PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Creation Proofs - 2) Stars
       Creation Proofs part 2, looking at star formations

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
FifthEdge

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


The following text comes from www.evolution-facts.org, I
 have broken it up into 3 seperate posts and await replies.
 1) Big bang beginings (Issues with the start of the big bang)
 2) Stelar evolution (Issues with stars/elements) *WE ARE HERE*
 3) Background radiation &

 

We will now ASSUME that
 the clouds formed themselves into what evolutionists call proto-stars, or first-generation
 stars.


STARS EXPLODE AND SUPERNOVAS PRODUCE HEAVY
 ELEMENTS


The problem—The
 Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium. Somehow, the 90 heavier (post-helium)
 elements had to be made.
The theorists
 had to figure out a way to account for their existence.


The theory—The
 first stars, which were formed, were so-called "first-generation stars"
 (also called "population III stars"). They contained only lighter
 elements (mainly hydrogen and helium). Then all of these stars repeatedly exploded.
 Billions upon billions of stars kept exploding, for billions of years. Gradually,
 these explosions are said to have produced all our heavier elements.

This concept is as wild as those preceding
 it, and here's why:

1 - Another necessity.
 Like all the other aspects of this theory, this one is included in order to
 somehow get the heavier (post-helium) elements into the universe. The evolutionists
 admit that the Big Bang would only have produced hydrogen and helium. 

2 -  The
 nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium to change
 itself into any of the heavier elements
. This is an extremely important
 point, and is called the "helium mass 4 gap
"
(that
 is, there is a gap immediately after helium 4). Therefore exploding stars could
 not produce the heavier elements. (Some scientists speculate that a little might
 be produced, but even that would not be enough to supply all the heavier elements
 now in our universe.) Among nuclides that can actually be formed, gaps exists
 at mass 5 and 8. Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass
 5
.
The first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron
 can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only
 element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium. Even if it spanned
 this gap, it would be stopped again at mass 8. Hydrogen bomb explosions produce
 deuterum (hydrogen 2), which, in turn, forms helium 4. The hydrogen bomb chain
 reaction of nuclear changes would continue changing into ever heavier elements
 until they reached uranium;—but the process is stopped at the gap at mass 5.
 If it were not for that gap, our sun would be radiating uranium toward us!


Clarification: If you will look at any standard
 table of the elements, you will find that the atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.008.
 (Deuterum is a form of hydrogen with a weight of 2.016.) Next comes helium (4.003),
 followed by lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811), etc. Gaps in
 atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.


But cannot hydrogen explosions cross those
 gaps? No. Nuclear fision (a nuclear bomb or reactor) splits (unevenly halves)
 uranium into barium and technetium. Nuclear fusion (a hydrogen bomb) combines
 (doubles) hydrogen into deuterum (helium 2), which then doubles into helium
 4—and stops there. So a hydrogen explosion (even in a star) does not go across
 the mass 5 gap.


We will now ASSUME that hydrogen and helium
 explosions could go across the gaps at mass 5 and 8:




3 - There has not been enough theoretical
 time to produce all the needed heavier elements
that now exist.

 We know from spectrographs that heavier elements are found all over the universe.
 The first stars are said to have formed about 250 million years after the initial
 Big Bang explosion. (No one ever dates the Big Bang over 20 billion years ago,
 and the date has recently been lowered to 15 billions years ago.) At some lengthy
 time after the gas coalesced into "first-generation" stars,
 most of them are theorized to have exploded and then, 250 million years later,
 reformed into "second-generation" stars. These are said to
 have exploded into "third-generation" stars. Our sun is supposed
 to be a second- or third-generation star.

4 - There are no population III stars
 (also called first-generation stars)
in the sky.
According
 to the theory, there should be "population III" stars, containing
 only hydrogen and helium, many of which exploded and made "population
 II"
(second-generation stars), but there are only population I and
 II stars (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 35-36).

5 - Random explosions do not produce
 intricate orbits
.
 The theory requires that
 countless billions of stars exploded. How could haphazard explosions result
 in the marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of suns, stars,
 binary stars, galaxies, and star clusters? Within each galactic system, hundreds
 of billions of stars are involved in these interrelated orbits. Were these careful
 balancings not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars
 would fall into their galactic centers—or they would fly apart! Over half of
 all the stars in the sky are in binary systems, with two or more stars circling
 one another. How could such astonishing patterns be the result of explosions?
 Because there are no "first generation" ("Population I")
 stars, Big Bang theory requires that every star exploded at least one or two
 times. But random explosions never produce orbits.

6 - There are not enough supernova explosions
 to produce the needed heavier elements
.
There
 are 81 stable elements and 90 natural elements. Each one has unusual properties
 and intricate orbits. When a star explodes, it is called a nova. When
 a large star explodes, it becomes extremely bright for a few weeks or months
 and is called a supernova. It is said that only the explosions of supernovas
 could produce much of the needed heavier elements, yet there have been relatively
 few such explosions. 

7 - Throughout all recorded history, there
 have been almost no supernova explosions
.

 If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now. Research
 astronomers tell us that one or two supernova explosions are seen every century,
 and only 16 have exploded in our galaxy in the past 2,000 years. Past civilizations
 carefully recorded each one. The Chinese observed one, in A.D. 185, and another
 in A.D. 1006. The one in 1054 produced the Crab nebula, and was visible in broad
 daylight for weeks. It was recorded both in Europe and the Far East. Johannes
 Kepler wrote a book about the next one, in 1604. The next bright one was 1918
 in Aquila, and the latest in the Veil Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud on
 February 24, 1987. 

 
 
"Supernovae are quite different
   . . and astronomers are eager to study their spectra in detail. The main difficulty
   is their rarity. About 1 per 650 years is the average for any one galaxy .
   . The 1885 supernova of Andromeda was the closest to us in the last 350 years."—*Isaac
   Asimov, New Guide to Science (1984), p. 48.




8 - Why did the stellar explosions mysteriously
 stop?
The theory required that all the stars
 exploded, often repeatedly. The observable facts are that, throughout recorded
 history, stars only rarely explode. In order to explain this, evolutionists
 postulate that 5 billion years ago, the explosions suddenly stopped
. Very
 convenient. When the theory was formulated in the 1940s, through telescopes
 astronomers could see stars whose light left them 5 billion light-years ago.
 But today, we can see stars that are 15 billion light-years away. Why are we
 not seeing massive numbers of stellar explosions far out in space? The stars
 are doing just fine; it is the theory which is wrong. 

