Shrinking Sun

Mnenth, Deny it? How about I blow it out of the water?http://www.asa3.org/...ronomy-Cosmology/PSCF9-86VanTill.html As you can see the extrapolation that concluded that the sun is shrinking was concluded from too small a sample. Had they had a complete set of data they would've been able to see the sun occilate with a mearurable periodicity.At some point you are going to realise that 90% of the material on creationist websites are lies.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-02-2004]

Mnenth, They clearly aren't worth their salt, then, are they?Mark

Mnenth,Perhaps you should read the supporting link. Gilliland actually confirmed the periodicity that Crashfrog mentions, or did your cite not mention this to you? What he did claim was the possibility of a very small net shrinkage over 265 years. However the data is inconclusive, even Gilliland was cautious, suggesting that the data allowed for a 0.1 arc second per century over the last 265 years. Parkinson (J. H. Parkinson, "New Measurements of the Solar Diameter," Nature 304,518 1983), however, confirmed "that there is no evidence for any secular changes in the solar diameter, with a reduced upper limit". The tiny variation was within the limits of accuracy & is considered uninformative by astronomers today.Just to put Gilliland's possible shrinkage into perspective. The sun increased diameter by 0.3 arc seconds per annum between 1967-1980. So even had Gilliland been correct his 265 year shrinkage would have been wiped out in under a year between the above dates, & not only that but exceeded by the same for every year thereafter until 1980.I would also like a cite that your source used "much more complete data set". Given that my cite uses measurements from when records began, I find this a little unlikely.Mark

Recent enough to incorporate yours.

If the sun is shrinking we should see clear unequivocal evidence that it is, right? That we don't have that evidence is suggestive of what, do you think? It is not for me to "prove" that the sun isn't shrinking, it is for you to show that it is, & until you do it is a non-argument in the creation/evo debate.Mark

Mnenth, http://pages.prodigy.com/suna/earth.htmThe earth is slowing down but it amounts to a daytime difference of a few hours. If the earth slows 2.2 secs/100,000 years this roughly equates to a 21 hour day during the Cambrian explosion. It would mean a day length about 10 hours long when the first life appeared. At worst you'll weigh a couple of ounces less at the equator due to centrifugal forces.The National Maritime Museum puts the rate change as 1.6 seconds per 100,000 years. To be fair it was certainly faster in the past, but not appreciably.I have no idea where you get 1 sec per 10 months!Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-02-2004]