A young sun - a response

There's a lot there to chew on so I've got some work to do tomorrow. Thanks for such a long post concerning the topic. You deffinetly have some of the most concise information in this forum but by far the freakiest icon I've ever seen. The eyeball looks like a viper head when it moves and then it becomes an eyeball again. I told my 4 year old daughter that she is going to see that eyeball looking at her through the bedroom window. I think she's sleeping with us tonight.

I agree and it raises some credibility issues with me. If ICR is undertaking the defence of Creation via the Bible's explanation, it should be able to defend the position with the most up to date scientific data. To purposefully mislead by using selective data when better is available is concerning to me. (That only stands if they purposefully ommited the later study and I'm not in a position to speak for them so it's only conjecture by me).The Apostel Paul said in the book Romans that the evidence for God is plainly visible in the creation so "they" are without excuse. I think that ICR should be able to support that to the highest degree and to see stuff like this makes me thnk ICR is more interested in something else.

I'm still studying the links and then following these to new sites but am I correct in a very basic simplification of how the Sun works.The Sun appears to me to be like a kitchen stove with a pot of water on one of it's burners. The center of the Sun is where the energy is being created by nuclear fussion. As the hydrogen is compressed it fusses into helium and energy is released from the hydrogen atoms during this process. The mechanism driving the fussion process is the intense gravitational pressure being exerted on the hydrogen atoms and their proximity to each other.As the energy is created, energy pressure builds and the pressure seeks to attain equillibrium so the energy moves out away from the center of the Sun. This is the same radiant heating method as the fire in the burner uses as it's heat radiats away from the flame.As the energy moves further away from the center of the Sun, it heats the hydrogen nearer the Sun's surface and this super heated hydrogen rises as a bubble through the surrounding hydrogen (convection) and when it reaches the surface it detonates into space and the energy is again in the form of radiation. Similiar to the radiated heat from the burner flame reaching the water at the base of the pan and heating it up. The heated water rises to the surface as a bubble (convection) and then detonates it's energy into the surrounding air however this energy remains convected energy through the air unlike the radiated through the space vacume.The force of gravitational attraction of the hydrogen holds the Sun together and doesn't allow it to be blown apart by the trememdous pressure created by heating hydrogen gas up to over 10,000 degrees farenheit.This may seem way to laughably basic to you all but when I was in high school science I was more interested in Donna Jacoewitz than in our Science Teacher. His name was Edwin Deitz and he was completely bald. The biggest gig in class was we'd all keep whispering under our breaths "skin head Ed", "skin head Ed", "skin head Ed", "skin head Ed", "skin head Ed", "skin head Ed", - you get the idea that my science class was very fun but extremely unproductive.

Thanks for the anwers Rei. I read what you said and then tried to do some more research and have a few more questions for you or anyone who has the time and some ATP buildup in their finger muscles.1) How did the initial fussion reaction start and what was the driving mechanism to push the hydrogen into fussion?2) Does the fussion energy output from the core get produced uniformally throughout the fussion core or is it the most active at the geometrical center of it and then fussion energy creation reduces as you move away from the center until you end up with a transistional zone at the outside boundries of the core where fussion is barely "flickering"?3) If the energy output from fussion is linear throughout the core and a distinct line or zone exists seperating the fussion core from the larger outer convection zone, then can I take the total output of the Sun's energy and divide it by a known number of Joules of energy per cubic meter of solar core plasma to compute the volume of the fussion core?3) Does fussion breed fussion. In other words is the volume of the fussion core growing and the density of the core remaining constant or is the core becoming more dense but the volume remaining the same or is the core at stasis and the Sun is emitting optimal output for it's age and volume?4) In the ICR post they talk of a dence core 14 times denser than lead extending out 175000 KM from it's center. Can hydrogen plasma attain this density and still be a homogeneous liquid? I don't find any reference to the density of the fussion core in any of the other links.Thanks to all who read these questions and attempt to answer them. I am not a scientist so your replies will probably need to be dumbed down somewhat for me to completely grasp but there's an extra can of spinach in the pantry so if it gets heavy I've got some help.

