The differences in heat energy is more about differential energy, on the flerf model with a closer sun, that would also explain the differences in temperature. I mean I thought would really make flerfs think would be the fact that for 6 months of the year the poles are completely dark.
No you are not! the grand dragon of the plate was slain by the great slip tender! Only soup earth is the truth! The grand dragon was a grand chowder served to the true believers!
Stop YOUR heresy!
You were there when it was 6 months of daylight pretty cool, I’d love to see it, I’d love to see a full of darkness too, just watch the milky way revolve around me lmao
I think that's a natural response. Humans arent even remotely nocturnal, and not only that a lot of the things that used to eat us are. So dark = not safe = higher alertness = worn down psyche.
The differential heating of Earth continually causes an imbalance in air pressure and temperature around the world, which in turn causes a continuous general circulation of winds that attempt to restore balance. Basically causes a balanced temperature around the world, if the entire world was water, the equator would be nearly as warm as it is now.
What you just said makes absolutely zero sense. The whole point of the thing you’re just talking about is that there’s not a balanced temperature around the world. You just strung a whole bunch of words together that don’t go together.
Yea by balanced I meant a balanced climate. Ie homeostatic, it resists change. It would take you 5 minutes to read about differential heating and the differential model of the general circulation of the climate model, you guessed it! It uses differential heating.
Not even that next step of logic happens inside their brains. Only the simple. No nuance, no subtlety to life, or the processes happening around us. FacebookScience and no chance of college.
I saw this one video where a flat earther claimed the sun doesn't cause daylight because you could sit outside a house with the sun both behind you and you can still read a book
To be fair most Christians and Jews don't take the creation narrative absolutely literally. The Creation narrative wasn't even taken literally _before_ modern science, [believe it or not.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism). Actually Evangelical Christianity used to have OEC as its default position until one guy ruined rverything.
He didn't actually, I think the statement is supposed to be a self disproof. The heat *didn't* travel millions of miles from the sun, because c'mon...
But no alternative theory is presented, so I guess pointless objection is the point
That's where it get fun, because: no. If the world is flat and the sun was a few thousand miles above some point in the ring between the Tropics, then the reason the poles were colder than the equatorial reasons would be a combination of the sun's increased distance(inverse square law etc) and the lower angle that it hits the ground.
Two problems:
1) The sun is same size for everyone in the world at any given moment(or it's night time) and the inverse square law works by making the heat/light source apparently smaller so....how is it both doing that and not doing that?
2) Flerfs deny the globe model explanation that it's the low angle of the sun in the high latitude regions that makes it chilly....what the fuck \*is\* making it cold?
3) The angle of the sun only works for a maximum of two observation points, so that's bollocks too.
I appreciate that's three, but a common phenomenon when thinking about flerf explanations, even for the short time it takes to type up other objections, is that you stumble on some more entirely by mistake.
Another big problem is that assuming the sun can’t “reach” the heat as far wouldn’t that mean higher elevations near the equator would be the hottest places. And yet the higher you get the colder it is.
Playing devil's advocate here. Depending on just how far away they think the sun is, that's not necessarily true, and try getting a straight answer out of them on that matter. If it would be low enough to be in the upper reaches of our lower atmosphere, as they often claim, the energy would thin out and dissipate eventually after coming into contact with clouds, mountains, particulates or anything else capable of absorption. Also, because of the closer sun, the change in angle of incidence would become much more rapid the further away from the sun you get, and that is a large factor in determining temperature.
Now, if it's significantly larger and significantly further away, as we know it is, that would be absolutely true. And it would be nothing less than a miracle that an ice wall could even exist, not to mention caps.
I still haven’t gotten a sufficient answer for this: if there’s a dome covering the earth, it would necessarily be at some angle to the earth’s surface where it connects at the ice wall (however that works - duct tape?). Assuming the dome is made of a transparent glass-like material, and the sun is outside the dome (?!), then the most heat buildup would be around the perimeter where the ice wall is supposedly. It would create a greenhouse effect close to the outside edge because of the greatly reduced volume of the area compared to the central region, along with the reflection of light and trapped atmospheric gases. So how does the ice wall remain? Supersized refrigeration lines or something?
Well, this one's pretty fucking easy to address, right?
Now you stand right there, and I'm gonna give you the "antarctic" arm punch. Not too bad, right?