9 - The most distant stars, which
 are said to date nearly to the time of the Big Bang explosion, are not exploding,—and
 yet they contain heavier elements.
 We can now
 see out in space to nearly the beginning of Big Bang time. Because of the Hubble
 telescope, we can now see almost as far out in space as the beginning of the
 evolutionists’ theoretical time. But, as with nearby stars, the farthest ones
 have heavier elements (are "second-generation"), and they are not
 exploding any more frequently than are the nearby ones.

10 - Supernovas do not throw off enough
 matter to make additional stars
.
 There are
 not many stellar explosions and most of them are small-star (nova) explosions.
 Yet novas cast off very little matter. A small-star explosion only loses a hundred-thousandth
 of its matter; a supernova explosion loses about 10 percent; yet even that amount
 is not sufficient to produce all the heavier elements found in the planets,
 interstellar gas, and stars. So supernovas—Gamow’s fuel source for nearly all
 the elements in the universe—occur far too infrequently and produce far too
 small an amount of heavy elements—to produce the vast amount that exists in
 the universe.

11 - Only hydrogen and helium have been
 found in the outflowing gas from supernova explosions
.
 
 The theory requires lots of supernova explosions in order to produce heavy elements.
 But there are not enough supernovas,—and research indicates that they do
 not produce heavy elements!
All that was needed was to turn a spectroscope
 toward an exploded supernova and analyze the elements in the outflowing gas
 from the former star. *K. Davidson did that in 1982, and found that the Crab
 nebula (resulting from an A.D. 1054 supernova) only has hydrogen and helium.
 This means that, regardless of the temperature of the explosion, the helium
 mass 4 gap was never bridged. (It had been theorized that a supernova would
 generate temperatures high enough to bridge the gap.) But the gap at mass 4
 and 8 prevented it from occurring.

12 - An explosion of a star would not
 produce another star
.
It has been theorized
 that supernova explosions would cause nearby gas to compress and form itself
 into new stars. But if a star exploded, it would only shoot outward and any
 gas encountered would be pushed along with it. 


So we find that the evidence does not support
 the various aspects of the Big Bang and stellar evolution theories.
 

2 - MORE FACTS

WHICH BURY THE THEORY

MORE PROBLEMS FOR STELLAR EVOLUTION

1 - According to the
 theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually
 making them. But the so-called "older stars" have been found
 to have no more heavy elements than the so-called "younger stars."

 All stars, from "young" to "old," have the same amount of
 heavy elements.


2 - The theory
 says that gas floating in interstellar space is leftover from the Big Bang,
 and can only consist of hydrogen and helium. But *Rubins has shown that this
 is not true. Extra-galactic gas has a variety of heavier elements in it
 


3 - The theory
 says that the super-fast particles, hurled outward by the Big Bang, were evenly
 radiated. Yet, as scientists have noted, a perfectly smooth cosmic explosion
 would only have produced perfectly smooth, increasingly rarified (ever farther
 apart) particles
.
So the very existence of stars disproves the theorized
 original giant explosion.

4 - The theory
 requires a continual rush of particles outward—leaving nothing inside this outer
 parimeter of outflowing matter. Yet there are stars and galaxies all through
 space,
not just at the outer edge. Even if clumped
 gas could have formed any stars, everything would continue to be hurled to the
 thin, outer edges of space—with an expanding center containing nothing.


5 - According
 to the theory, the farther we look out into space, the farther back into past
 eons of time we are gazing. This means that the farthest stars and galaxies
 ought to be the youngest. Yet research reveals the farthest stars are just like
 those nearby
.

6 - Angular momentum is another
 serious problem
.
 Why do stars turn? Why do
 galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one
 another? How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion, started
 by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving
 motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)?
How could angular momentum
 exist—and in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible
 way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects,
 like stars, planets, and moons.

7 - Inward pushing gas would not change
 to a rotating star
.
According to the theory,
 stars were formed by the "inward gravitational collapse of hydrogen gas
 clouds." If so, why do the resultant stars rotate? Some stars rotate very
 fast. If ten people in a circle pushed marbles in toward a common center, the
 marbles would not begin rotating or circling after they reached it. 

8 - Matter-origin theories cannot explain
 why stars spin
.
The theorists tell us that
 stars somehow started spinning; but, with age, they slow down. Yet some stars
 spin faster than either "younger" or "older" stars. Some
 spin once in less than an earth-day. The fastest, Hz 1883, has a spin period
 of only 6 hours. 

9 - Some stars orbit backward
 to that of other stars. The theorists cannot explain this. 

10 - There are high-velocity stars that
 are traveling far too fast
to accommodate
 the evolutionary theories of matter and stellar origins. 

11 - If the
 Big Bang theory were true, all stars would move the same direction, but stars,
 clusters, and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another
.

 (More about the expanding universe theory later.)

12 - Evidence is accumulating that the
 entire universe is rotating
!
This is angular
 momentum on the most gigantic of proportions. Yet the Big Bang should only have
 produced linear movement outward from it. 

13 - Theorists
 are deeply bothered by, what they call, the "lumpy" problem. The
 universe is "lumpy"; that is, it has stars, planets, etc. in it. Yet
 none should exist
if the Big Bang theory were true.
They argue fiercely
 over these problems, in their professional journals, while assuring the public
 the theory is accepted by all astrophysicists. They consider this to be a major,
 unsolved problem. 

 
 
"As IBM’s Philip E. Seiden,
   put it: ‘The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That
   model assumes the universe started out as a globally smooth, homogeneous expanding
   gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that
   is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization
   of any kind.’ No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing. Needless to say,
   the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise.
   How then did the lumps get there? No one can say."—*Ben Patrusky,
   "Why is the Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?" Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.




14 - The universe is full of stars,
 with relatively little gas. But it should be the other way around: full of gas
 and no stars
.
The Big Bang should have produced
 a "homogenous" universe of smooth gas ever flowing outward with, at
 best, almost no "inhomogenities," or "lumps" such as stars
 and island universes. 