Unfortunatly the more insight I gain as to the mechanics of the Sun, more questions keep popping up. These are the dumb questions so I've seperated them into another post so as not to detract from the others.1) Does the magnetic effect that Rei spoke of as a contributing factor to the Suns operation happen because the hydrogen gas has become a plasma or because the plasma has been compressed to a critical density and temperature. Is the magnetic energy a result of the increased activity of the electrons in the hydrogen atoms in the plasma or is there another factor creating the actual magnetic energy.2) How does the Sun hold itself together? If I heat hydrogen up in a cylinder in my garage it eventually explodes due to the pressure created by the heat and then as the cylinder fails the hydrogen ignites with the oxygen and creates a fireball on top of this. How does the Sun manage to counteract what must be exponentially greater pressure than what I achieved in my garage but yet stay a nice tight sphere of energy production and storage with a timed release better than a drixoral cold pill? Is ther another property at work in the Sun accomplishing this that is not in existance in my garage simulation?3) If there is another force at work, what set of events causes this force to be created and what controls it's intensity. I'm guessing it's magnatism but I'm not sure. If it's magnatism, then it must be protional to the activity of the plasma creating it. If this is correct, how did the Sun initially hold itself together when the gas was hot but not yet plasma and it heated up it's tendency would be to expand, not contract as in gravitational collapse as the pressure from the hot gas increased? It seems that a star would studder somewhere in the process of gravitational collapse when the needed magnatism wasn't there to hold it together but the gas was increasing in heat and pressure and venting through expansion back into space.4) How can the magnetic fields on the Sun organize into forces capable of effecting the convection currents if the plasma is a boiling caldron of superheated hydrogen. It seems that each hydrogen atom would be so highly charged and bouncing everywhere that the magnetic energy being created by it's electrons would be too random to organize with other hydorgen atoms and the end result would be a faint background magnetic noise.Like I said, these are probably dumb questions and show my lack of knowledge of solar mechanics but thanks again to all how take a stab at answering them for me. Also, I did't actually heat up a cylinder of hydrogen in my garage, but the example reminded me of a Darwin recipient who hooked a garden hose to his propane tank and lit it as a flame thrower do thaw a frozen water line under his double wide.

Thanks Ned for taking the time to answer my questions.The "why" as to why I'm asking this is to better understand the possiblility or impossibility of a young sun less than 10,000 years old. The ICR post put the three governing factors into such a neat and tidy package that after I read that I thought "wow, that sure opens a pandora's box on a 4.657 billion year old earth if the main energy source for this planet has just recently come up on line.However, if by understanding the mechanics of solar operation, I as an "over fed, long haired leaping gnome - the star of a hollywood movie" rock music listening average Joe can see that a young sun is not plausible, then why are bonified scientists at ICR not seeing it?If however (I hate when other people use that clitche') the ICR people are on to something but just not presenting it eloquent enough, then I want to be able to spot it. If the Bible is being interpreted correctly by creationists, then the Sun is only so old. If also the Bible is authentic in it's claims as inspired wisdom and knowledge from God, then there should be no discrepancy in what it says verses what we see. For me the fat lady hasn't sung yet, she's just discovering Krispy Kremes's as of now, and both evolution and creation are on trial in my court of knowledge aquisition.I've spent my whole life in a church enviorment and am at the point where I want to rectify what the Bible says as the "Evidence for God is plainly seen in the creation" and "the fool has said in his heart - there is no God" with the scientific evidence that does not support an ID model. I believe that by taking an extended journey into the sciences to the depth that my own intellect can digest, I should be able to aquire the proper tools to explain one way or another what the physical world is. I don't want to just accept the tools laid before me by either side in case I end up trying to repair an orbiting sattelite with specialized tools but meant for open heart surgery.[This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 11-21-2003]

Upon re-reading the post that Rei gave for the fundamental occillation observation on the Sun, I see where I failed to acknoledge the "dense core" reality. The only way that nuclear fussion can be occuring in the central core of the Sun is if the hydrogen plasma is at a density significantly great according to the article.Sorry that I missed that the first time, I read it but I thought that it said the Sun was homogeneous and I must have gotten my neurons crossed in the translation. I still don't make the connection between hot plasma and densely packed when you are talking about hydrogen gas. It seems the pressures built up would counteract any force available to hold the thing together long enough to obtain (critical mass??)? I don't know if that's a good term or if that only applies to fission reactions.

