A young sun - a response

If course in this case the "appearance of age" argument assumes that God had to set up a planetary system with a sun as we see it rather than something radically different.And since Genesis 1 has the day/night cycle set up on the first day and only credits the sun with being a light in the sky, it would seem that the cosmology underlying Genesis 1 *is* radically different.

Ok Ned, if our present sun were, say 7000 years of age since created, wouldn't it have to appear as and old sun as it evidently does? We see what we have. Most interpret what they see as old. I'm saying that what we see today could have been created a few thousand years ago and in that time wouldn't have had much time to change, so it must have appeared a few thousand years ago pretty much as it does today. Therefore if it was created a few thousand years ago, it would have to have been created with the appearance of age in order to do then what it does for the earth today.Lizzar Breath, do you understand what I'm trying to say?

No, that's just what I said it didn't have to have. However, you have to start making up a whole bunch of stuff about how God can and can not behave.If he *had* to use the materials at hand (what is obviously a silly assumption since he was creating *everything*) then he had to use the local abundances of lithium for example. But the fusion process has removed much of that with the time the sun has been fusing.However, I see no reason why he would put just the right amount of lithium in there. I see no reason why he would bother with *any* at all since it is just left over from previous supernovae which he didn't need any of.As I suggested Eta will know more but the sun appears old. It appears old in ways which I ( a none expert) think it doesn't have to. So why does it appear to be old?

OK now I see what you are getting at.First off, 7000 years old from a starting point you define as what?If you mean as it looks today, and then age it 7000 years nothing much would change.If you start it in a 'pristine' state and age it 7000 years then NO it would look different than it does.In other words to say it is 7000 years old you have to say it was created with an appearance of age. A terrible philosophy, not only for science but for religion too.

The real question is, Eta, does it HAVE to look old to work?With my limited understanding the answer is NO. It could work very well for a limited time without fusion. It could be made of just hydrogen and work fine with fusion. It doesn't need any other elements in specific abundances to work fine.Is that true, Eta?

It is true, Nosy.

That is why I put the caveat question of '7000 years from what?'.Forgetting about gravitational contraction, it could work by fusion on just hydrogen.And yes it could be very young and gravitational contraction would provide the energy.However in that case it would be different than observed. Even forgetting about abundances and such it would have different helioseismological properties. It's internal sound speed profile would be different than observed. It would be homogeneous at that stage as opposed to the known structure today.

Butting in where Eta would be the better answerer, but a very young star, even if not yet fusing hydrogen, sure sheds a lot of matter and emits a lot of hard ultraviolet radiation. Yes, it would function, but not in a real life-friendly fashion.And Buz, did the trees and grasses from Day 3 just "give the appearance" of photosynthesizing and growing before the sun came along to give them enough light to really do so? Haven't you said that the pre-sun "days" are possibly many of our years long?

That's one of the interesting things I'm finding as I hit the various web pages that talk about neutrinos.One site broke down the neutrino bombardment this way340 million per day emmited by the 20 milligrams of potasium 40 in each of our bodies.500 billion from the sun10 to 100 billion from nuclear reactors on the planetSo if each of us is emmiting 340 million neutrinos per day, times 6.5 billion people, I guess the biggest source of neutrino emmision is from humans, not the Sun?Here's the Web site that I gathered those statsSome orders of magnitude about the neutrinoSome surprising numbers
Our body contains about 20 milligrams of Potassium 40, which is beta radioactive. As a consequence, we emit about 340 millions neutrinos per day without knowing that. Neutrinos interact very few, there are thus 340 millions neutrinos per day, which run from our body at the speed of light until the end of the universe!...

quote:

---

An experiment like NOMAD detects about one neutrino every 10 seconds. This one deposits a mean of 27 GeV in the detector. Thus, for all the duration of the experiment, neutrinos will have deposited a little more than 0.03 Joules, that is 10 times less than a sneeze.

​

Still in NOMAD, the detector is "active" only during some milliseconds, at each arriving of neutrinos burst from the particles accelerator. For all the duration of the experiment (from 1994 to 1998), the detector was thus "active" only for 15 hours.

​

Always in NOMAD, the detector uses a magnet of 0.4 Tesla (2000 times the earth magnetic field) created by a current of 5713 A. This gives from 1994 to 1998, an energetic consumption greater than 200.000 billions Joules, that is about 10.000 times your electricity consumption in the same time period (4 years).

​

Wherever you are on the earth, even deeply underground, you receive per second about 400.000 billions neutrinos from the sun, but also 50 billions neutrinos (but this number is not well known!) from the natural radioactivity of the earth, and 10 to 100 billions neutrinos from nuclear plants all over the world. Fortunately for us, neutrinos interact very few and you can live as if they are not there!...

---

What I wonder is is the 340 million neutrinos emmited per human factored in to the predicted amount found in the underground experiments?------------------

quote:

---

If I stand out in the woods and say something but my wife isn't there to hear it, am I still wrong?

---

It seems then we have an old looking sun, Buz and it doesn't have to look old to work. So now what?

The site you gave has the Sun emitting 2 x 10^38 neutrinos per second.6 billion humans * 340 million netrinos per day is ~2 * 10^18.So by that reckoning every second the sun emits 100 billion billion times as many neutrinos as the human population does in a day.

NO NO NOYou are quoting something wrong.Look carefully at the numbers on the website.

Sorry to but in when the discussion was going so smoothly, but a 7000 year old sun would not be giving out any light. The sun is not transparent, and light does not simply pour out from its interior. The photons get emitted, absorbed, re-emitted, etc billions of times before they manage the random-walk to the surface and shoot off into space. According to Frank Shu (Professaor of Astronomy at University of California, in "The Physical Universe') this random walk would take about 30,000 years.So a 7000 year old sun would not be shining yet!The only option that works is to assume that God deliberately made the universe to appear old, and he created photons in transit from the centre of the sun just as he created light in transit from the distant galaxies. This is the "Omphalos" theory, and you can take it or leave it, but there is no way to prove it right or wrong. Any evidence that the sun and universe are not old would then be a slip-up on God's part.Mike.

quote:

---

No, Buz I don't think it "has to show" age. Eta can answer better but I think that the sun could produce heat just fine without haveing just the right amounts of some elements to indicate it had been burning a long time, etc.
It could also produce a lot of heat for long enough (a few 1,000's of years) without fusion taking place. Eta could tell us if there are any other things.

---

But if God created the sun without appearance of age, a brand new son one year old would have to look much different than ours if ours appears to be billions of years old. So if he indeed created it as the Bible implies about 6000 years ago, it would have to have been created with appearance of what scientists would determine to be age. According to Genesis 1 the earth was dark when day one commenced. Then the Holy Spirit showed up on the scene and began to work, likely producing a light to get things going.

quote:

---

And Buz, did the trees and grasses from Day 3 just "give the appearance" of photosynthesizing and growing before the sun came along to give them enough light to really do so? Haven't you said that the pre-sun "days" are possibly many of our years long?

---

That's right, but I also suggested that the Holy Spirit which was sent from God to actually implement the creation produced the light before the sun was made. Evidently there was a purpose for an extraordinary light to do what needed to be done before creatures were made, one being the creation of the plant kingdom, etc. There had to be a purpose for the sun to be younger than the earth and to be absent before some time in day four. We also know that there were evenings and mornings before the sun and moon, but how long they were or how they were effected, nobody knows. God knows.