15 - The universe is full of super clusters.
 These are the biggest "lumps" of all. It has recently been discovered
 that the galaxies are grouped into galaxy clusters, and these into still larger
 super clusters. The "Big Bangers," as their colleagues call them,
 excuse the problem by saying that "gravity waves" produced the galaxies.
 But gravity, in any form, could not press floating hydrogen and helium into
 a star or planet out of gas, make a marvelously organized disk network of stars,
 or produce the precisely balanced spinning and orbiting of planets and stars. 

 
 
"The main efforts of investigators
   have been in papering over holes in the Big Bang theory, to build up an idea
   that has become ever more complex and cumbersome . . I have little hesitation
   in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory. When a pattern
   of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely
   recovers."—*Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang Theory under Attack,"
   Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.




16 - Solar collapse, not nuclear fusion
 has been found to be the cause of solar energy. But that would undercut the
 entire theory of the Big Bang
.
We will briefly
 summarize the data here. You will find it discussed more fully (along with additional
 quotations) in the chapter, Origin of the Stars, in our 3-volume set
 on our website. It is also partially referred to in "6 - Solar Collapse"
 
in the Age of the Earth chapter in this paperback. 

There is evidence that our sun "shines,"
 not by hydrogen explosions, but by solar collapse. Yet stellar evolution is
 keyed to the fact that stars are fueled by (shine because of) hydrogen explosions
 (nuclear fusion)
.
The amount of mass/energy our sun would have to lose
 daily amounts to 4 million tons [3.6 million mt] a second. The problem is
 the fusion process should produce lots of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos,
 and each square inch of earth’s
surface should be hit each second by
 a trillion neutrinos.
Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and have
 searched for them since the mid-1970s, but hardly any arrive from the sun.
 This fact alone would appear to disprove the hydrogen theory of solar energy
 (cf. *J.H. Bahcall, Astronomical Journal, 76:283, 1971).
*Corliss, the world
 leader in tracking down scientific anomalies, considers the "missing neutrinos"
 to be "one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy" (*W.R.
 Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos, 1987, p. 40).
It was not until the 1930s
 that the nuclear theory of starlight was developed by *Hans Bethe and *Carl
 von Weizsacker. Yet it remains a theory. In contrast, there is strong evidence
 pointing to solar collapse as the true cause of solar energy.

The scientific basis for solar collapse,
 as the source of solar energy, was developed over a century ago by two brilliant
 scientists: Hermann von Helmholtz and Lord Kelvin.
 
 If each star is slowly contracting, great amounts of energy would be constantly
 released. But evolutionists cannot accept this possibility, because it would
 mean the universe (and the earth) is much younger. Nuclear fusion would mean
 billions of years for a star’s life; solar collapse only a few million.

 A change in the radius of our sun of about 80 feet a year is all that would
 be necessary to produce our sun’s actual energy release. This is a radius shirnkage
 of only .009 feet [.27 cm] per hour.

Some scientists have found evidence of
 solar collapse.
One major study was done by *John
 A. Eddy and *Aram Boornazian (*New Scientist, March 3, 1983, p. 592).
 The basis for this is an analysis of solar transit measurements, made at the
 Royal Greenwich Observatory since 1836 and the U.S. Naval Observatory since
 1846. It was calculated that the sun is shrinking at the rate of 5 ft/hr in
 diameter (0.1% per century, 2 arc-sec/century). They also analyzed solar eclipses
 for the past four centuries. A separate report by *Ronald Gilliland confirmed
 the *Eddy and *Boornazian report (*op. cit., p. 593)

 
 
"The sun has been contracting
   about 0.0% per century . . corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet
   per hour [15.24 dm]."—*G.B. Lublihn, Physics Today, Vol. 32, No. 17,
   1979.




The above findings would indicate that our
 sun’s output of radiant energy is generated by this shrinkage and not by hydrogen
 explosions (thermonuclear fusion) deep within it. If hydrogen was the solar
 fuel, we should be receiving a very large quantity of neutrinos; yet almost
 none are detected.


Jupiter is also apparently contracting,
 because it is giving off more heat than it receives from the sun.

  A surface contraction of just one centimeter per year would
 account for the measured heat flow from Jupiter. A similar situation exists
 for Saturn.


 
 
"Jupiter . . radiates twice
   as much energy as it absorbs from the sun through a contraction and cooling
   process."—*Star Date radio broadcast, November 8, 1990.
 
"Saturn emits 50% more heat
   than it absorbs from the sun."— *Science Frontiers, No. 73, January-February
   1991.




These facts are known; but, in order to
 defend evolutionary theory, the decision has been made to stick with solar fusion

 as the cause of solar energy and sunshine.

 
 
"Astronomers were startled,
   and laymen amazed, when in 1979 Jack Eddy, of the High Altitude Observatory
   in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that the sun was shrinking at such a rate that,
   if the decline did not reverse, our local star would disappear within a hundred
   million years."—*John Gribbin, "The Curious Case of the Shrinking
   Sun," New Scientist, March 3, 1983.

 
"Geological evidence, however,
   indicates that the terrestrial crust [our earth’s rock strata] has an age
   of several billion years, and it is surely to be expected that the sun is
   at least as old as the earth . . We must conclude that . . another source
   must be responsible for most of the energy output of a star."—*Eva
   Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), p. 248.




Summarizing solar collapse:
 
The evidence that hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear
 fusion) is the cause of solar energy (sunshine) would be a great abundance of
 neutrino radiation. But that evidence is missing. The evidence that solar collapse
 (gradual shrinkage) is the cause has been definitely found. Evolutionists reject
 solar collapse as the cause, (1) since it would mean our sun and the universe
 could not be more than a few million years old; (2) thus, their strata theories
 would be wrong and (3) the Big Bang theory would be gutted.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:46 PM on July 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem—The
Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium.


Incorrect,  Lithium was also produced.  In fact, you can calculate the abundances with this handy Java calculator:
Big Bang Java Calculator v1.1
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:39 PM on February 11, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium to change itself into any of the heavier elements. This is an extremely important point, and is called the "helium mass 4 gap"


Totally wrong, in fact, stellar nucleosynthesis is quite well understood, and observational evidence supports it quite well.

