaps you would care to explain it if this science is so basic.

The amount of power going into an LED is very, very small. If you were to put more than the power of the sun into an LED, it'd be hotter than the sun -- and a good chance not blue anymore.

The color of an LED doesn't really show it's temperature, as the temperature is invisible to the naked eye (because it's so low). We use shadings to show the color.

This doesn't explain why colour can be used to determine the sun's tempeture but not that of an LED. You've simply stated that the sun has more power.

If I have enough LEDs strung together and power them all with the equivalent power of the sun they still won't be any hotter.

If you pump over 3.83 * 10^26watts into the LED, it would be as hot as the sun.

This is basic science man.

OK, so make a single LED the size of the sun and power it with the energy of the sun. Can you still say it's as hot as the sun?

Yes, or very, very close to the same temperature as the sun. Do they not teach basic laws of thermodynamics during primary school anymore?

[notbatman]

I've got a paradox...

The established method for calculating the temperature of the sun is by it's colour in reference to molten iron.

Why is a blue LED not hotter than the sun?   

That's just you not understanding basic science.

physicists are made of atoms. a physicist is an attempt by an atom to understand itself.

Trying to understand one's self is NOT a paradox.

Perhaps you would care to explain it if this science is so basic.

The amount of power going into an LED is very, very small. If you were to put more than the power of the sun into an LED, it'd be hotter than the sun -- and a good chance not blue anymore.

The color of an LED doesn't really show it's temperature, as the temperature is invisible to the naked eye (because it's so low). We use shadings to show the color.

This doesn't explain why colour can be used to determine the sun's tempeture but not that of an LED. You've simply stated that the sun has more power.

If I have enough LEDs strung together and power them all with the equivalent power of the sun they still won't be any hotter.

If you pump over 3.83 * 10^26watts into the LED, it would be as hot as the sun.

This is basic science man.

OK, so make a single LED the size of the sun and power it with the energy of the sun. Can you still say it's as hot as the sun?

Yes, or very, very close to the same temperature as the sun. Do they not teach basic laws of thermodynamics during primary school anymore?

Useing primary school basic science as the foundation for your argument simply allows you to make a jack-ass rebuttle of the question while dodging any intellectual footwork.

Clearly the sun sized blue LED is going to be cool compaired with the so-called established temperature of the sun.

[bluefirecorp]

I've got a paradox...

The established method for calculating the temperature of the sun is by it's colour in reference to molten iron.

Why is a blue LED not hotter than the sun?   

That's just you not understanding basic science.

physicists are made of atoms. a physicist is an attempt by an atom to understand itself.

Trying to understand one's self is NOT a paradox.

Perhaps you would care to explain it if this science is so basic.

The amount of power going into an LED is very, very small. If you were to put more than the power of the sun into an LED, it'd be hotter than the sun -- and a good chance not blue anymore.

The color of an LED doesn't really show it's temperature, as the temperature is invisible to the naked eye (because it's so low). We use shadings to show the color.

This doesn't explain why colour can be used to determine the sun's tempeture but not that of an LED. You've simply stated that the sun has more power.

If I have enough LEDs strung together and power them all with the equivalent power of the sun they still won't be any hotter.

If you pump over 3.83 * 10^26watts into the LED, it would be as hot as the sun.

This is basic science man.

OK, so make a single LED the size of the sun and power it with the energy of the sun. Can you still say it's as hot as the sun?

Yes, or very, very close to the same temperature as the sun. Do they not teach basic laws of thermodynamics during primary school anymore?

Useing primary school basic science as the foundation for your argument simply allows you to make a jack-ass rebuttle of the question while dodging any intellectual footwork.

Clearly the sun sized blue LED is going to be cool compaired with the so-called established temperature of the sun.

Give this a read, please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Then come back to me. The LED doesn't have to be sun-sized. As long as the same amount of power is going into it, it should be around the same temp as the sun.

[notbatman]

I've got a paradox...

The established method for calculating the temperature of the sun is by it's colour in reference to molten iron.

Why is a blue LED not hotter than the sun?   

That's just you not understanding basic science.

physicists are made of atoms. a physicist is an attempt by an atom to understand itself.

Trying to understand one's self is NOT a paradox.

Perhaps you would care to explain it if this science is so basic.

