A young sun - a response

I don't think any of these questions are dumb. Well, I hope not since I sure don't know all that answers.I'm going to answer off the top of my head where I think I know the answer. At some point it takes a physicists studying the area. I guess it would be useful to know what detail you need and why.
First Post: 14
1)Fusion requires 3 conditions, enough time for the atoms to fuse, enough energy to overcome the repulsive forces and enough pressure to hold them together. Gravity supplied all of this to get the process going.2)I don't know if the fusion is uniform or not. My guess would be that it is approximately so in the volume where the conditions are met but I would be surprised if there wasn't a greater rate deeper in the core.3)Core growing? I am guessing that it is as helium piles up. As mentioned eventurally there will be layers running on different fusion processes. In a large enough star this gets all the way up to producing iron.4)Density? I don't know either, but only 14 time denser than lead sounds way to low to me. A white dwarf, crushed down by gravity with no fusion process pushing back can get to a density of about 1,000,000. Which would be somewhere near 100,000 time denser than lead. (of course that's still not a neutron star)Second Post: 15
1) I don't know how the magentic field is created in any detail. However, if you take a plasma (charged) and move it, it will create a magnetic field. At it's base it is probably that simple. A moving electric charge creates a magnetic field.2)The sun does explode!!! Big time. That is what these CME (coronal mass ejections are). Huge balls of plasma bigger than the earth spit out into space. There is a steady stream of many tons of matter racing out from the sun through the solar system as well. The "solar wind" reaches out way beyond Pluto. That is where Voyager is now, where the intersteller medium finally overpowers the solar wind.3)I don't know but I think it's all gravity to kick things off and hold things together.4)I don't know but the magnetic fields are very intense indeed. They do shape the solar flares that explode off the surface of the sun so they aren't "faint background" at all.

I haven't the time right now, I have a class to teach on this very subject.I'll be back later to answer posts 14 and 15.Seems to be some misunderstandings about stars here.Bye

Thanks Ned for taking the time to answer my questions.The "why" as to why I'm asking this is to better understand the possiblility or impossibility of a young sun less than 10,000 years old. The ICR post put the three governing factors into such a neat and tidy package that after I read that I thought "wow, that sure opens a pandora's box on a 4.657 billion year old earth if the main energy source for this planet has just recently come up on line.However, if by understanding the mechanics of solar operation, I as an "over fed, long haired leaping gnome - the star of a hollywood movie" rock music listening average Joe can see that a young sun is not plausible, then why are bonified scientists at ICR not seeing it?If however (I hate when other people use that clitche') the ICR people are on to something but just not presenting it eloquent enough, then I want to be able to spot it. If the Bible is being interpreted correctly by creationists, then the Sun is only so old. If also the Bible is authentic in it's claims as inspired wisdom and knowledge from God, then there should be no discrepancy in what it says verses what we see. For me the fat lady hasn't sung yet, she's just discovering Krispy Kremes's as of now, and both evolution and creation are on trial in my court of knowledge aquisition.I've spent my whole life in a church enviorment and am at the point where I want to rectify what the Bible says as the "Evidence for God is plainly seen in the creation" and "the fool has said in his heart - there is no God" with the scientific evidence that does not support an ID model. I believe that by taking an extended journey into the sciences to the depth that my own intellect can digest, I should be able to aquire the proper tools to explain one way or another what the physical world is. I don't want to just accept the tools laid before me by either side in case I end up trying to repair an orbiting sattelite with specialized tools but meant for open heart surgery.[This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 11-21-2003]

There's the rub: the only possibilities I can imagine are that
1) the ICR boys are "lying for Jesus"
or
2) the ICR boys are utterly, completely, and pathologically blind to the realities of the world around them, and are willfully ignorant of anything that conflicts with a young earth stance.I can't imagine anyone who has done any research whatever on the sun being stupid enough to mangle and omit things like they have.

Upon re-reading the post that Rei gave for the fundamental occillation observation on the Sun, I see where I failed to acknoledge the "dense core" reality. The only way that nuclear fussion can be occuring in the central core of the Sun is if the hydrogen plasma is at a density significantly great according to the article.Sorry that I missed that the first time, I read it but I thought that it said the Sun was homogeneous and I must have gotten my neurons crossed in the translation. I still don't make the connection between hot plasma and densely packed when you are talking about hydrogen gas. It seems the pressures built up would counteract any force available to hold the thing together long enough to obtain (critical mass??)? I don't know if that's a good term or if that only applies to fission reactions.

Lizard Breath,Your commitment to finding the truth is admirable. Here is the distinct difference I (and others) see between ICR and other scientists.ICR scientists follow these tenents that are found on this page.Just taking one of these shows us the problem with believing in their methods of research. For instance:"The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator."So the hypothetical question you MUST ask yourself if you want to give this organization any scientific credence whatsoever is, "what would they do if they found evidence that was contrary to this very basic tenant?"I can't answer that question, but things seem fishy based on the evidence we have already seen in this thread.

Gravity is that force, and that's why real, hydrogen-fusing stars (not wimpy little deuterium-fusing brown dwarfs) must have a certain minimum mass - around half the Sun's mass, IIRC. The gravitational attraction must balance the internal pressure, or the whole ball of stuff will rearrange until it does. (Brown dwarfs have their own mass limits, too - 13 times Jupiter's up to I forget what, maybe the minimum "real" star mass.)