Stellar Nucleosynthesis Data

These tables are a compilation of current thermonuclear reaction rate
information for light and intermediate mass nuclei 1H to 134Ru. They are
intended to supplement the various works of Fowler, Caughlan, Zimmerman, and
Harris especially for nuclei heavier than magnesium. Reaction rates for strong,
electromagnetic, and weak interactions are tabulated in 14 sections as a
function of temperature (T9). Also presented are tables of neutral current and
charged current neutrino interaction cross sections and their associated
branching ratios.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:03 PM on February 11, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The above findings would indicate that our
sun’s output of radiant energy is generated by this shrinkage and not by hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) deep within it. If hydrogen was the solar fuel, we should be receiving a very large quantity of neutrinos; yet almost
none are detected.


Ummmm, the "missing" neutrinos were found years ago, maybe you should read Answers in Genesis:

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

Missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational collapse, and is proof of a young sun.’ This is about a formerly vexing problem of detecting only one third of the predicted numbers of neutrinos from the sun. Also, accepted theories of particle physics said that the neutrino had zero rest mass, which would prohibit oscillations from one ‘flavour’ to another. Therefore, consistent with the data then available, some creationists proposed that the sun was powered one-third by fusion and two-thirds by gravitational collapse. This would have limited the age to far less than 4.5 billion years.

However, a new experiment was able to detect the ‘missing’ flavours, which seems to provide conclusive evidence for oscillation. This means that neutrinos must have a very tiny rest mass after all—experimental data must take precedence over theory. Therefore creationists should no longer invoke the missing neutrino problem to deny that fusion is the primary source of energy for the sun. So it cannot be used as a young-age indicator—nor an old-age indicator for that matter. See Newton, R., Missing neutrinos found! No longer an ‘age’ indicator, TJ16(3):123–125, 2002 (to be posted).

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:26 PM on February 11, 2004 | IP
Astronomer

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


The problem—The
 Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium. Somehow, the 90 heavier (post-helium)
 elements had to be made.
The theorists
 had to figure out a way to account for their existence.


This is a bit backwards: actually scientists knew about how heavy elements were created in stars before the details of the Big Bang were worked out. Fred Hoyle was a major pioneer in this area.


The theory—The
 first stars, which were formed, were so-called "first-generation stars"
 (also called "population III stars"). They contained only lighter
 elements (mainly hydrogen and helium). Then all of these stars repeatedly exploded.
 Billions upon billions of stars kept exploding, for billions of years. Gradually,
 these explosions are said to have produced all our heavier elements.

This concept is as wild as those preceding
 it, and here's why:

1 - Another necessity.
 Like all the other aspects of this theory, this one is included in order to
 somehow get the heavier (post-helium) elements into the universe. The evolutionists
 admit that the Big Bang would only have produced hydrogen and helium. 


As stated above: the creation of heavy elements in stellar furnaces actually was developed independently of the Big Bang.


2 -  The
 nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium to change
 itself into any of the heavier elements
. This is an extremely important
 point, and is called the "helium mass 4 gap
"
(that
 is, there is a gap immediately after helium 4). Therefore exploding stars could
 not produce the heavier elements. (Some scientists speculate that a little might
 be produced, but even that would not be enough to supply all the heavier elements
 now in our universe.) Among nuclides that can actually be formed, gaps exists
 at mass 5 and 8. Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass
 5
.
The first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron
 can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only
 element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium. Even if it spanned
 this gap, it would be stopped again at mass 8. Hydrogen bomb explosions produce
 deuterum (hydrogen 2), which, in turn, forms helium 4. The hydrogen bomb chain
 reaction of nuclear changes would continue changing into ever heavier elements
 until they reached uranium;—but the process is stopped at the gap at mass 5.
 If it were not for that gap, our sun would be radiating uranium toward us!


Well, the last statement is completely wrong because the sun would not radiate a heavy element if it created it in its core.

In reality, the gap is traversed through two processes. One is called the "triple alpha process" and is simply taking three helium nuclei and fusing them together. This is a rare reaction, but it occurs in massive stars as documented by the theory and shown in observations of fusion labs and particle accelerators. Once the triple alpha process creates a bit of carbon, we can continue with fusion. This is a well-understood process and was documented first by Fred Hoyle (who by the way went to his grave never being convinced of the Big Bang model for reasons that are unimportant to the discussion at hand).


Clarification: If you will look at any standard
 table of the elements, you will find that the atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.008.
 (Deuterum is a form of hydrogen with a weight of 2.016.) Next comes helium (4.003),
 followed by lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811), etc. Gaps in
 atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.


But cannot hydrogen explosions cross those
 gaps? No. Nuclear fision (a nuclear bomb or reactor) splits (unevenly halves)
 uranium into barium and technetium. Nuclear fusion (a hydrogen bomb) combines
 (doubles) hydrogen into deuterum (helium 2), which then doubles into helium
 4—and stops there.


As I stated above, this isn't true because we know about the triple-alpha process.

3 - There has not been enough theoretical
 time to produce all the needed heavier elements
that now exist.

 We know from spectrographs that heavier elements are found all over the universe.
 The first stars are said to have formed about 250 million years after the initial
 Big Bang explosion. (No one ever dates the Big Bang over 20 billion years ago,
 and the date has recently been lowered to 15 billions years ago.) At some lengthy
 time after the gas coalesced into "first-generation" stars,
 most of them are theorized to have exploded and then, 250 million years later,
 reformed into "second-generation" stars. These are said to
 have exploded into "third-generation" stars. Our sun is supposed
 to be a second- or third-generation star.


I'm sorry, I fail to see where the problem is. There is plenty of time for high mass stars to evolve in the age of the universe for an age of a star at 250 million years and the universe's age of 13.7 billion years.


4 - There are no population III stars
 (also called first-generation stars)
in the sky.
According
 to the theory, there should be "population III" stars, containing
 only hydrogen and helium, many of which exploded and made "population
 II"
(second-generation stars), but there are only population I and
 II stars (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 35-36).


The reason that there are none is because they were all very massive and only lived about 250 million years. They've exploded to bits billions of years ago.


5 - Random explosions do not produce
 intricate orbits
.
 The theory requires that
 countless billions of stars exploded. How could haphazard explosions result
 in the marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of suns, stars,
 binary stars, galaxies, and star clusters?