I don't mean to sound like an idiot but what is a "Normal Folk"? Whatever it is, if it's not all of you then I'm confused because everybody here seems normal enough to be my neighbor guaging from the inflections of your posts. I have noticed that you all sound more well versed in science than you do in Brittany Spears song lyrics, but that's more a concern of Virgin Records than fosil records.

Well spoken,I was curious if in the fussion process, as helium is created from hydrogen pairs, does hellium ever fuse with hydrogen or does it fuse with other hellium exclusivly? If so(if it will fuse with another hydrogen), is this where the lithium that the ICR article alludes to comes from? If yes, why are they saying that the "original amount of lithium in the atmosphere is almost undetectable once the core temperature reaches 2 million degrees" when technically, lithium should be possible to be created as long as there is hydrogen left for fussion.Again, I'm probably confusing initial condictions with what I percieve is going on in the fussion core but if lithium is not a product of hydrogen fussion, where did it come from?[This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 11-21-2003]

I can see your point and I understand what you are saying.Let's look at the Kennedy assasination as an example since the aniversary is upon us. When JFK was assasinated it was caught on film, caught on audio tape and witnessed by hundreds of people.The film gives us a very detailed exact visual account of what happened from each of the camera's perspectives and the images are without debate as to what happened.The audio gives us a similiar account but with audio dynamics vs. video.The eye witnesses also give us an account but their degree of detail and accuracy will not be as conclusive but will be correct from each witness's perspective.The Bible is like the eye witnesses. The book of Genesis and primarily chapeters 1-3 are a spoken testimony of what happened given by one individual - God, or so the book claims. The account is in the perspective of the witness, again God.Science is like the camera's present in Dallas that horrible morning. Science gives a highly detailed account of slices of an event. Just like the eye witness accounts of the assasination should not refute or discount or contradict the video but might not shed anywhere as much detail on the event, so the creation account of the Bible should relate to science.A witness might not be able to tell how many lug nuts were on the President's right rear tire of his car, but the witness's testimony should confirm that the car had 4 tires by the action that the car took as soon as shots rang out. The video tape verifies that there were 4 tires and can tell the number of lugs.In the same manner the Bible isn't going to explain hydrogen fussion in the sun's core but it should not contradict the scientific model of the sun by saying it is 10,000 years old while science verifies it is 4.657 billion years. That's what I'm hoping to get at, is finding out if both science and the Bible are indeed telling the same story.

It sounds like achiving a stable Sun that doesn't blow itself apart is fairly straight forward. You have 2 forces that will always find equillibrium. The expansive pressure will be counteracted by the gravitational colapse and the more solar mass you have the greater the collapse. The greater the collapsive force the hotter and sooner the fussion core developes increasing the convection energy and overall star temperature which stops the on slaught of collapse by gravity.That's surprisingly simple. Another question then arrises. Do all stars appear to have the same average density as water, as our Sun does, reguardless of it's solar mass?

I'd hate to see the guy's hand who had to hold the thermometer in there that deep!

Thanks for taking as much time as you did to answer my questions. I've got some knowledge now to go back to those web sites and re-study the info on solar dynamics. Thanks again for your time.

