Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Shrinking Sun
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 66 (97259)
04-02-2004 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 5:53 PM


Not sure
OK I apoligize. I shouldnt have posted something that i wasnt sure about.
It is ok to post things you aren't sure about. It helps if you ask about them rather than appearing to tell is all.
You should be making little mental notes about the sources you are using. If several things they say prove to be wrong you might want to start doubting all of what they claim or at least take it with a large pile of salt and check it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:53 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 17 of 66 (97260)
04-02-2004 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 5:58 PM


Recent enough to incorporate yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:58 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 6:09 PM mark24 has replied

  
Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 66 (97262)
04-02-2004 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mark24
04-02-2004 6:05 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mark24, posted 04-02-2004 6:05 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 04-02-2004 6:12 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 04-02-2004 6:18 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 19 of 66 (97263)
04-02-2004 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 6:09 PM


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.
So it will wait on more data of course.
Meanwhile, it has no impact on the issue of the age of the earth at all. Continuing to use it as an argument for a young earth is disengenuous at best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 6:09 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 66 (97264)
04-02-2004 6:13 PM


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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Asgara, posted 04-02-2004 6:19 PM Mnenth has replied
 Message 25 by coffee_addict, posted 04-02-2004 6:21 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 04-02-2004 6:38 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 21 of 66 (97265)
04-02-2004 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 5:56 PM


quote:
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.
For once, this is a good question. Do not assume that stability encourages the formation of the first life forms. In fact, many scientists speculate that all the chaos at the time allowed different molecules to come together and form the first amino acids, which later came together to form the first protein. This sort of speculation came from laboratory experimentations where conditions are set to be similar to early Earth environments. These experiments have shown that amino acids could form under such conditions, which over a long period of time, could combine to form the first protein, and so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 5:56 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 6:20 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 22 of 66 (97266)
04-02-2004 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 6:09 PM


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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 6:09 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 23 of 66 (97267)
04-02-2004 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 6:13 PM


Mnenth, I don't have the expertise to explain this in a short post so I am going to post this link from the US Naval Observatory
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 6:13 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 6:33 PM Asgara has replied

  
Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 66 (97268)
04-02-2004 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by coffee_addict
04-02-2004 6:15 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by coffee_addict, posted 04-02-2004 6:15 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by coffee_addict, posted 04-02-2004 6:25 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 12:38 AM Mnenth has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 25 of 66 (97269)
04-02-2004 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 6:13 PM


quote:
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?
Again, this is far from the truth. We gain 2 seconds every 10 thousand years due to our own oceans. That's 5.5 X 10^-7 second per day. That is .00000055 sec per day. 1/1000 second per day = .001 sec per day. Big difference.
By the way, what earlier post about the moon? I already answered with math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 6:13 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 26 of 66 (97270)
04-02-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 6:20 PM


quote:
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.
In this case, you cannot use common sense to judge such an event. Common sense tells you that the Sun orbits the Earth. Common sense tells you that heavier objects fall at a higher acceleration than lighter objects. Can't use common sense.
However, like I said before, laboratory experiments have shown that non-organic molecules could come into formation to create amino acids in such violent environments. By the way, amino acid is the basis of all life.
Edited: By the way, life didn't start on land. Life started in the ocean. At least, that's what the current abiogenesis model tells us.
[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 6:20 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 66 (97271)
04-02-2004 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Asgara
04-02-2004 6:19 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Asgara, posted 04-02-2004 6:19 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Asgara, posted 04-02-2004 6:53 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 33 by JonF, posted 04-02-2004 7:18 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 38 by NosyNed, posted 04-02-2004 8:48 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 28 of 66 (97272)
04-02-2004 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 6:13 PM


Mnenth,
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?
http://pages.prodigy.com/suna/earth.htm
The 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 6:13 PM Mnenth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by coffee_addict, posted 04-02-2004 6:48 PM mark24 has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 29 of 66 (97277)
04-02-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mark24
04-02-2004 6:38 PM


quote:
I have no idea where you get 1 sec per 10 months!
This isn't necessarily his fault. It just proves that creationists, where Mnenth got his info from, would lie about the truth to support their beliefs. If you look at these 2 facts alone (rotation of earth and recession of the moon) and they turn out to be complete lies, I wonder what other facts they twist just to make the uninformed masses follow them. Am I glad I'm in college!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 04-02-2004 6:38 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 30 of 66 (97281)
04-02-2004 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 6:33 PM


Leap Second
Hopefully someone with more knowledge on this will correct any errors I make.
The rotation of the Earth is used as a basis for our time keeping. The day was divided into 24 periods and each of these was divided into 60 periods and each of these was further divided into 60 periods. The length of this solar day varies throughout the year so that this 1/86400 portion of a day is not consistent. Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) is calculated on an average of this length.
In the 1950s, as the accuracy of our measurements has improved, an atomic clock was developed at the National Physical Laboratory. It is more regular than any other clock..and more "regular" than the rotation of the Earth. In the 1960s an international agreement was made that specifically defined the lenth of the second in comparison to the atomic clock.
Gradually, the atomic clock becomes enough out of sink to the actual rotation that the International Earth Rotation Service decided to adjust the atomic clock to make it more in sync with the actual rotation.
I hope I didn't make many mistakes...and I hope this helps you understand the basis behind the leap second. It isn't that the Earth is necessarily slowing down it is that the average length of the rotation period isn't exact and the period measured by the atomic clock is. The leap second just brings them back into sync periodically.
[This message has been edited by Asgara, 04-02-2004]

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 6:33 PM Mnenth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Loudmouth, posted 04-02-2004 7:14 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024