This is again a problem of the Boltzman Equation. Order happens from chaos by means of controlling forces which act to lower entropy in certain areas while overall increasing the total entropy of the system (a lot of this entropy escapes by means of radiation).

Within each galactic system, hundreds
 of billions of stars are involved in these interrelated orbits. Were these careful
 balancings not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars
 would fall into their galactic centers—or they would fly apart!


The "balance" is simply a result of central forces. Orbits are not magically held in place: gravity is a well-understood force.

Over half of
 all the stars in the sky are in binary systems, with two or more stars circling
 one another. How could such astonishing patterns be the result of explosions?


See above about the Boltzmann Equation.


 Because there are no "first generation" ("Population I")
 stars, Big Bang theory requires that every star exploded at least one or two
 times. But random explosions never produce orbits.


You don't need orbits to form stars: all you need is for clouds to condense, cool, and collapse. Please see how this happens in the previous post of yours.


6 - There are not enough supernova explosions
 to produce the needed heavier elements
.
There
 are 81 stable elements and 90 natural elements. Each one has unusual properties
 and intricate orbits.


Elements do not have "orbits". There are actually plenty of supernovae to create the abundances we see in our galaxy. There is a supernova roughly once every 100 years in our galaxy which, in aggregate, allows for plenty of the observed heavy elements to be created.

When a star explodes, it is called a nova.


No, it's called a supernova. A nova is a periodic increase in brightness of a compact star that is caused by hydrogen fusion occuring at the surface. Only large stars explode in supernovae. Smaller stars die away by means of planetary nebulae.

When
 a large star explodes, it becomes extremely bright for a few weeks or months
 and is called a supernova. It is said that only the explosions of supernovas
 could produce much of the needed heavier elements, yet there have been relatively
 few such explosions. 


As I stated above, there are actually enough to create the required amount of heavy elements.


7 - Throughout all recorded history, there
 have been almost no supernova explosions
.


Recorded history is not very long if you only get one supernova in a galaxy every 100 years. There have been quite a few observed (at least 16 that I know of) and a lot of supernovae may have occurred in another side of the galaxy where it is harder to see them using the naked eye.


 If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now.


They are occuring now. There is a very good chance a supernovae will be seen in our galaxy during your lifetime. Do they occur like clockwork? Absolutely not. Just like the weather has periodic droughts and floods, so do supernova events!


8 - Why did the stellar explosions mysteriously
 stop?
The theory required that all the stars
 exploded, often repeatedly. The observable facts are that, throughout recorded
 history, stars only rarely explode. In order to explain this, evolutionists
 postulate that 5 billion years ago, the explosions suddenly stopped
.


This is actually a well understood theory. The fact is that the cosmic cycles of stars being born takes mass out of the total amount available to create new stars. We are slowly running out of fuel. When the galaxy was active, 5 billion years ago, there were a lot of stars being created that were very massive and would very quickly supernovae. Today there's less mass available so that doesn't happen anymore.

This is a verified phenomenon which we see in observations of "starburst" galaxies (the way our galaxy looked 5 billion years ago).

Very
 convenient. When the theory was formulated in the 1940s, through telescopes
 astronomers could see stars whose light left them 5 billion light-years ago.
 But today, we can see stars that are 15 billion light-years away. Why are we
 not seeing massive numbers of stellar explosions far out in space?


Well, you don't see stars that far away: only galaxies. And as I pointed out, we see the starburst galaxies which do indicate the theory is correct. We see far more supernovae (there's about 1 per second somewhere in our universe) in the past than today.

The stars
 are doing just fine; it is the theory which is wrong. 


Huh? Massive stars necessarily supernovae because they run out of fuel and form iron in their cores which can not fuse to create energy. This is a well-understood part of stellar evolution and can be seen in the spectra of supernovae by means of looking at what element are created in them.


9 - The most distant stars, which
 are said to date nearly to the time of the Big Bang explosion, are not exploding,—and
 yet they contain heavier elements.
 We can now
 see out in space to nearly the beginning of Big Bang time. Because of the Hubble
 telescope, we can now see almost as far out in space as the beginning of the
 evolutionists’ theoretical time. But, as with nearby stars, the farthest ones
 have heavier elements (are "second-generation"), and they are not
 exploding any more frequently than are the nearby ones.


We can't see nearly far back enough to see the Population III objects, though we will keep trying. The most distant stars are exploding: we see dozens of supernovae every year and all are quite far away.


10 - Supernovas do not throw off enough
 matter to make additional stars
.
 There are
 not many stellar explosions and most of them are small-star (nova) explosions.


Actually, there are enough. Supernovae come from very massive stars which end up expelling a lot of enriched matter every time they explode. Again, novae are not stellar explosions in the same sense as supernovae.


 Yet novas cast off very little matter. A small-star explosion only loses a hundred-thousandth
 of its matter; a supernova explosion loses about 10 percent; yet even that amount
 is not sufficient to produce all the heavier elements found in the planets,
 interstellar gas, and stars. So supernovas—Gamow’s fuel source for nearly all
 the elements in the universe—occur far too infrequently and produce far too
 small an amount of heavy elements—to produce the vast amount that exists in
 the universe.


Actually, they do quite well producing the elements, thank you very much. I have never seen any calculation that seemed to show otherwise. Perhaps you could provide one?


11 - Only hydrogen and helium have been
 found in the outflowing gas from supernova explosions
.
 
 The theory requires lots of supernova explosions in order to produce heavy elements.
 But there are not enough supernovas,—and research indicates that they do
 not produce heavy elements!
All that was needed was to turn a spectroscope
 toward an exploded supernova and analyze the elements in the outflowing gas
 from the former star. *K. Davidson did that in 1982, and found that the Crab
 nebula (resulting from an A.D. 1054 supernova) only has hydrogen and helium.
 This means that, regardless of the temperature of the explosion, the helium
 mass 4 gap was never bridged. (It had been theorized that a supernova would
 generate temperatures high enough to bridge the gap.) But the gap at mass 4
 and 8 prevented it from occurring.


Well, this is simply false. Heavy elements are seen in the spectrum of the Crab Nebula. There is a lot more hydrogen and helium compared to heavy elements than we expect to see in the initial blast of the supernova, but that's just because over the years the supernova's expanding shell has swept up a lot of the surrounding gas which is composed mostly of hydrogen and helium.