The amount of power going into an LED is very, very small. If you were to put more than the power of the sun into an LED, it'd be hotter than the sun -- and a good chance not blue anymore.

The color of an LED doesn't really show it's temperature, as the temperature is invisible to the naked eye (because it's so low). We use shadings to show the color.

This doesn't explain why colour can be used to determine the sun's tempeture but not that of an LED. You've simply stated that the sun has more power.

If I have enough LEDs strung together and power them all with the equivalent power of the sun they still won't be any hotter.

If you pump over 3.83 * 10^26watts into the LED, it would be as hot as the sun.

This is basic science man.

OK, so make a single LED the size of the sun and power it with the energy of the sun. Can you still say it's as hot as the sun?

Yes, or very, very close to the same temperature as the sun. Do they not teach basic laws of thermodynamics during primary school anymore?

Useing primary school basic science as the foundation for your argument simply allows you to make a jack-ass rebuttle of the question while dodging any intellectual footwork.

Clearly the sun sized blue LED is going to be cool compaired with the so-called established temperature of the sun.

Give this a read, please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Then come back to me. The LED doesn't have to be sun-sized. As long as the same amount of power is going into it, it should be around the same temp as the sun.

I agree that the sun should be the same temperature as a sun sized LED. However established science disagrees and states that it's much hotter based solely on its colour. It then goes on to claim based on these rediculious temperatures that the sun is fueled by nuclear fusion.

You've not provided an argument as to why the sun's temperature can be determined soley by its colour but an LED cannot.

Being blue in colour the LED should be many orders of magnatude geater in temoerature than the sun using this methology.

 

[bluefirecorp]

I've got a paradox...

The established method for calculating the temperature of the sun is by it's colour in reference to molten iron.

Why is a blue LED not hotter than the sun?  

That's just you not understanding basic science.

physicists are made of atoms. a physicist is an attempt by an atom to understand itself.

Trying to understand one's self is NOT a paradox.

Perhaps you would care to explain it if this science is so basic.

The amount of power going into an LED is very, very small. If you were to put more than the power of the sun into an LED, it'd be hotter than the sun -- and a good chance not blue anymore.

The color of an LED doesn't really show it's temperature, as the temperature is invisible to the naked eye (because it's so low). We use shadings to show the color.

This doesn't explain why colour can be used to determine the sun's tempeture but not that of an LED. You've simply stated that the sun has more power.

If I have enough LEDs strung together and power them all with the equivalent power of the sun they still won't be any hotter.

If you pump over 3.83 * 10^26watts into the LED, it would be as hot as the sun.

This is basic science man.

OK, so make a single LED the size of the sun and power it with the energy of the sun. Can you still say it's as hot as the sun?

Yes, or very, very close to the same temperature as the sun. Do they not teach basic laws of thermodynamics during primary school anymore?

Useing primary school basic science as the foundation for your argument simply allows you to make a jack-ass rebuttle of the question while dodging any intellectual footwork.

Clearly the sun sized blue LED is going to be cool compaired with the so-called established temperature of the sun.

Give this a read, please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Then come back to me. The LED doesn't have to be sun-sized. As long as the same amount of power is going into it, it should be around the same temp as the sun.

I agree that the sun should be the same temperature as a sun sized LED. However established science disagrees and states that it's much hotter based solely on its colour. It then goes on to claim based on these rediculious temperatures that the sun is fueled by nuclear fusion.

You've not provided an argument as to why the sun's temperature can be determined soley by its colour but an LED cannot.

Being blue in colour the LED should be many orders of magnatude geater in temoerature than the sun using this methology.

 

This is my final reply, I give up. Seriously, you literally don't read what I say anyway -- why should I waste time saying it?

The LED uses a semiconductor material to produce light.

Give this article a read: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/led.htm

An LED produces roughly 76.9 lumens per watt, but also produces a little bit of heat (as all the energy isn't converted to light thanks to thermodynamics). A blue LED and a red LED both use the EXACT same amount of power and both produce the EXACT same lumens per watt. Why? Because the nearly transparent plastic case. That's where the different colors of lights come from. The heat / amount of energy input has absolutely fucking NOTHING to do with an LED color, at all.

Now onto more theory, stellar classification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_classification#Harvard_spectral_classification

According to YOUR false / logic, a light bulb would be ~7,500 - 10k kevin. The moon would the same (white light and all). Your monitor screen would be the same. The LED in your display/monitor would vary between the colors behind it (the title on this site is much hotter than the white background on this site). See how wrong your logic is?