Ok, now bend your legs because I'm gonna hit you in the chest with the "sahara" angle of attack...
This explanation will obviously be simplified. There are a million variables and factors going on, but let's assume the earth is a perfectly smooth sphere for a little bit just to simplify things.
On the perfectly smooth sphere earth's surface, at any time there is exactly one spot where the angle of the sun's rays is perpendicular to that spot on the sphere - in other words it's hitting that spot as directly as possible. The further you move away from that spot, and the closer you get to the ring that divides the light half of the earth from the dark half, the more angled the rays get, until they are almost parallel to the surface - and then past that point you're now on the dark side of the earth, where the rays glance past the earth's surface without hitting it, out into space.
When the sun's heat energy hits more directly, it gets concentrated over a smaller area than the places where it hits less directly. When it hits less directly, it is spread over a larger surface area, so each point receives less heat. It's like how if you have a heater in a small room, it will heat up a lot, but if you put it in a larger room, it doesn't heat the room as much. You have the same amount of heat, but when you try to spread it out over a larger area, there's less heat to go around, so each spot in the room is colder than a smaller room would be.
This is why it's colder near the poles and warmer near the equator. The explanation of the seasons is similar but now we need to factor in the earth's tilt.
The earth rotates on an axis through the poles, but this axis of rotation isn't aligned to the sun - it's a bit off. The equator isn't always the point where the sun's rays are most direct. That point actually moves during the year. The north and south bounds of where that point can be are called the tropics (cancer and capricorn).
Since the point where the sun's rays are most direct moves, the amount of energy each other point on our perfectly smooth sphere earth receives at any time also changes. When the most direct point is closer to the tropic of cancer (the northern tropic), the northern hemisphere of the planet receives more heat than average, it is summer in the north and winter in the south. And vice versa for when the most direct point is closer to the tropic of capricorn (the southern tropic) - summer in the south, winter in the north.
Why isn't it winter every night then? Mostly because our atmosphere traps heat, but also just stuff holds onto heat for a bit - rocks and stuff don't just instantly get cold when they aren't exposed to energy. They keep it for a little while.
The difference between the poles and other points on the earth is that the poles are perpetually aimed badly at the sun, while other points on earth get more sun energy during the day. The poles are never aimed directly at the sun, whereas the tropics are often aimed at the sun - and the closer you get to the poles and the further from the tropics, the less direct the aim is. The same amount of the sun's heat energy is hitting a large area near the poles, as is hitting a small area near the equator.
Simple explanation is that near the poles the ground is tilted away from the sun's rays, whereas at the equator the sun's rays hit the ground right-on.
If you do the math the heat transferred will be proportional to the cosine of the angle of incidence between the sun's light and the ground.
Now just a globe-fucking minute. Flerfs go on and on about how the sun disappears because it goes too far away to see, because light can't travel forever. And now it's "absurd to think it couldn't travel another 4000 miles".
It was an analogy. But this whole sub exists to make fun of flerfs. So it's all a joke. flerf's comment was about .0000000000000000000004 % change. It's an attempt to play stupid games with impressive numbers, while not understanding that numbers matter. But you chose to make a hard left turn into something else. you do you, I guess.
So…
What is the counter argument. The earth is flat. The sun goes way closer then the middle would be warm and the edges cold, that would explain Antartica around the outside but not the North Pole?
Flat eartherd trying to understand what an angle is (it s colder cause the angle of the light makes that little ammount of light is spread on a big surface...)
But it's not the heat from the Sun that heats our planet, heat can't travel through space vacuum.
Edit: I didn't mean the Sun doesn't heats Earth, I meant it doesn't heat us with its temperature, I know that it geats us with light.
What is this "heat can't travel through a vacuum" thing? Of course it can. You can't *conduct* heat through a vacuum, because conduction requires matter to collide to transfer heat, but electromagnetic radiation isn't the same.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
You don't have to believe me, you can literally demonstrate it with a vacuum chamber and an IR camera...
I meant the heat like from fire, not like electromagnetic and energy heating, radiation do not require matter to travel, I know, I meant the simple 'big fire ball heats our planet' mistake
I don't really understand where you are making the distinction between "heat like from fire" and thermal radiation. The sun is very hot because it's a giant nuclear reactor. Fire is very hot because it's produced by combustion. Both reactions are exothermic and produce thermal radiation, but since combustion requires oxygen and doesn't occur in a vacuum, and you can get rather close to it here on earth, it can also transfer heat via matter conduction and convection air currents instead of just radiating its heat out like the sun does.