12 - An explosion of a star would not
 produce another star
.
It has been theorized
 that supernova explosions would cause nearby gas to compress and form itself
 into new stars. But if a star exploded, it would only shoot outward and any
 gas encountered would be pushed along with it. 



Think of a supernova like a piston. The blast is in a particular direction so it pushes on one part of the cloud. This increases the density of the cloud, and if there are enough coolants then the cloud can collapse and form a star.


So we find that the evidence does not support
 the various aspects of the Big Bang and stellar evolution theories.
 


I haven't seen that yet, but I'm willing to keep looking.


1 - According to the
 theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually
 making them. But the so-called "older stars" have been found
 to have no more heavy elements than the so-called "younger stars."

 All stars, from "young" to "old," have the same amount of
 heavy elements.


Actually, older stars should have fewer heavy elements, but we'll let that one slide for now.

The fact is that older stars do have fewer heavy elements. The metallicity (a measurement of how many heavy elements in a star) of older stars is much lower. Why isn't it zero? Well, that's because these older stars were formed out of gas that had already been enriched with supernovae ejecta.


2 - The theory
 says that gas floating in interstellar space is leftover from the Big Bang,
 and can only consist of hydrogen and helium. But *Rubins has shown that this
 is not true. Extra-galactic gas has a variety of heavier elements in it
 



Supernovae are the answer as to why interstellar space has heavy elements. When the explosion happens at incredible speed the heavy elements are introduced into the interstellar medium.


3 - The theory
 says that the super-fast particles, hurled outward by the Big Bang, were evenly
 radiated. Yet, as scientists have noted, a perfectly smooth cosmic explosion
 would only have produced perfectly smooth, increasingly rarified (ever farther
 apart) particles
.
So the very existence of stars disproves the theorized
 original giant explosion.


This has been resolved by the fact that cold-dark matter begins to clump much earlier than when the matter you and I are made out of begins to clump. As time goes on, the cold dark matter clumps serve as seeds for the galaxies which are the places were stars are born. The "smoothness" problem is therefore solved by noting that structure is formed by means of conglomerating cold dark matter and not by normal matter which stars are made of.


4 - The theory
 requires a continual rush of particles outward—leaving nothing inside this outer
 parimeter of outflowing matter. Yet there are stars and galaxies all through
 space,
not just at the outer edge. Even if clumped
 gas could have formed any stars, everything would continue to be hurled to the
 thin, outer edges of space—with an expanding center containing nothing.



Again, this is a problem of thinking that the Big Bang is an explosion: it is not. It is rather the observed fact that space itself is expanding. This is why everything doesn't "rush out" to the edge.


5 - According
 to the theory, the farther we look out into space, the farther back into past
 eons of time we are gazing. This means that the farthest stars and galaxies
 ought to be the youngest. Yet research reveals the farthest stars are just like
 those nearby
.


Not "just like those". There is a change in them. It's not incredibly dramatic because the life-cycles of massive stars are much shorter than the age of the universe. To see a really different universe you have to look back much further which is nearly impossible because there is neutral gas which obscures our view.


6 - Angular momentum is another
 serious problem
.
 Why do stars turn? Why do
 galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one
 another? How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion, started
 by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving
 motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)?
How could angular momentum
 exist—and in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible
 way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects,
 like stars, planets, and moons.


I answered this one in the previous post, but the answer is pretty simple: you start out with a small amount of angular momentum that can be seeded in by quantum fluctuations of the early universe. As collapse occurs, the complicated swirling, spiralling, and orbitting we see is created. It's simply a matter of the conservation of angular momentum. As angular momentum is conserved, we see things spin faster and faster (just like a figure skater who "spins up" as she pulls in her arms during a spin).

Also, the Big Bang doesn't cause particles to follow a "linear trajectory" outwards. It actually is a uniform expansion of all of space.


7 - Inward pushing gas would not change
 to a rotating star
.
According to the theory,
 stars were formed by the "inward gravitational collapse of hydrogen gas
 clouds." If so, why do the resultant stars rotate? Some stars rotate very
 fast. If ten people in a circle pushed marbles in toward a common center, the
 marbles would not begin rotating or circling after they reached it. 


The marbles analogy is incorrect. What you have to think of is rather an attractive force that causes the marbles to be attracted to one another. The conservation of angular momentum does the rest. As matter falls in, angular momentum is conserved and you end up with a rotating star. The marbles in your idea do actually do start with a little bit of angular momentum, but as there is no force acting on them after you push them to the center, they don't experience any change in their angular velocity since there is no effective way to get them to spiral inwards.

A better analogy would be to have ten people around a large funnel. Each person then lets go of their marble. What happens? The marbles fall towards the center but as they get close to the center they "spin up" which is exactly the same thing that a rotating star is doing.


8 - Matter-origin theories cannot explain
 why stars spin
.
The theorists tell us that
 stars somehow started spinning; but, with age, they slow down. Yet some stars
 spin faster than either "younger" or "older" stars. Some
 spin once in less than an earth-day. The fastest, Hz 1883, has a spin period
 of only 6 hours. 


Actually, we know of objects that spin even faster! They are called neutron stars and they can spin around in a matter of microseconds!

I think I adequately explained above exactly how stars begin to spin up. It is true that after stars are made, since there isn't any more matter falling into them they tend to slow down due to frictional forces. Now, this doesn't mean that all stars spin down the same way or that all stars start spinning at the same rate. There is a variety of effects that cause stars to spin up or down including gravitational interactions, accretion (more matter falling onto the star), or magnetic effects. Unless you take these all into account you cannot make a prediction for how fast a star should be spinning based solely on its age.


9 - Some stars orbit backward
 to that of other stars. The theorists cannot explain this. 


Backward? Stars don't have a backward or a forward way to spin. The direction they spin is dependent solely on the way the cloud that formed them collapsed and whether any collisions occurred that may have changed the situation.


10 - There are high-velocity stars that
 are traveling far too fast
to accommodate
 the evolutionary theories of matter and stellar origins. 