Now do you understand why I was saying this was simple fucking science. I mean, there's absolutely nothing complicated about it -- other than you confusing light output with a transparent container.

[Foxpup]

If you two are done being idiots, the real reason the sun's temperature can be measured from its colour is because its colour is due to black-body radiation, which is the light and other radiation emitted by non-reflective objects due to incandescence (or, in more basic terms, hot things glow). LEDs are not incandescent (unless you're doing something horribly wrong); LEDs emit light due to electroluminescence, which is in no way related to temperature.

If you're wondering how we know the sun is incandescent, we know because black-body radiation has a distinct spectrum that is not produced by any other phenomenon (and more specifically looks absolutely nothing like the spectrum of light emitted by an LED).

Incidentally, we know the sun is powered by fusion not because it is hot (there are plenty of other process that can produce such heat), but because it emits other kinds of radiation that are only produced by nuclear fusion.

[notbatman]

If you two are done being idiots, the real reason the sun's temperature can be measured from its colour is because its colour is due to black-body radiation, which is the light and other radiation emitted by non-reflective objects due to incandescence (or, in more basic terms, hot things glow). LEDs are not incandescent (unless you're doing something horribly wrong); LEDs emit light due to electroluminescence, which is in no way related to temperature.

If you're wondering how we know the sun is incandescent, we know because black-body radiation has a distinct spectrum that is not produced by any other phenomenon (and more specifically looks absolutely nothing like the spectrum of light emitted by an LED).

Incidentally, we know the sun is powered by fusion not because it is hot (there are plenty of other process that can produce such heat), but because it emits other kinds of radiation that are only produced by nuclear fusion.

The problem with this theory is that black body radiation results from energy absorbed being re-radiated excluding "fueled" nuclear fusion as the source.

A bit of research on the subject indicates  the spectrum is perfectly in line with that of cold helium plasma in a vaccume diode.

[Foxpup]

The problem with this theory is that black body radiation results from energy absorbed being re-radiated excluding "fueled" nuclear fusion as the source.

What the damn Hell are you on (about)? The energy from the fusion reaction is absorbed. There is only sufficient pressure for fusion reactions at the core; there's no fusion happening on the surface of the sun, which is what you're actually seeing. Some of the energy from the core is absorbed by the surface layers, which heat up and emit black-body radiation.

A bit of research on the subject indicates  the spectrum is perfectly in line with that of cold helium plasma in a vaccume diode.

Wrong. Have you ever actually seen helium plasma? It glows deep orange. The sun is not deep orange. That alone indicates a major problem with your theory.

Here's the sun's measured spectrum (yellow) compared to predicted black-body radiation (grey):


And here's the emission spectrum of helium:


If you look very closely, you will see that these spectrographs look absolutely nothing alike. The sun is incandescent.

[Parham6]

I thought this thread was about paradoxes not thermodynamics education... Anyway my favorite pseudo-paradox is The Birthday Paradox:

In a set of n randomly chosen people, some pair of them will have the same birthday. By the pigeonhole principle, the probability reaches 100% when the number of people reaches 367 (since there are 366 possible birthdays, including February 29). However, 99.9% probability is reached with just 70 people, and 50% probability with 23 people.

It's not technically a paradox because it's true, it's just magically nigh impossible for a human mind to fully comprehend it. I still can't logically figure it out after years myself.

In case you don't accept the above as a paradox, my next favorite paradox is Grandfather paradox:

Assuming time travel is possible, what if someone were to travel to the past and kill his own grandfather?

[notbatman]

It's not often I get in over my head on technical or scientific subjects. It does look like I need to learn more on subject before posting paradoxical half-baked theories about the sun being cold.

I still strongly suspect the prevailing established view is somehow ass backwards.

I should also note that nuclear physics, plasma physics and cosmology aren't exactly primary school basics.

I'll do some digging, I'm sure I can salvage some of my argument. Sorry for going off-topic... even in the off-topic section

[Phinnaeus Gage]

paradoxes time! Since I love paradoxes, I'd love to see all the paradoxes you know. Here's one:

If a crocodile steals a child and promises its return if the father can correctly guess exactly what the crocodile will do, how should the crocodile respond in the case that the father correctly guesses that the child will not be returned?

