Political Crossfire Forums

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22954

Quote: So, sorry, the sun wasn't "much much bigger" as you claim. You are confusing mass with size.

2 tons of hydrogen in the sun is larger than 1 ton (the sun isn’t contained in a can). But that's besides the point.....as the sun burns away its fuel..it gets colder. If you add 150 million years of tons of hydrogen to the sun...it's bigger and hotter. The sun being just slightly hotter would be catastrophic to life on earth.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22954

Enoch wrote: John wrote: Quote: Even if you don't consider working at NASA to be that big of deal, I will still take educated scientists' explanations before yours.

Why? I'm an educated scientist at NASA. :shock: :lol: I'm sure you'll understand when I say I don't believe that.

But, no response to the information I presented?

Believe what you want. If you're ever in the Houston area....shoot me a PM. I'll get you a temp badge and give you a tour of my lab.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15408 Location: Florida

John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.

Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?

How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?

2e+12 grams per second=2,000,000 tons (1000 KG) per second. 150 million years ago was 4.73364e+15 seconds ago. So the sun has used 9.46728e+21 tons in that time. The sun's mass now is 4.e+30 tons. Therefore, the sun was 1 millionth bigger then, than it is now. Therefore it's luminosity was about a millionth greater.

The third question is moot.

(my source for the above masses/etc. was www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1491.html. I got a slightly different answer using your source, however, regardless, to people on earth, there is no appreciable difference in size between the sun now, and the sun 150 million years ago).

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: Quote: Even if you don't consider working at NASA to be that big of deal, I will still take educated scientists' explanations before yours.

Why? I'm an educated scientist at NASA. :shock: :lol: I'm sure you'll understand when I say I don't believe that.

But, no response to the information I presented?

Believe what you want. If you're ever in the Houston area....shoot me a PM. I'll get you a temp badge and give you a tour of my lab. Beings that I would rather shoot myself in the foot with a rusty bullet than go to Texas, I'll pass on your offer.

But, how do you answer the question of hydrostatic equilibrium?

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15408 Location: Florida

John wrote: feederband wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.

Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?

How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?

At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live?

What the he$$ does that have to do with time span...

Everything...are you not a "free thinker"?

Sun burns several hundred million tons of hydrogen per second...

1 year = 31 556 926 seconds

That's 4 733 538 900 000 000 times 600 000 000...which would mean that the sun would be 2.84012334 to the 24th power tons bigger.

That would make the sun incredibly huge...which would mean that the earth would really really hot...molten hot.

Yes, but the sun is 2.e+30 tons now. Let's add the 2.84012334e+24 to that. The number we get is 2.00000284012334e+30 tons 150 million years ago. Not that much different. In fact, I doubt you can tell much of a difference in the intensity between those two points.

John, I thought you knew numbers better than that. You should know that adding 10^24 to 10^30 isn't going to produce a hugely different number. What is it that you do at NASA anyway?

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22954

perdidochas wrote: John wrote: feederband wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.

Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?

How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?

At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live?

What the he$$ does that have to do with time span...

Everything...are you not a "free thinker"?

Sun burns several hundred million tons of hydrogen per second...

1 year = 31 556 926 seconds

That's 4 733 538 900 000 000 times 600 000 000...which would mean that the sun would be 2.84012334 to the 24th power tons bigger.

That would make the sun incredibly huge...which would mean that the earth would really really hot...molten hot.

Yes, but the sun is 2.e+30 tons now. Let's add the 2.84012334e+24 to that. The number we get is 2.00000284012334e+30 tons 150 million years ago. Not that much different. In fact, I doubt you can tell much of a difference in the intensity between those two points.

John, I thought you knew numbers better than that. You should know that adding 10^24 to 10^30 isn't going to produce a hugely different number. What is it that you do at NASA anyway?

Actually...when dealing in numbers as large as we are with the sun. 2 millionth of a percent is quite alot. That's besides the point that evolutionists claim that life started 3.8 billion years ago.

I'm a Metrologist.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22954

I did get my wires crossed though...the sun is getting hotter not colder as it burns off it's mass. So the question should really be how cold the earth was millions/billions of years ago.