The "high-velocity stars" are travelling quickly due to dark matter. Although we can't see the dark matter, it is exerting a gravitational force on us causing the sun to orbit the galaxy at an impressive 220 km/sec. This would seem fast if we didn't know that dark matter existed.


11 - If the
 Big Bang theory were true, all stars would move the same direction, but stars,
 clusters, and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another
.

 (More about the expanding universe theory later.)


I assume this is trying to insinuate that all stars would be moving outward in a linear "explosion" fashion. Again, this is not what the Big Bang says the universe is doing. Rather, you can have all kinds of "peculiar velocities" which occur on the small scale, but on the largest scales the universe is simply expanding.


12 - Evidence is accumulating that the
 entire universe is rotating
!
This is angular
 momentum on the most gigantic of proportions. Yet the Big Bang should only have
 produced linear movement outward from it. 


This isn't true. Evidence is accumulating that universe ISN'T rotating. But even if it were, there's no reason why you couldn't develop a coherent theory of the Big Bang with a rotating universe. People have done it in fact! There are peculiar properties of the "rotating" unverse. One is that if you head off in any direction you will eventually return to where you started not only in space but also in time! Truly weird effect due to relativity.


13 - Theorists
 are deeply bothered by, what they call, the "lumpy" problem. The
 universe is "lumpy"; that is, it has stars, planets, etc. in it. Yet
 none should exist
if the Big Bang theory were true.
They argue fiercely
 over these problems, in their professional journals, while assuring the public
 the theory is accepted by all astrophysicists. They consider this to be a major,
 unsolved problem. 


Guess what! It's solved by the Cold Dark Matter. We now understand where the universe gets its lumpiness: it's from the dark matter seeds. Also, on the absolute LARGEST scales the universe is very isotropic and homogeneous (the same everywhere). We've been able to see this using large surveys such as 2dF and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.


14 - The universe is full of stars,
 with relatively little gas. But it should be the other way around: full of gas
 and no stars
.
The Big Bang should have produced
 a "homogenous" universe of smooth gas ever flowing outward with, at
 best, almost no "inhomogenities," or "lumps" such as stars
 and island universes. 


Again, this is only true for a universe with no dark matter. However, our universe has dark matter which causes the lumps.

There is also more mass in the gas between the stars and galaxies than there is in the stars themselves.


15 - The universe is full of super clusters.
 These are the biggest "lumps" of all. It has recently been discovered
 that the galaxies are grouped into galaxy clusters, and these into still larger
 super clusters. The "Big Bangers," as their colleagues call them,
 excuse the problem by saying that "gravity waves" produced the galaxies.
 But gravity, in any form, could not press floating hydrogen and helium into
 a star or planet out of gas, make a marvelously organized disk network of stars,
 or produce the precisely balanced spinning and orbiting of planets and stars. 


Well, "gravity waves" were once posited to be an explanation for superclusters but we know not that the explanation is simply that the Cold Dark Matter coalesced before the visible matter we see around us. The superclusters are the largest scale of structure in our universe. You won't find anything bigger, and when we look we don't see anything bigger!

Also, no one is referred to as a "Big Banger" in astronomy.

   
"The main efforts of investigators
   have been in papering over holes in the Big Bang theory, to build up an idea
   that has become ever more complex and cumbersome . . I have little hesitation
   in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory. When a pattern
   of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely
   recovers."—*Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang Theory under Attack,"
   Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.



Yes, Hoyle died believing the Big Bang was wrong. Unfortunately for people who support Hoyle, every single one of his arguments for why it couldn't be true has been shown to be flawed.


16 - Solar collapse, not nuclear fusion
 has been found to be the cause of solar energy. But that would undercut the
 entire theory of the Big Bang
.
We will briefly
 summarize the data here. You will find it discussed more fully (along with additional
 quotations) in the chapter, Origin of the Stars, in our 3-volume set
 on our website. It is also partially referred to in "6 - Solar Collapse"
 
in the Age of the Earth chapter in this paperback. 


Nuclear fusion MUST happen at the center of the sun because the densities and temperatures are ripe for it. This allows for an energy source which gives an age that is far greater than the age that you wish to impose upon the sun for a simple collapse. Indeed, early on the age of the sun was calcuated using the idea that the sun gets its energy from collapse. This gives a very low age for the sun and furthermore completely ignores the nuclear physics we know to happen at the core. Once you take those into account, it is clear the major source of the energy of the sun is due to nuclear burning.


There is evidence that our sun "shines,"
 not by hydrogen explosions, but by solar collapse. Yet stellar evolution is
 keyed to the fact that stars are fueled by (shine because of) hydrogen explosions
 (nuclear fusion)
.
The amount of mass/energy our sun would have to lose
 daily amounts to 4 million tons [3.6 million mt] a second.


This would seem to be a problem, except that's nothing compared to how massive the sun is (roughly 2 thousand million million million million tons.) If the entire sun's matter was depleted at this rate it would take 16 trillion years. Since only a small part of the sun ever is involved with fusion (only at the core) the age of the sun is closer to about 10 billion years.

The problem is
 the fusion process should produce lots of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos,
 and each square inch of earth’s
surface should be hit each second by
 a trillion neutrinos.
Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and have
 searched for them since the mid-1970s, but hardly any arrive from the sun.
 This fact alone would appear to disprove the hydrogen theory of solar energy
 (cf. *J.H. Bahcall, Astronomical Journal, 76:283, 1971).
*Corliss, the world
 leader in tracking down scientific anomalies, considers the "missing neutrinos"
 to be "one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy" (*W.R.
 Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos, 1987, p. 40).


Well, solar neutrinos WERE a problem, but they too have been solve. Specifically, we know now that the reason we only saw 1/3 of the predicted number of neutrinos from the sun is because some of the neutrinos actually change into other kinds of neutrinos that weren't being detected by the first detectors. Now that we have better detectors, we are able to show that the resolution to this problem is as I described. In order to explain all these neutrinos coming from the sun, the basic model of stellar fusion as an energy source must be correct.


It was not until the 1930s
 that the nuclear theory of starlight was developed by *Hans Bethe and *Carl
 von Weizsacker. Yet it remains a theory. In contrast, there is strong evidence
 pointing to solar collapse as the true cause of solar energy.
The scientific basis for solar collapse,
 as the source of solar energy, was developed over a century ago by two brilliant
 scientists: Hermann von Helmholtz and Lord Kelvin.
 
