Shrinking Sun

Gilliland and Stephenson have both studied the size of the sun and come to the conclusion that the sun is shrinking. However, they dissagree on the rate of shrinkage. Gilliland concluding a small rate of almost 0.2 second of arc per century, while stephenson saying a .02-.3 range, with a probability of .16. Meaning, a shrinkage rate of around 0.16—0.20 second of arc per century within the range of 0.02—0.30 second of arc per century to account for the error margins. Now even if we take Stephenson's bottom-of-the-range figure of a mere 0.02 second of arc per century (tiny shrinkage indeed), this means that, using the evolutionists' own uniformitarian assumption of extrapolating this shrinkage rate backwards in time, just as they extrapolate further back 10—15 billion years to the 'big bang', only 100 million years ago the sun would have been too large for life to exist on earth!So, uh, anyone have anything to say to this? Besides just denying it outright?

quote:

---

the sun occilates in size. That means it gets larger, and then gets smaller, in a cycle.

---

this was taken into consideration in calculating the shrinkage rate. I didnt make any "extrapolations" im only repeating what i read. Any scientist worth his/her salt wouldnt make such an obvious error as you are saying they did.

the scientist that your graph referred to did indeed have to small of a data set. the people i am talking about used eddy's work as a basis, and expounded on it, with a much more complete data set.[This message has been edited by Mnenth, 04-02-2004]

quote:

---

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

---

Eddy and Boornazian werent, becuase they jumped to a conclusion with to little data. But Gilliland and Stephenson took into account the suns occilating cycle of about 76 years.[This message has been edited by Mnenth, 04-02-2004]

OK I apoligize. I shouldnt have posted something that i wasnt sure about.

But with your calculations .....(doing the math)...4.5 billion years ago, the moon would be about 45% closer, or about 106515 miles. Using the inverse square law, that would mean that the moons magnetic pull would have caused the tides to flood all land masses twice a day. I dont see how life could have formed when it is getting trashed by waves.[This message has been edited by Mnenth, 04-02-2004]

and how recent is your cite?

quote:

---

Recent enough to incorporate yours.

---

thats not really an answer, I would prefer a date. But looking back over Gilliland's work, you are correct in that he concluded that there was the possibility for a .2 decrease, not that it was proven. I misread that, and appologize for it. But that still doesnt get rid of the possibility for the sun shrinking, we just dont have enough data to prove it either way.

But what about my earlier post, about the moon? No one has said anything yet.
And another thing. The earth's rotation has been decreasing, the earth is losing 1/1000 of a second every day. Every 10 months they add a second to the clocks. If you go back millions of years life could not have been supported on this planet. If the earth were billions of years old the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth surface. Is this info totaly incorect?

how could anything have come together if 2x a day it would get washed back out into the ocean, or back onto the land? I mean, thats alot of water, and water gets pretty turbulant.

ok asgara, i read that article. and i dont see how they can say this:

quote:

---

The confusion arises because some mistake leap seconds for a measure of the rate at which the Earth is slowing

---

yet earlier they said:

quote:

---

Through the use of ancient observations of eclipses, it is possible to determine the average deceleration of the Earth to be roughly 1.4 milliseconds per day per century

---

to me, it looks like they said that the rate at which the earth slowed down was 1.4 milliseconds/day, then contraticted it later on. And how could you NOT use time lost to calculate rotation speeds? It is a constant loss.ok, wll i g2g, so ill be back tomorrow to debate some more. Just try not to bash on me while im gone.[This message has been edited by Mnenth, 04-02-2004]