A Breathing Sun – Introspection into the Sun’s “burning out” theory


Well, according to scientists, the signs are all there: the Sun, “Sol”, of the Solar System, only a short hop, skip, and a jump, from Earth, is going to burn out. Well, only after it grows larger and burn up the Earth. At least, that’s what the popular scientific theory is. But, what if that’s not what’s happening? What if the infinitesimally small blip in the Universe that is the entirety of existence of the human race has found itself as equally diminished in scope and range of thought as it is short in time? Perception, one of the variables in thought patterns that substantially influence behavior in all people, does tend to play games, changing from one person to the next. Of course, science works very hard to explain everything. And, while there are some strong principles behind the theory of the Sun burning out, it seems to be the inevitable conclusion of all mortal creatures that the rest of the Universe must share that same fate. But, what if the mortal coil has not been sufficiently cast off and it’s this very limitation that binds us from seeing what is even more obvious?

First of all, the Sun is a very inconsistent object, growing hot and cold and failing to follow a set pattern that is so easily measured in the course of human evolution. While science can derive a certain amount of empirical data from its immediate observations, limitations in space flight and particle physics prevents people from getting a really good picture of what’s “really” happening. Still, it doesn’t stop schools from teaching and television from telling people that the Sun will expand, run out of energy, and collapse in on itself.

However, there are alternative models that provide a more comprehensive explanation … for example …

Let’s start by looking at the Earth’s capacity to keep itself warm. It’s been well established, even with humanity’s short time on the planet, that when the clouds come and the Sun is gone – the Earth does not generate enough heat to keep itself from freezing. As it stands now, there is no fully sufficient understanding of why there was an ice age on Earth. That is not to say that the night-time on Earth results in an instant ice age. Clearly, the Earth is close enough to the Sun to maintain enough heat to keep it from totally freezing over. However, at one point – the heat emanating from the Sun was insufficient.

If this was a simple, one-time only ice age, one could argue that the lack of light due to a nuclear-winter caused the whole event. But, that’s not really the case. In fact, based on geological evidence, there have been FIVE ice ages!! Yep – FIVE! From current, scientific models, that means that there have been five, nuclear winters (although the conditions to create this repeatedly would be limited to A) not possible for the Earth itself, or B) a lot of really big meteors and a really crushed planet))!! So, if that theory has a few shortcomings, perhaps we can look at the bigger picture and begin to combine the knowledge we do have. For instance, there is another piece to this puzzle, and that comes from the only spherical, heavenly body that we can directly observe:



The silent blue giant, gently carrying its precious cargo on a never-ending journey through space and time, grows … and shrinks. There is evidence of this phenomenon happening almost every day. To humans who have seen the Sun at its full size and the potential for an infinite Universe, the growing and shrinking cycles of the Earth may seem trivial. And, perhaps they are.

But, if this is a pattern consistent with other heavenly bodies, such as say, the Sun; then there is an observable pattern from which we can begin to draw new conclusions!

Through studies of Atomic time, science has learned that the surface of Earth does shift back and forth, daily, as the clocks were slowing down and speeding up based on their proximity to the core of the Earth (and subsequent gravitational effects). And, while these changes may be so incredibly small that they require fine tune instruments to measure, what would a change in the circumference of the Sun look like (even a small one)?

Only 0.0003% of Earth’s heat is believed to be generated internally. Considering that the general temperature of the Earth is 287k while the Sun is 5778k. This means that there is approximately a 98% loss in heat coming from the great ball of fire to the little blue planet.

What would happen if it were just 10% less? According to Geological studies, the Earth has frozen every 100,000 years (up to 5 times). Unlike the Earth, the Sun’s outer surface area is a giant ball of burning magma and gas (and a complex list of other substances all in a liquid state). A 10% decrease in circumference, spread out over 100,000 years, would be a substantial number given the 2.71 million circumferential miles of its current state. However, in addition to the 92.96 million miles of space in between the Earth and the Sun, this adds another 172,989 miles of distance (only 0.2% of the entire span). Given the temperature differences from the Sun to the Earth and how much is lost per mile,  the new average surface temperature of the Earth would be reduced to around 38 degrees Fahrenheit (meaning some areas … would be near 0 degrees Fahrenheit). Add a little cloud cover and some prolonged, near-freezing temperatures … and you have yourself a very good explanation for an ice age.