 If each star is slowly contracting, great amounts of energy would be constantly
 released. But evolutionists cannot accept this possibility, because it would
 mean the universe (and the earth) is much younger.


As I described above, we know that fusion is the source of energy for the sun and that the theory of the sun's energy being supplied strictly by collapse could only be true if nuclear fusion never occurred. But we have observed nuclear fusion in our laboratories here on Earth. If you think that nuclear fusion can happen on Earth but doesn't happen given the same conditions in the sun then I'm afraid I don't quite understand where you're coming from.

Nuclear fusion would mean
 billions of years for a star’s life; solar collapse only a few million.
 A change in the radius of our sun of about 80 feet a year is all that would
 be necessary to produce our sun’s actual energy release. This is a radius shirnkage
 of only .009 feet [.27 cm] per hour.


These two statements are correct. However, since we know fusion occurs, what is actually true is that the first statement is basically a confirmation of a universe that is billions of years old!


Some scientists have found evidence of
 solar collapse.
One major study was done by *John
 A. Eddy and *Aram Boornazian (*New Scientist, March 3, 1983, p. 592).
 The basis for this is an analysis of solar transit measurements, made at the
 Royal Greenwich Observatory since 1836 and the U.S. Naval Observatory since
 1846. It was calculated that the sun is shrinking at the rate of 5 ft/hr in
 diameter (0.1% per century, 2 arc-sec/century). They also analyzed solar eclipses
 for the past four centuries. A separate report by *Ronald Gilliland confirmed
 the *Eddy and *Boornazian report (*op. cit., p. 593)


This is actually a well-understood phenomenon. The sun, just like the ocean, undergoes periodic waves of motion which are very much like "bobbing". It turns out that the rates of this bobbing is directly related to the gravitational collapse timescale (or the collapse energy that Kelvin calculated). So it is not a coincidince that these numbers line up so well: they are acutally predicted.

However, that's not the timescale that determines the life of the sun: the nuclear timescale (of some 10 billion years) is what does that.

There is also a third timescale on the sun: the dynamical timescale which is much smaller. We can see these fluctuations on the sun too!


"The sun has been contracting
   about 0.0% per century . . corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet
   per hour [15.24 dm]."—*G.B. Lublihn, Physics Today, Vol. 32, No. 17,
   1979.




The above findings would indicate that our
 sun’s output of radiant energy is generated by this shrinkage and not by hydrogen
 explosions (thermonuclear fusion) deep within it. If hydrogen was the solar
 fuel, we should be receiving a very large quantity of neutrinos; yet almost
 none are detected.



This contraction, as I explained above, is actually a periodic effect. It just so happens that the major mode of this effect happens to be in a contraction. It will soon "bounce back" as a wave does and begin expanding. Of course, if we had observed this effect you'd probably have said that the star couldn't be more than a few thousand years old because if it were then the star would expand away to nothingness!

It is always best to look completely into the problem rather than only presenting the parts of it which seem to support your own desires. The periodic nature of this contraction and expansion is well-understood, thanks in part to the calculations that Kelvin did!


Jupiter is also apparently contracting,
 because it is giving off more heat than it receives from the sun.

  A surface contraction of just one centimeter per year would
 account for the measured heat flow from Jupiter. A similar situation exists
 for Saturn.



Brilliantly, all of these effects are exactly the same: it is this periodic contraction and expansion, in and out, that is causing these phenomena.



"Jupiter . . radiates twice
   as much energy as it absorbs from the sun through a contraction and cooling
   process."—*Star Date radio broadcast, November 8, 1990.
 
"Saturn emits 50% more heat
   than it absorbs from the sun."— *Science Frontiers, No. 73, January-February
   1991.




These facts are known; but, in order to
 defend evolutionary theory, the decision has been made to stick with solar fusion

 as the cause of solar energy and sunshine.


Well, the Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction of Jupiter and Saturn have little to do with fusion on the sun. In truth, these contractions and expansions are just all part of the intricate balance of forces at play in planetary and stellar dynamics.


 
 
"Astronomers were startled,
   and laymen amazed, when in 1979 Jack Eddy, of the High Altitude Observatory
   in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that the sun was shrinking at such a rate that,
   if the decline did not reverse, our local star would disappear within a hundred
   million years."—*John Gribbin, "The Curious Case of the Shrinking
   Sun," New Scientist, March 3, 1983.

 
"Geological evidence, however,
   indicates that the terrestrial crust [our earth’s rock strata] has an age
   of several billion years, and it is surely to be expected that the sun is
   at least as old as the earth . . We must conclude that . . another source
   must be responsible for most of the energy output of a star."—*Eva
   Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), p. 248.




Which is exactly what I was pointing out: to wit that the contractions do not occur forever because there is another source of energy: namely fusion! Eventually there will be a bounce back. This is a well-understood dynamical process.


Summarizing solar collapse:
 
The evidence that hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear
 fusion) is the cause of solar energy (sunshine) would be a great abundance of
 neutrino radiation. But that evidence is missing.


Not anymore!

The evidence that solar collapse
 (gradual shrinkage) is the cause has been definitely found.


But this "collapse" is really a part of the periodic nature of the star's natural rythyms.

Evolutionists reject
 solar collapse as the cause, (1) since it would mean our sun and the universe
 could not be more than a few million years old;


Well, astronomers don't really deal with the biological theory of evolution, but the reason we reject the solar collapse as the cause isn't because we want the sun and the universe to be older, it's because nuclear fusion is the real source as demonstrably observed in our Earth-based laboratories.

(2) thus, their strata theories
 would be wrong and (3) the Big Bang theory would be gutted.


Well, the age of the Sun has really little to do with the age of the universe so even if the Sun were young, I'm afraid it wouldn't mean that the Big Bang would be "gutted" as you say.

Moreover, geological strata are a completely independent check of the age of the Earth. I don't even deal with it at all! It's quite remarkable that the dates agree between nuclear burning age of the sun and the geological age of the Earth. They don't inform each other in the least. In other words we have indepedent comfirmation of the roughly 4.6 billion-year age of our solar system.

(Edited by Astronomer 5/21/2004 at 9:24 PM).
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 8:29 PM on May 21, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.