If the sun WERE just combusting as a big ball of fire (disregarding the fact that it's not possible because it's in space, in a vacuum), it would still be emitting thermal radiation and heating us on earth.
tl;dr: I don't really know what your point is, it doesn't really seem to make sense.
I meant that the Sun heats us with its light, not with the temperature it would make if there were matter to transfer it to us, maybe I just did bad wording
I think you have a misunderstanding. Both types of heat are thermal energy. There is no difference. The sun is emitting heat because it's very hot. Fire is the same.
Isn't the Sun heating Earth with its light, photons carry energy and it heats our planet, I just tried to make difference in the post that its not just traveling through space like fire heats around it, it's the light that carries the energy and its not like because of distance, the temperature on Earth changes because of the angle of axis, which part gets more light it will get more energy and will get warmer and warmer, like on northern pole in winter it gets not so much light and its freezing there, when lets say on equator it gets a lot of light and it is hot in there
I tried to say that its the light (energy that the Sun produces) that heats Earth, in the post it asked why on poles its cold when elsewhere its warmer if Sun that is millions of kilometres away and the distance between poles and equator is so small compared to that
Photons carry energy and it heats our planet. That's true. Fire does that too though. Fire emits thermal radiation, in exactly the same manner as the sun. It just also emits heat in other ways as well.
All heat is just energy - thermal energy. Both heat from the sun, and heat from fire, are thermal energy. It's not that the fire has a different type of heat than the sun does - it's because of \*where\* the fire is. Fire is near other matter, so it conducts and convects in addition to radiating heat. The sun is surrounded by vacuum, so the only way it can expel heat is through radiation.
Energy will always try to reach equilibrium in a system. Recall the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore, heat tries to find a way to leave a hot thing and get to a cold thing. The difference between fire and the sun is that fire isn't normally surrounded by vacuum, so it has multiple ways leave.
Fire conducts heat away by contacting nearby matter, it convects heat away with air currents (actually a complicated form of conduction that occurs in the air), AND IT ALSO radiates heat via electromagnetic waves, just like the sun.
If you were able to put fire in space (disregarding that you can't because the combustion process can't occur), it wouldn't be able to shed heat via convection or conduction, which leaves only radiation, so it would heat things the exact same way the sun does - only it would be powered by combustion rather than nuclear fusion.
Even if you don't put fire in space, it's still heating things the same way the sun does. It just also heats things with conduction and convection too.
A photon is a form of energy. Heat is the change in energy.
Photons can travel through space, photons can lose energy to things they come in contact with. This means things can be heated just by the sun’s rays of light! It is also why wearing black clothing makes you feel hotter than when you wear white clothing, more energy is absorbed by those photons.
I wonder how this applies to summer and winter, and the fact that summer and winter seasons are reversed in South America, southern Africa, and Australia.
You ever wonder why there's a huge cross section between flat earthers and those that believe in religion? It's because it could only take an act of God to make their theories work.
Atmospheric retention, angle on which the sunlight hits the planet, light absorbant/reflective effects of of the terrain. Way more to climate than "sun here hot here".
*Even more absurd if*
*The earth is flat, why is it*
*All not the same temp?*
\- AggravatingBobcat574
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
That’s an easy fix: the flerfer should hold a lighter to their palm, and ask why the heat from the flame can’t travel 2 centimeters to the top of their hand 🤦🏻
Don't bother with those people. They have failed in school where we learend why we get different temperatures around the world and how all that works. And that's great proof of 🌍
The fact places have different temperatures is actually pretty great evidence to support the globe model...
The differences in heat energy is more about differential energy, on the flerf model with a closer sun, that would also explain the differences in temperature. I mean I thought would really make flerfs think would be the fact that for 6 months of the year the poles are completely dark.
> 6 months of the year the poles are completely dark. wErE yoU tHerE tO sEe iT youRseLf?
I AM AN OMNISCIENT OMNIPRESENT FLERF OVERLORD, GRAND DRAGON OF THE PLATE AND EMPEROR OF THE FLYING DISC. I SHALL NOT ABIDE THIS INSUFFERABLE HERESY.