From what I gather about what the Bible says, it is an intellegent faith that requires the believer to do 2 things.1) confess with your mouth - which is what just about anyone is able to do whether they actually believe anything or not. Turn to any channel on Sunday morning and you can here anything from genuine Biblical teaching to blantant chacanery to get into your wallets. I've even seen people at my place of employment do the confess with their mouth routine and it becomes obvious that they don't even know what they believe, let alone actually believe it themselves. The confessing is the easy part from my perspective.2) The second thing the Bible asks is believe with your heart. This is where the rubber meets the road. Notice that the Bible doesn't say believe in your head, or believe in your cerebral hemispheres or have a sound logical defendable ideology. It says believe in your heart and be prepared to give an account of what you believe at all times.So what is believeing in your heart? That's the key dynamic to dealing with the Bible. Well, when God spoke to Moses in Exodus, he told Moses what to go and do and naturally Moses resisted as I would have. So what did God do. He didn't say "have faith in my word and go against the odds and just believe despite what the evidence around you supports" that Moses was going to get his head cut off if he asked Pharoh to release the Israelites. So he gave Moses something to work with and he told Moses to hold out his hand and you know the rest of the story. These kinds of demonstrations are throughout the Bible where God gives specific people what they need so that they "Believe in their heart" what they believe and not just have a head knowledge.Today we have something better than a supernatural demonstration to add to our faith. Since Christ died for the sin debt, God can now approach us again as before the fall, so the Bible claims that the Holy Spirit personna of God actually makes a home in our heart. Now I realize that there is no literal dwelling in my coronary system, but many would say that if you take the Bible literally then you must believe that there is now a structure in one of the chambers of your heart where the holy spirit is hanging out. A CT will not reveal this "house" so is my faith busted? No, it just shows that God uses many different forms and illustrations to try to convey principles to a 3 dimensional being from a creator unrestrained by dimension.The biggest aspect of God that people fail to give attention to is God's holiness. If you do a study of how infinitley holy he claims to be and how unholy even 1 transgression is and how unapproachable he says that he is to any transgression, you start to understand why the Old Testament and the Gospels were filled with the supernatural. That was the most efficient way to give his people a faith they believed in their heart. But now that the debt is cleared, the most efficient way to build a heart dominated faith is with the Holy Spirit living - touching our own spirit.So if you have that kind of faith, not just a head knowledge faith, when you explore what science is saying, you don't cut and run and give up your faith when it doesn't look too good for God. That's what a head knowledge will get you, or the "believe it against the odds" kind of faith. The Bible is clear that it doesn't want that kind of believer and those types are addressed at the last judgement by God. So I don't trash my faith, but I continue to explore because the truth is indeed out there and it will be revealed - discovered.So when the Bible gives an account for creation - it's pretty important to deal with it and if the scientific evedence says it's 4.657 billion years old I don't say "run fer the hills cause there ain't no god!" and panick. Nor do I keep my faith as a gratuitous method for dealing with my fellow carbon units on earth and for calming my spiritual nerves. That's not Biblical faith, that's psychology. Biblical Faith says not to be blown around by every doctrine but be grounded in what is said in the scriptures and keep on searching. The Bible says seek and you will find, it never says seek for a little while and then change your mind, it says seek. That means seek, by the minute, the hour, the day, the year, continously, relentlessly, zealously with total focus and commitment and never stop and you will find.If there is a God and this God is indeed the God of the Bible, I believe that he is able to see both the future and the past together and none of this has caught him off guard. But it does provide a good shaking out of those who call themselves his followers. I find what science is finding to be extremely facinating and supremely beneficial. I hope to expand my knowledge base exponentially by learning from the people here. The Bible said that in the last days knowledge will be increased as what we see happening today. The Bible did not say that in the last days knowledge will be increased and put an end to the Biblical truth as it proves the Bible nonsense. One of those statements is a prediction where the other is a fact. Only one could be given by God where the other could be given by anyone because to give a statement of fact about the future means you must be outside the boundries of time to be able to see it.When I said that I was looking to see if science and the Bible were telling the same story, first I need to make sure I know what story the Bible IS saying about the creation and then match it up to science. If they disagree, then I stand on the Bible and although I won't say science is wrong, I also won't say that our science is at it's zeinith, but that there are myriads of discoveries to find that might rock the scientific world to it's core.I'm not going to judge anyone here for what they believe and why, but I'm not going to discard my methodogy of discovery to see who's telling what story.

In the Book of Job, God grills Job with a series of questions which are designed to show just how little Job and his fellow earth inhabitants knew about the creation. Because God addresses the fact that these issues exist is dirrection for me to pursue an answer to them, since he didn't give the answers in that book, only the questions. So I'm not going to stand with a telescope in one hand and the New Living Translation in the other and cross out the galaxies that don't jive with the Genesis account.But in the same breath (another horrible clitche) I want to know exactly,if possible, the jest of what the Bible is saying about the hows and whats of the construction of this place, and digest the science using the Bible as a fork and spoon(I always eat everything on the plate, so don't think I'm into selective listening). I'm not going to discount any provable science because it "is the devil", but because I hear of so many trashing their faith after imersing themselves into science, I thought it noteworthy to answer the question as to why I felt the Bible and science should agree if they are telling the same story. If they are telling a different story, then either one or the other or both has issues.