But, why the expanding/contracting model? Because, the Sun doesn’t stay at 10% it’s total size. Over the next 100,000 years, in this current theory, the Sun will increase to its full size again. Think about the small shifts in the gravitational fields of the Solar System, the off-center rotation of the Sun, and once again, we can see a lot of elements that could definitely impact the gravitational flux of the Sun and support this concept.

So scientists say it’s increasing right now. 100,000 year cycles are not easily predicted or observed in only a few decades of measurable observation. What we can do is look at the various ice ages, the geological changes in the Earth’s history (freezing, heating up, freezing, heating up, etc.), and knowing that 99.9997% of the Earth’s heat comes from the Sun, conclude that the changes we see in the expansion and contraction of the Sun’s surface area have had a direct impact on the Earth’s surface temperature in accordance with those geological patterns. Thus, seeing the Sun change in diameter now, even if only incrementally, would lend a lot of support to this theory.


In direct parallel to the theory I just presented, with mathematical values and a discussion of the liquid/volatile nature of the sun and gravity to support it – there is another alternative.

What if the sun “shrinking” in mass is not what causes the colder temperatures? Given the knowledge that “Red” stars have a cooler surface temperature than our little yellow star, it would be more a matter of the increase in size of the sun that could lend to the cold temperature. Of course, one could argue that the proximity of the planet does not change in accordance to the center of the Sun and therefore, even though the surface would be closer to the Earth, the amount of heat would be the same (as the only reason the surface of a red star is cooler is due to its distance from the core, much like the case for the Earth).

However, again, we can go back to nature and see some prime examples that do not support this. In fact, it could be argued that the idea of a star “growing”, and consuming the planets in a planetary system is completely without merit. To support this, there is another spherical body in nature from which we can draw some conclusions:



The above image, from learn.sparkfun.com, might remind you of something similar … like a planetary system (such as the Solar System), or even a planet with moons. What nature teaches in this micro model of life is that the distance between the electron clouds (represented as rings), is based on two things: 1) The charged, attracting balance between the protons in the core and the number of electrons surrounding it, and 2) the repelling balance between the electrons themselves. Nature – spaces things out. And, human-kind has been fortunate enough to be around long enough to witness the shift between Neptune and Pluto (a 20 year event from 1979 to 1999). Due to an elliptical orbit, the two planets seemingly changed places, one being closer to the Sun than the other, and vice versa. Likewise, electrons can “change places.”

While gravity may not be exactly in synch with the micro-cosmic forces inside a molecule, the principles remain the same. As protons are added to the core, the core increases in size, and likewise, the number of electrons surrounding it increase in size. However, the electrons don’t have a “set” pattern as simple as “rings” as pictured above. Their distribution is based on a series of principals of balance that explained by Quantum Physics and complex orders of probability. Regardless of the core size – electrons never get close enough to the core to cause a static discharge … otherwise … there would be a LOT of ongoing explosions in the world … so it is possible to theorize that the distance between the inner-most electrons and the core – maintains continuity. Planetary systems, even the Solar System, are not much different. Some planets do not orbit in the same plane or equidistant spacing as others, shifting and trading places. If we were to take two, round magnets of the same size but of different strengths (substantially different) and compare their effects – the field of repulsion to a like polarity magnet of same size and strength would increase the gap between the two.


In an atom, as protons are added, the electrons seemingly draw closer to the core because the strength of attraction increases – opposite of what we find in the magnet example above. The point is, even if a Star increases in size, there’s nothing to say that planets will not shift alignment and position to compensate. Otherwise, no balance would be maintained. After all – look at the spacing of electrons vs. planets … and there is enough continuity to explain that there are multiple forces acting upon one another.

Mortality serves a very important purpose. It’s gratifying to some to think that they are not alone in the end of their life and that just because they die, all things must die. But, as Einstein said, “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change from one form to another.” So mortality may truly only be limited to those very small creatures who reside in a very small portion of a very, very, very large place (by condition and perception). Rather than spend a lot of energy determining when the Sun will die a million years from now … maybe some consideration for how its fluctuations have impacted the Earth now might be of more benefit – especially – to mortal creatures …

I’m just sayin’ ….

It’s important to keep our mind’s strong, always be thinking, and always be striving to learn more … but we should always be doing so …

With our eyes open.

Two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the Universe.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s