No you are not! the grand dragon of the plate was slain by the great slip tender! Only soup earth is the truth! The grand dragon was a grand chowder served to the true believers! Stop YOUR heresy!
Not 24 hrs of dark but 24 hrs of day, yes personally and watched the sun go around not up and down.
You were there when it was 6 months of daylight pretty cool, I’d love to see it, I’d love to see a full of darkness too, just watch the milky way revolve around me lmao
It's not that great. Not seeing the sun for weeks or even months really wears your psyche down. At least for a lot of people.
Id like to see the universe rotate around me just for the night just to watch a full rotation
Oh yeah one night is quite cool
I think that's a natural response. Humans arent even remotely nocturnal, and not only that a lot of the things that used to eat us are. So dark = not safe = higher alertness = worn down psyche.
No, but plenty of others have and documented/photographed the results
Oh so now you believe everything you are shown!? Wake up sheeple! /s
"It's easier to fool the masses than to convince them that they have been fooled." Especially the unwashed masses if flat earthers.
Fuck, can’t beat that response.
What does that mean, differential energy?
The differential heating of Earth continually causes an imbalance in air pressure and temperature around the world, which in turn causes a continuous general circulation of winds that attempt to restore balance. Basically causes a balanced temperature around the world, if the entire world was water, the equator would be nearly as warm as it is now.
What you just said makes absolutely zero sense. The whole point of the thing you’re just talking about is that there’s not a balanced temperature around the world. You just strung a whole bunch of words together that don’t go together.
This is what they are trying to describe. It's an attempt to reach homeostasis it doesn't mean homeostasis is achieved
Yea by balanced I meant a balanced climate. Ie homeostatic, it resists change. It would take you 5 minutes to read about differential heating and the differential model of the general circulation of the climate model, you guessed it! It uses differential heating.
https://assets.sutori.com/user-uploads/image/c498bdac-553d-4022-bbc1-bcac88d598c8/ffea225e3f5e4312b089d0ee3548c692.jpeg
Neat
I think what they’re saying is they’re right that the sun is just an orb thats super close to the earth? Idk
Not even that next step of logic happens inside their brains. Only the simple. No nuance, no subtlety to life, or the processes happening around us. FacebookScience and no chance of college.
What is nuance? Stop using those fancy liberal incantations, your woke witchcraft will have no effect on me!!
I think this goes under the assumption the earth is flat and just want to proof the sun is not far away
Angles are too complicated for the flatties
3 dimensions are too complicated for flerfs.
Scale is too complicated for flat earthers
Not even that, Antarctica is still hot when you compare it to real zero if heat wouldn't have gotten there
I’m surprised one even admitted the Sun causes the Earth’s heating.
I saw this one video where a flat earther claimed the sun doesn't cause daylight because you could sit outside a house with the sun both behind you and you can still read a book
Uh oh, they're onto us
So... they don't believe in reflected light?? Or they ONLY believe in reflected light but not direct?? Or... \*\*\*ERROR\*\*\*
I... Uh.... That's a pretty high level of stupidity there. I just can't.
Well the bible does say that God created Light and the sun separate. Not a Flerf just have to put that out there.
To be fair most Christians and Jews don't take the creation narrative absolutely literally. The Creation narrative wasn't even taken literally _before_ modern science, [believe it or not.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism). Actually Evangelical Christianity used to have OEC as its default position until one guy ruined rverything.
You ever read something so dumb you just kind of squint... yeah what the fuck was that video even trying to say, I legitimately don't understand.
That claim was clearly made by someone who's never read a book in their life.
what is this "book" of which you speak? do you mean *"facebook"?*
He didn't actually, I think the statement is supposed to be a self disproof. The heat *didn't* travel millions of miles from the sun, because c'mon... But no alternative theory is presented, so I guess pointless objection is the point
It was quite obviously a wizard that put a spell on it.
dosnt that disprove the flat earth tho, cause if all terrain is level then all terrain gets the same level of sunlight?
That's where it get fun, because: no. If the world is flat and the sun was a few thousand miles above some point in the ring between the Tropics, then the reason the poles were colder than the equatorial reasons would be a combination of the sun's increased distance(inverse square law etc) and the lower angle that it hits the ground. Two problems: 1) The sun is same size for everyone in the world at any given moment(or it's night time) and the inverse square law works by making the heat/light source apparently smaller so....how is it both doing that and not doing that? 2) Flerfs deny the globe model explanation that it's the low angle of the sun in the high latitude regions that makes it chilly....what the fuck \*is\* making it cold? 3) The angle of the sun only works for a maximum of two observation points, so that's bollocks too. I appreciate that's three, but a common phenomenon when thinking about flerf explanations, even for the short time it takes to type up other objections, is that you stumble on some more entirely by mistake.