Do you have any? or even better if you tought of one?

Does it involve an arrow and a hare?

[notbatman]

The problem with this theory is that black body radiation results from energy absorbed being re-radiated excluding "fueled" nuclear fusion as the source.

What the damn Hell are you on (about)? The energy from the fusion reaction is absorbed. There is only sufficient pressure for fusion reactions at the core; there's no fusion happening on the surface of the sun, which is what you're actually seeing. Some of the energy from the core is absorbed by the surface layers, which heat up and emit black-body radiation.

A bit of research on the subject indicates  the spectrum is perfectly in line with that of cold helium plasma in a vaccume diode.

Wrong. Have you ever actually seen helium plasma? It glows deep orange. The sun is not deep orange. That alone indicates a major problem with your theory.

Here's the sun's measured spectrum (yellow) compared to predicted black-body radiation (grey):


And here's the emission spectrum of helium:


If you look very closely, you will see that these spectrographs look absolutely nothing alike. The sun is incandescent.

I found an image of the cold plasma, it's a mixture of helium and air and glows purple? I suppose the sun's mix is a bit different.



When a sun spot appears it looks dark and cold beneath the surface. I can't help but think all the heat stays trapped in the core, how can heat pass through all that dense matter?

[JoelKatz]

The game time has a fixed limit therefore the game limit is normal and the game time is not.

If the game has a fixed limit, it is normal. But then it has no fixed limit because the first player may choose this game, causing it to take longer than its fixed limit because the game may now take up to its fixed limit plus the time the first player took choosing.

[Foxpup]

I found an image of the cold plasma, it's a mixture of helium and air and glows purple? I suppose the sun's mix is a bit different.

The sun's mix is different. It differs in that there is no air in space.

When a sun spot appears it looks dark and cold beneath the surface. I can't help but think all the heat stays trapped in the core, how can heat pass through all that dense matter?

Through radiation and convection. Due to the sun's immense size, this heat transfer is a slow process, taking approximately 30 million years for heat to travel from the core to the surface (the scene in Star Trek Generations where the star instantly goes dark and implodes when its fusion reaction is suddenly halted is, like most things in Star Trek, utter bullshit). Sunspots are regions where convection currents are inhibited by fluctuations in the sun's magnetic field, causing the surface to cool in those regions.

If the game has a fixed limit, it is normal. But then it has no fixed limit because the first player may choose this game, causing it to take longer than its fixed limit because the game may now take up to its fixed limit plus the time the first player took choosing.

It also has no fixed limit because it is played until there is a winner, which is not guaranteed to ever happen (a normal game may end in a draw).

[mediogreFIN]

One more paradox: Aliens come to Earth with a brain scanner. The brain scanner appears to be able to predict human behavior with astonishing accuracy. To demonstrate its power and their generosity, the aliens present each human with two sealed boxes and a choice. The first box contains either a single dose of a potion that will prevent all disease or is empty. The second box always contains $20. Your choice is simple. You may choose either just the first box or both boxes.

You are standing in line and reason that when it's your turn to choose, the contents of both boxes are unchangeable. They are what they are. So you are better off choosing both boxes rather than just one. But then as you observe the people ahead of you in line, you notice that those who chose both boxes get just $20 while those that choose just the first box get the potion. You realize that the aliens must be using the brain scanning machine to determine whether each person will pick both boxes or just the first box and if they determine that they will pick both boxes, they make the first box empty.

What do you do?

Soooooo.. the aliens knew (predicted) that i am going to see the pattern so whatever i choose is predicted before. But that would also prove that our lifes are prewritten (destiny).

Now there are few options:

I choose one box and get the potion.. so you could still assume that aliens predicted that (or take two boxes and get 20$ with same result)

BUT

What if i choose to take two boxes and happen to get both potion and 20$? Did i screw their system or were they ahead of me. They knew that i'm going to see the pattern so they could deside to do something differently with me.

So whatever i choose and whatever i get, it doesn't actually prove anything (about do we have options to choose our destiny or is our destiny prewritten)..

[zimmah]

I've got a paradox...

The established method for calculating the temperature of the sun is by it's colour in reference to molten iron.

Why is a blue LED not hotter than the sun?  

different elements have a different wavelength at certain temperatures.

It has to do with the frequency of vibrations and such.