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
     Stellar evolution

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

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:14 AM on August 22, 2009 :

The size of the sun and the energy it loses per second. 100 000 years ago, the sun would have been twice its size.


Sorry, this doesn't make any sense.

Maybe you can read this article on creationist astronomy by Russ Humphreys and tell me what you are talking about.

Toward a Creationist Astronomy



The theory of stellar evolution only briefly summarized above can be used to make some predictions that can be tested by observations. A back of envelope calculation can be done to determine how long a star will remain on the MS is the assumptions above are correct. It is generally assumed that about 10 percent of a star's mass is in the core and hence available for nuclear processing. Most of the material (more than 70 percent) will be hydrogen, and we know that 0.007 of the mass will be converted to energy when hydrogen is fused into helium. Using the mass and luminosity of the sun yields a MS lifetime of 10 billion years. More massive stars are higher on the MS, and though they have more mass available for fuel, their luminosities are are so much greater that their lifetimes are significantly less. Less massive stars have somewhat less fuel, but their luminosities are much less, so that their MS lifetimes are much longer. The upshot is that the most massive stars have MS lifetimes of only a few hundred thousand years (of course, still much longer than young-age creationists would allow), while the lowest mass stars have MS lifetimes approaching 100 billions years.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:51 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 9:51 PM on August 23, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 03:14 AM on August 22, 2009 :

The size of the sun and the energy it loses per second. 100 000 years ago, the sun would have been twice its size.


Sorry, this doesn't make any sense.



I think Lester's notion is based on the idea that the Sun, or any star, can only use chemical reactions as a source of energy.  If that were the case, then the Sun would only be a few thousand years old.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:47 AM on August 24, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do I get the impression that Lester looks like your avatar?

 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 9:13 PM on August 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Shrinking sun - sounds like a 19th century hypothesis.  Before the discovery and understanding of nuclear physics, the enorrmous energy source of the sun was a mystery.  The sun posed a dilemna for evolution (and geology) because no known source of energy would allow the sun to shine for  hundreds of millions of years.  Yet the facts being gathered in geology and ToE pointed to an earth that was seemingly hundreds of millions of years old.  

If I remember right, one hypothesis proposed for the sun's enormous energy output was gravitational contraction - which sounds like the source of the Creationist 'shrinking sun'.  Of course, this idea was tossed out later after the true source of the sun's energy was discovered.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:17 PM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 9:17 PM on August 27, 2009 :

If I remember right, one hypothesis proposed for the sun's enormous energy output was gravitational contraction - which sounds like the source of the Creationist 'shrinking sun'.  Of course, this idea was tossed out later after the true source of the sun's energy was discovered.  


If I weren't so lazy I'd look it up, but I seem to remember that Kelvin calculated the age of the Sun back in the day based on that assumption.  Of course, he came up with a relatively young age for Sun.  Then as you note, we figured out the Sun uses nuclear fusion. A bigger bang for the atom, so it speak.  :-)





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:23 PM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Yehren at 8:13 PM on August 27, 2009 :
Why do I get the impression that Lester looks like your avatar?



I was born to be a hillbilly, redneck sort.  However, something went wrong and I went off to college.  I'm the black sheep of my family for engaging in such deviant behavior.  


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:26 PM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I feel sorry for Lester.

[armchairpsychologist]The loudness of his defense of creationism is an attempt to quiet his internal doubts.[/armchairpsychologist]


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:41 PM on August 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum - yes, I believe it was Lord Kelvin.  And yes, his calculations using ideas of gravitational contraction came up way short.

I read a lot of Isaac Asimov's science essays growing up.  He did a fabulous job explaining science, and the history of science.  I wish he was still around.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:06 PM on August 27, 2009 | 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.