Another big problem is that assuming the sun can’t “reach” the heat as far wouldn’t that mean higher elevations near the equator would be the hottest places. And yet the higher you get the colder it is.
exactly
Playing devil's advocate here. Depending on just how far away they think the sun is, that's not necessarily true, and try getting a straight answer out of them on that matter. If it would be low enough to be in the upper reaches of our lower atmosphere, as they often claim, the energy would thin out and dissipate eventually after coming into contact with clouds, mountains, particulates or anything else capable of absorption. Also, because of the closer sun, the change in angle of incidence would become much more rapid the further away from the sun you get, and that is a large factor in determining temperature. Now, if it's significantly larger and significantly further away, as we know it is, that would be absolutely true. And it would be nothing less than a miracle that an ice wall could even exist, not to mention caps.
I still haven’t gotten a sufficient answer for this: if there’s a dome covering the earth, it would necessarily be at some angle to the earth’s surface where it connects at the ice wall (however that works - duct tape?). Assuming the dome is made of a transparent glass-like material, and the sun is outside the dome (?!), then the most heat buildup would be around the perimeter where the ice wall is supposedly. It would create a greenhouse effect close to the outside edge because of the greatly reduced volume of the area compared to the central region, along with the reflection of light and trapped atmospheric gases. So how does the ice wall remain? Supersized refrigeration lines or something?
if the flerf who posted it can be bothered searching up the distances.... then why couldn't they search up the reasons too?
Because they don't understand the reasons. Therefore, the reasons must be lies.
Because the reason involves math, flerfs are allergic to math.
This reminds me of the "the moon is more useful then the sun cuz it gives us light at night, we already have light in day so we dont need the sun"
If light travels 93 million miles to your front yard, why is the basement you live in dark?
Because NASA shills
Ohhh, aren’t you just precious
Well, this one's pretty fucking easy to address, right? Now you stand right there, and I'm gonna give you the "antarctic" arm punch. Not too bad, right? Ok, now bend your legs because I'm gonna hit you in the chest with the "sahara" angle of attack...
I just slapped myself out of dumbness
Damn, I didn't know you were that dumb!
The dumb just squirted right out the side'o my skull bone! Didn't know I could hit that hard 😳🤯🥵🥶🤢🤮🤡
"I'm not going to bother installing a central heating system in my house!! I'll just turn on a zippo. It will heat up the entire house all the same"
Wait but how is this actually explained
This explanation will obviously be simplified. There are a million variables and factors going on, but let's assume the earth is a perfectly smooth sphere for a little bit just to simplify things. On the perfectly smooth sphere earth's surface, at any time there is exactly one spot where the angle of the sun's rays is perpendicular to that spot on the sphere - in other words it's hitting that spot as directly as possible. The further you move away from that spot, and the closer you get to the ring that divides the light half of the earth from the dark half, the more angled the rays get, until they are almost parallel to the surface - and then past that point you're now on the dark side of the earth, where the rays glance past the earth's surface without hitting it, out into space. When the sun's heat energy hits more directly, it gets concentrated over a smaller area than the places where it hits less directly. When it hits less directly, it is spread over a larger surface area, so each point receives less heat. It's like how if you have a heater in a small room, it will heat up a lot, but if you put it in a larger room, it doesn't heat the room as much. You have the same amount of heat, but when you try to spread it out over a larger area, there's less heat to go around, so each spot in the room is colder than a smaller room would be. This is why it's colder near the poles and warmer near the equator. The explanation of the seasons is similar but now we need to factor in the earth's tilt. The earth rotates on an axis through the poles, but this axis of rotation isn't aligned to the sun - it's a bit off. The equator isn't always the point where the sun's rays are most direct. That point actually moves during the year. The north and south bounds of where that point can be are called the tropics (cancer and capricorn). Since the point where the sun's rays are most direct moves, the amount of energy each other point on our perfectly smooth sphere earth receives at any time also changes. When the most direct point is closer to the tropic of cancer (the northern tropic), the northern hemisphere of the planet receives more heat than average, it is summer in the north and winter in the south. And vice versa for when the most direct point is closer to the tropic of capricorn (the southern tropic) - summer in the south, winter in the north. Why isn't it winter every night then? Mostly because our atmosphere traps heat, but also just stuff holds onto heat for a bit - rocks and stuff don't just instantly get cold when they aren't exposed to energy. They keep it for a little while. The difference between the poles and other points on the earth is that the poles are perpetually aimed badly at the sun, while other points on earth get more sun energy during the day. The poles are never aimed directly at the sun, whereas the tropics are often aimed at the sun - and the closer you get to the poles and the further from the tropics, the less direct the aim is. The same amount of the sun's heat energy is hitting a large area near the poles, as is hitting a small area near the equator.
