Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Shrinking Sun
Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 66 (97216)
04-02-2004 5:13 PM


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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 04-02-2004 5:14 PM Mnenth has replied
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 04-02-2004 5:24 PM Mnenth has replied
 Message 8 by joz, posted 04-02-2004 5:35 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 60 by frodnum, posted 12-16-2006 9:06 AM Mnenth has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 66 (97217)
04-02-2004 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 5:13 PM


So, uh, anyone have anything to say to this? Besides just denying it outright?
the sun occilates in size. That means it gets larger, and then gets smaller, in a cycle.
The extrapolations made here are based on too little data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:13 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:25 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 45 by Radrook, posted 06-04-2004 9:06 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 66 (97227)
04-02-2004 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 5:13 PM


Mnenth,
So, uh, anyone have anything to say to this? Besides just denying it outright?
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:13 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:28 PM mark24 has replied

  
Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 66 (97230)
04-02-2004 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
04-02-2004 5:14 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 04-02-2004 5:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 04-02-2004 5:29 PM Mnenth has replied

  
Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 66 (97232)
04-02-2004 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mark24
04-02-2004 5:24 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 04-02-2004 5:24 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Loudmouth, posted 04-02-2004 5:35 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 04-02-2004 5:54 PM Mnenth has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 66 (97233)
04-02-2004 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 5:25 PM


Mnenth,
Any scientist worth his/her salt wouldnt make such an obvious error as you are saying they did.
They clearly aren't worth their salt, then, are they?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:25 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:37 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 66 (97236)
04-02-2004 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 5:28 PM


quote:
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.
Reference please. We can't comment on the data unless we can see the data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:28 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 66 (97237)
04-02-2004 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 5:13 PM


Alos from http://www.asa3.org/...ronomy-Cosmology/PSCF9-86VanTill.html
John H. Parkinson, Leslie V. Morrison and F. Richard Stephenson performed such a re-evaluation and concluded that the trends in the Greenwich data reported by Eddy and Boornazian "are the result of instrumental and observational defects rather than real changes.9 In their judgment, based on the combined data sets of the Mercury transit and total solar eclipse observations, no secular change over the past 250 years was detectable, but a cyclic change with an 80-year periodicity was indicated. In an extensive article published in the Astrophysical journal, R. L. Gilliland confirmed the presence of a 76-year periodic variation in the sun's diameter, but suggested that the data do allow for a very small long term shrinkage at the rate of 0.1 are second per century during the past 265 years.10
So actually neither Gilliland nor Stephenson are saying anything of the sort...
Stephenson outright rejects shrinkage unless part of a cyclic expansion contraction, and Gilliland just says that the data doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of a very slow shrinkage....
You want to bring a genuine argument to the table instead of just misrepresenting real science?
[This message has been edited by joz, 04-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:13 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 9 of 66 (97240)
04-02-2004 5:37 PM


In regard to your moon smashing into Earth claim, here is some basic math that shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Rate of recession: .038 meter/year
Current distance from Earth: 3.9 X 10^10 meters
1 year
---------- X 3.9 X 10^10 meters = 10.3 X 10^10 years
.038 meter
Assuming that the moon started out touching the Earth. By the way, 10.3 X 10^10 years is 103,000,000,000 years: that's 103 billion years.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:53 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 12:33 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 66 (97241)
04-02-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
04-02-2004 5:29 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 04-02-2004 5:29 PM mark24 has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 11 of 66 (97244)
04-02-2004 5:39 PM


By the way, I am not a pacifist by any means. When I've made a mistake in one of my claims, I will willingly apologize and admit my mistake. However, I've never heard such apology from a creationist before. Wanna prove me wrong?

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:56 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 66 (97254)
04-02-2004 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by coffee_addict
04-02-2004 5:37 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 04-02-2004 5:37 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 04-02-2004 6:01 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 13 of 66 (97255)
04-02-2004 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 5:28 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:28 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:58 PM mark24 has replied

  
Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 66 (97257)
04-02-2004 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by coffee_addict
04-02-2004 5:39 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 04-02-2004 5:39 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by coffee_addict, posted 04-02-2004 6:15 PM Mnenth has replied

  
Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 66 (97258)
04-02-2004 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mark24
04-02-2004 5:54 PM


and how recent is your cite?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 04-02-2004 5:54 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mark24, posted 04-02-2004 6:05 PM Mnenth has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024