A young sun - a response

This is why there is little point discussing the subject. YES we can make some definitive statements about what has to have gone on inside the Sun. The standard stellar evolution theory is based upon tried and tested atomic physics, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, radiative transfer theory etc. The basic picture for solar type main sequence stars has not changed in 50-60 years. Sure, details have been worked upon BUT the plain vanilla modeling is well entrenched.I notice one thing you refer to, which was responsible for some confusion on your part, is the time for a star to collapse from a cloud. This really has no bearing on the argument because any information from that era is essentially wiped out once the star arrives upon the main sequence. The reason being that the star earlier than the main sequence is fully convective and homogenised.

Eta, you've told me off twice now to "BUG OFF!!" after your tirades and insults about poor spelling and such when my spelling is as good as most degreed folks here in town. Then you continue to go on. Which is it, do we dialogue or do I bug off? If it's still bug off, I'll honor your request. If you want to be civil and talk, we'll talk. You call it. I'm thick skinned and forgiving, but expect a measure of respect.

Buzzy, it appears that you are thick headed as well. You are trying to argue that the sun appears old because it must be a minimum of about 30,000,000 years old to operate as a functional, stable star as required to support life. However you continue to ignore the numerous features which are observed which are consistent with a sun of 4,500,000,000 years of age and inconsistent with a much younger sun. You prefer to believe your fantasies and ignore science.What is the point of discussing anything with you?

But nobodys proved it's age. I've established my original and ongoing position that it must look old which nobody's been able to refute. Just how old is debatable and unprovable so I don't consider it worthwhile.Eta appears to be now raising the bar to eliminate the 30,000,000 year alleged protostar phase of our sun's existence that physicists are claimig if I understand his last post. If that's the case I'm cryin "foul." The age of the sun, if evolved begins with the beginning it's nebula, imo, and certainly from when it would, according to physists become a protostar, much like a tree is as old as when it was planted, though it hasn't produced leaves and fruit all of it's life.So why am I being bullheaded when my stated purpose from the gitgo was never to debate the age of the sun?Btw, Wi, I'm still willing to discuss all these erroneous claims by me that you alluded to earlier if you care to document some.

NOI have told you this is NOT the case AND I gave you the properties that DON'T have to be as they are for the Sun to work BUT give it an appearance of age.What more can I say to tell you this?

Buzsaw, exactly what do you want? Would the sun's birth certificate be required? What do you mean when you say "proved"?There is one group that has a very well reasoned, evidence based for a determination of the sun's age. There is only one[/b].If you have some explicit complaints with it then let's see them.In any case, you seem to accept a 30 million year old sun. Or do you?If you accept that why not a 4.5 billion year old sun?

Ned, I've made it clear that I believe our sun was created a few thousand years ago as a fully formed functioning star. Science says it took the sun 30,000,000 years just to graduate from a protostar into a fully formed star if it were formed naturally. Right? So the LEAST, I say, the least it could look to evo science would be 30my from birth and regardless of how aged science thinks it is, the minimum of 30my is a whooooole lot longer than a few thousand, so I am absolutely correct in insisting it was created with the appearance of great age, if indeed it was created a few thousand years ago. Why is this so hard for you intelligent people to accept? I can't for the life of me figure how you cannot simply admit that and put it to rest.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-18-2003]

Well for one thing I was taking the zero point from when the Sun arrived on the Main Sequence.You cannot get any direct information for the time to collapse (i.e. your 30 million year figure) because that information is inevitably lost. The star in collapse is in a hydrodynamic state (fully convective). This totally homogenises it's material and it rotates as a solid body. You can only start inferring an age from when this phase is over.

Ok, I finally understand. Or maybe I do.
Let me paraphrase.The sun was created by God a few thousand years ago. It appears to be maybe millions of years old because it must so that it will work. You agree that God is not a prankster.However, the sun is actually determined to be billions of years old. Or you would say it "appears" to be billions of years old. However, you have no reason why it needs to appear that way.Or have you given a reason and I missed it?It isn't simply the appearance of age, but the actual magnitude that comes into play.I must thank you for this. I have had the "He made it look that way" argument used before. However, no one has, to me, pointed out the need for some appearance just so things work. However, in this case you still end up with something similar to Adam having a belly button. There is too much appearance of age. You haven't explained the extra billions of years.

Yes buzzy, you are amazingly thick.The sun displays properties consistent with it being about 4,500,000,000 years old and inconsistent with being 30,000,000 years old. The sun has the appearance of 4.5 billion years age, not 30 million years age. Your assertion that the sun shows the appearance of age consistent with its creation from noting about 6,000 years ago is wrong.Of course the only reason that you say the sum was created 6,000 years ago is because that is how you interpret a religious text. You refuse to consider the logical solution to this conundrum - that the religious text is wrong if you interpret it this way.

The correct wording of this is:The interpretation is wrong. A point made centuries ago by Galileo.

As this topic nears 300 messages, and closure, perhaps someone would like to wrap it up by summarizing how the age of the sun is determined. I assume it's something beyond "The earth's 4.5 billion years old, therefore the sun must be at least that old".Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Ned, I've given you time after time after time after time after time the reason why it would appear old. Please reread and get real.Eta's bogus idea that it's protostar stage doesn't count in calculating age is BOGUS BUNK TO DENY THE SCIENTIFIC FACTS SO AS NOT TO ADMIT BUZ IS RIGHT.Shame on him and I pitty his students if this is his style of ejukating! ------------------
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-18-2003]

WI, PLEASE REREAD. MY CLAIM IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO APPEAR AT LEAST 30MYO BY EVO SCIENCE. THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS DECLARING IT'S APPARANT AGE. IF IT WOULD HAVE TO APPEAR AT LEAST, I SAY, AT LEAST, I SAY AT LEAST (GET IT?) 30MYO, THAT MAKES IT HAVING THE APPEARANCE OF AGE.

No, you have not! You note that it would have to appear old to work. But it appears OLDER than it has to. A huge amount older, many,many times older. Why it does you have NOT explained.In all this you have, however, forgotten to ask a pertinent question of Eta. Moose has pointed out that we don't know how the age of the sun is determined.