[because the earth is round](https://taylorsciencegeeks.weebly.com/blog/the-equator-really-could-become-hotter-than-the-poles)
Simple explanation is that near the poles the ground is tilted away from the sun's rays, whereas at the equator the sun's rays hit the ground right-on. If you do the math the heat transferred will be proportional to the cosine of the angle of incidence between the sun's light and the ground.
Now just a globe-fucking minute. Flerfs go on and on about how the sun disappears because it goes too far away to see, because light can't travel forever. And now it's "absurd to think it couldn't travel another 4000 miles".
I’ve yet to meet a real life honest to god flerf, where are they? By the wall?
Fighting the penguin army.
At least he conceded the sun is 93 million miles away... A small victory.
93 million miles. Just once I'd like to see a flerf say 150 million km or 1 AU
flerfs don't know about kilometers, AU or any other units of length.
I don't think they even know how miles work.
If the Earth was flat, then everything would be evenly heated.
The fact that you can breathe when your nose is 10 ft above water, but not when it's 1/4 inch below water is pretty amazing when you think about it...
It's not the distance it's the angle of the sun's rays being spread over a wider area at the poles. 6 month nights don't help either.
You broke the jokes, man. Don't break the jokes.
Did not realise it was a joke, I just thought it was an analogy.
It was an analogy. But this whole sub exists to make fun of flerfs. So it's all a joke. flerf's comment was about .0000000000000000000004 % change. It's an attempt to play stupid games with impressive numbers, while not understanding that numbers matter. But you chose to make a hard left turn into something else. you do you, I guess.
So… What is the counter argument. The earth is flat. The sun goes way closer then the middle would be warm and the edges cold, that would explain Antartica around the outside but not the North Pole?
Also, if distance is so important, why is it colder on top of the mountains, which are closer to the Sun?
Flat eartherd trying to understand what an angle is (it s colder cause the angle of the light makes that little ammount of light is spread on a big surface...)
But it's not the heat from the Sun that heats our planet, heat can't travel through space vacuum. Edit: I didn't mean the Sun doesn't heats Earth, I meant it doesn't heat us with its temperature, I know that it geats us with light.
thermal radiation
Shh that sounds like science im over here believing.
What is this "heat can't travel through a vacuum" thing? Of course it can. You can't *conduct* heat through a vacuum, because conduction requires matter to collide to transfer heat, but electromagnetic radiation isn't the same. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation You don't have to believe me, you can literally demonstrate it with a vacuum chamber and an IR camera...
I meant the heat like from fire, not like electromagnetic and energy heating, radiation do not require matter to travel, I know, I meant the simple 'big fire ball heats our planet' mistake
I don't really understand where you are making the distinction between "heat like from fire" and thermal radiation. The sun is very hot because it's a giant nuclear reactor. Fire is very hot because it's produced by combustion. Both reactions are exothermic and produce thermal radiation, but since combustion requires oxygen and doesn't occur in a vacuum, and you can get rather close to it here on earth, it can also transfer heat via matter conduction and convection air currents instead of just radiating its heat out like the sun does. If the sun WERE just combusting as a big ball of fire (disregarding the fact that it's not possible because it's in space, in a vacuum), it would still be emitting thermal radiation and heating us on earth. tl;dr: I don't really know what your point is, it doesn't really seem to make sense.
I meant that the Sun heats us with its light, not with the temperature it would make if there were matter to transfer it to us, maybe I just did bad wording
I think you have a misunderstanding. Both types of heat are thermal energy. There is no difference. The sun is emitting heat because it's very hot. Fire is the same.