Lizard Breath says:

quote:

---

I don't want to just accept the tools laid before me by either side in case I end up trying to repair an orbiting sattelite with specialized tools but meant for open heart surgery.

---

That's exactly why normal folks look on us EvC'ers as the scary bunch of shit-flinging bonobos we often are. It's abundantly clear that if you want the technical answer to why Seor Sun shines so nice, you don't go to the Bible, you go to a science class. If you want to understand God and the meaning of our existence, you don't look at the bacterial flagellum through a microscope, you do a lot of scriptural study, praying and meditating. You have to decide the right tools for the job at hand.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I don't mean to sound like an idiot but what is a "Normal Folk"? Whatever it is, if it's not all of you then I'm confused because everybody here seems normal enough to be my neighbor guaging from the inflections of your posts. I have noticed that you all sound more well versed in science than you do in Brittany Spears song lyrics, but that's more a concern of Virgin Records than fosil records.

Lizard Breath,I was just trying to stick to the topic at hand: I realize that most people don't give a rat's ass about creo/evo and I don't blame them. They know instinctively that if you're looking for technical answers about solar fusion, you won't find them in the Bible. On the other hand, they also realize that the bacterial flagellum is a poor excuse for an answer about whether or not our lives have meaning and purpose.Your comment about tools for the job was very appropriate. You don't want to get stuck on a faulty space shuttle with a cardiologist's kit, and open heart surgery is a tough job when you're dressed up in a pressurized space suit with a rocket pack. Maybe it's materialistic to look at the Bible as a collection of ancient mythology, but it's twice as materialistic to expect the Bible to help you out with astrophysics.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

And that proves we are not normal folks. It is my experience that I am in a minority and by the majority definition "weird". I care about what goes on in the centre of our galaxy !

Well spoken,I was curious if in the fussion process, as helium is created from hydrogen pairs, does hellium ever fuse with hydrogen or does it fuse with other hellium exclusivly? If so(if it will fuse with another hydrogen), is this where the lithium that the ICR article alludes to comes from? If yes, why are they saying that the "original amount of lithium in the atmosphere is almost undetectable once the core temperature reaches 2 million degrees" when technically, lithium should be possible to be created as long as there is hydrogen left for fussion.Again, I'm probably confusing initial condictions with what I percieve is going on in the fussion core but if lithium is not a product of hydrogen fussion, where did it come from?[This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 11-21-2003]

You are generally right, LB. Pretty much all of everything heavier than helium comes from fusion processes in stars. What I don't know is what conditions are requiried to produce litium etc. So I don't know if the sun can produce any, a little bit or a lot.What I do know is that as a star starts to run out of hydrogen it can start to collapse further under gravity. This produces new, higher pressures and temperatures. This allows for more fusion processes and then more again. Soon there are a number of them going on in the star in layers. IIRC the red giant phase of the sun will be produced as these other processes start to occur.If the star is big enough ( I think it is about 8 solar masses) the whole thing can get to the point of being able to force the fusion to produce iron. However, this doesn't release more energy, it requires more than it produces. The core collapses.Then the whole thing undergoes a super nova catastrophe. Elements even heavier than iron are formed in the extreme conditions and the outer part of the star is blown off. The energy output equals that of billions of sun-like stars for a very short period of time.From the blown off material we get all the elements heavier than helium that make up the earth and us.A bit more information I found with google from : http://plato.phy.ohiou.edu/...ments/stnl/stnl77/feature.htmland a page about steller evolution (which I haven't read yet)
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/textbook/se.html[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-21-2003]

I can see your point and I understand what you are saying.Let's look at the Kennedy assasination as an example since the aniversary is upon us. When JFK was assasinated it was caught on film, caught on audio tape and witnessed by hundreds of people.The film gives us a very detailed exact visual account of what happened from each of the camera's perspectives and the images are without debate as to what happened.The audio gives us a similiar account but with audio dynamics vs. video.The eye witnesses also give us an account but their degree of detail and accuracy will not be as conclusive but will be correct from each witness's perspective.The Bible is like the eye witnesses. The book of Genesis and primarily chapeters 1-3 are a spoken testimony of what happened given by one individual - God, or so the book claims. The account is in the perspective of the witness, again God.Science is like the camera's present in Dallas that horrible morning. Science gives a highly detailed account of slices of an event. Just like the eye witness accounts of the assasination should not refute or discount or contradict the video but might not shed anywhere as much detail on the event, so the creation account of the Bible should relate to science.A witness might not be able to tell how many lug nuts were on the President's right rear tire of his car, but the witness's testimony should confirm that the car had 4 tires by the action that the car took as soon as shots rang out. The video tape verifies that there were 4 tires and can tell the number of lugs.In the same manner the Bible isn't going to explain hydrogen fussion in the sun's core but it should not contradict the scientific model of the sun by saying it is 10,000 years old while science verifies it is 4.657 billion years. That's what I'm hoping to get at, is finding out if both science and the Bible are indeed telling the same story.

NosyNedHere is a website for the lithium question.The Solar FAQ: Solar Neutrinos and Other Solar OdditiesI hope this helps.