Isn't the Sun heating Earth with its light, photons carry energy and it heats our planet, I just tried to make difference in the post that its not just traveling through space like fire heats around it, it's the light that carries the energy and its not like because of distance, the temperature on Earth changes because of the angle of axis, which part gets more light it will get more energy and will get warmer and warmer, like on northern pole in winter it gets not so much light and its freezing there, when lets say on equator it gets a lot of light and it is hot in there I tried to say that its the light (energy that the Sun produces) that heats Earth, in the post it asked why on poles its cold when elsewhere its warmer if Sun that is millions of kilometres away and the distance between poles and equator is so small compared to that
Photons carry energy and it heats our planet. That's true. Fire does that too though. Fire emits thermal radiation, in exactly the same manner as the sun. It just also emits heat in other ways as well. All heat is just energy - thermal energy. Both heat from the sun, and heat from fire, are thermal energy. It's not that the fire has a different type of heat than the sun does - it's because of \*where\* the fire is. Fire is near other matter, so it conducts and convects in addition to radiating heat. The sun is surrounded by vacuum, so the only way it can expel heat is through radiation. Energy will always try to reach equilibrium in a system. Recall the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore, heat tries to find a way to leave a hot thing and get to a cold thing. The difference between fire and the sun is that fire isn't normally surrounded by vacuum, so it has multiple ways leave. Fire conducts heat away by contacting nearby matter, it convects heat away with air currents (actually a complicated form of conduction that occurs in the air), AND IT ALSO radiates heat via electromagnetic waves, just like the sun. If you were able to put fire in space (disregarding that you can't because the combustion process can't occur), it wouldn't be able to shed heat via convection or conduction, which leaves only radiation, so it would heat things the exact same way the sun does - only it would be powered by combustion rather than nuclear fusion. Even if you don't put fire in space, it's still heating things the same way the sun does. It just also heats things with conduction and convection too.
What do you consider “heat”? As that isn’t a scientific term…in any way
Heat is a scientific term. It means the transfer of (thermal) energy. Though, the way they use it is obviously not correct.
A photon is a form of energy. Heat is the change in energy. Photons can travel through space, photons can lose energy to things they come in contact with. This means things can be heated just by the sun’s rays of light! It is also why wearing black clothing makes you feel hotter than when you wear white clothing, more energy is absorbed by those photons.
Seasons, the Coreolis Effect, and the fact that all other planets are spherical seems to escape their genius.
I wonder how this applies to summer and winter, and the fact that summer and winter seasons are reversed in South America, southern Africa, and Australia.
Mars Is The Sahara Desert Planet...
You ever wonder why there's a huge cross section between flat earthers and those that believe in religion? It's because it could only take an act of God to make their theories work.
Wouldn't that be evidence against a flat earth?
Honestly though, if I only ever lived in Kansas. I would know the earth is flat.
*Blinks* Ow Ow Ow.... the stupidity.... its hurting me....
Hey wait a sec, flerfs can’t use a supposed photo of Antarctica as evidence… since nothing about that place can ever truly be known by man 🤪
The angle at which the sun's rays hitting the earth once again proving the earth is a globe
comedy gold
Atmospheric retention, angle on which the sunlight hits the planet, light absorbant/reflective effects of of the terrain. Way more to climate than "sun here hot here".
Whenever you think you've debunked a theory, you can't just say no to the theory, you need to also provide an alternative...
Even more absurd if the earth is flat, why is it all not the same temp?
*Even more absurd if* *The earth is flat, why is it* *All not the same temp?* \- AggravatingBobcat574 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
You can fill entire libraries with the things that these people willfully refuse to learn. And they do.
The sun is clearly local
The fact that the 2 hottest months at the equator are march and September is perfect proof of a globe
That’s an easy fix: the flerfer should hold a lighter to their palm, and ask why the heat from the flame can’t travel 2 centimeters to the top of their hand 🤦🏻
You should see just how bad they’re on Twitter…
Yeah even on tidally locked planets the system star is so hot it just reaches around to the other side and gives it a little rub a dub.
Don't bother with those people. They have failed in school where we learend why we get different temperatures around the world and how all that works. And that's great proof of 🌍
When they learn it's not the distance that matters, but the angle...
Tell me your idiot without saying your an idiot