My mistake.

Theoretical models of the sun's development suggest that 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago, during the Archean period, the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today. Such a weak star would not have been able to sustain liquid water on the Earth's surface, and thus life should not have been able to develop. However, the geological record demonstrates that the Earth has remained at a fairly constant temperature throughout its history, and in fact that the young Earth was somewhat warmer than it is today. The general consensus among scientists is that the young Earth's atmosphere contained much larger quantities of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and/or ammonia) than are present today, which trapped enough heat to compensate for the lesser amount of solar energy reaching the planet.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15408 Location: Florida

John wrote: perdidochas wrote: John wrote: feederband wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.

Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?

How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?

At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live?

What the he$$ does that have to do with time span...

Everything...are you not a "free thinker"?

Sun burns several hundred million tons of hydrogen per second...

1 year = 31 556 926 seconds

That's 4 733 538 900 000 000 times 600 000 000...which would mean that the sun would be 2.84012334 to the 24th power tons bigger.

That would make the sun incredibly huge...which would mean that the earth would really really hot...molten hot.

Yes, but the sun is 2.e+30 tons now. Let's add the 2.84012334e+24 to that. The number we get is 2.00000284012334e+30 tons 150 million years ago. Not that much different. In fact, I doubt you can tell much of a difference in the intensity between those two points.

John, I thought you knew numbers better than that. You should know that adding 10^24 to 10^30 isn't going to produce a hugely different number. What is it that you do at NASA anyway?

Actually...when dealing in numbers as large as we are with the sun. 2 millionth of a percent is quite alot. That's besides the point that evolutionists claim that life started 3.8 billion years ago.

I'm a Metrologist.

Ok, let's continue that calculation for 3.8 billion years ago.

Ok 3.8 billion years is 25.33 times 150 million. So let's do 25.33 times 2.84012334e+24 , and we get 7.194979128e+25

Add that to the current mass of the sun of 2.e+30, and we get 2.00007194979128e+30 tons. Not much different. If luminosity is directly proportional to mass, then the luminosity is not much different. We aren't talking about the total amount of energy of the sun, but the energy delivered to earth. The difference in energy delivered to earth is minuscule. If you don't recognize that, I give up. You are totally irrational.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15408 Location: Florida

John wrote: I did get my wires crossed though...the sun is getting hotter not colder as it burns off it's mass. So the question should really be how cold the earth was millions/billions of years ago.

My mistake.

Theoretical models of the sun's development suggest that 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago, during the Archean period, the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today. Such a weak star would not have been able to sustain liquid water on the Earth's surface, and thus life should not have been able to develop. However, the geological record demonstrates that the Earth has remained at a fairly constant temperature throughout its history, and in fact that the young Earth was somewhat warmer than it is today. The general consensus among scientists is that the young Earth's atmosphere contained much larger quantities of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and/or ammonia) than are present today, which trapped enough heat to compensate for the lesser amount of solar energy reaching the planet.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Regardless, it hasn't changed much in the last 150 million years.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22954

perdidochas wrote: John wrote: perdidochas wrote: John wrote: feederband wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.

Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?

How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?

At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live?

What the he$$ does that have to do with time span...

Everything...are you not a "free thinker"?

Sun burns several hundred million tons of hydrogen per second...

1 year = 31 556 926 seconds

That's 4 733 538 900 000 000 times 600 000 000...which would mean that the sun would be 2.84012334 to the 24th power tons bigger.

That would make the sun incredibly huge...which would mean that the earth would really really hot...molten hot.

Yes, but the sun is 2.e+30 tons now. Let's add the 2.84012334e+24 to that. The number we get is 2.00000284012334e+30 tons 150 million years ago. Not that much different. In fact, I doubt you can tell much of a difference in the intensity between those two points.

John, I thought you knew numbers better than that. You should know that adding 10^24 to 10^30 isn't going to produce a hugely different number. What is it that you do at NASA anyway?

Actually...when dealing in numbers as large as we are with the sun. 2 millionth of a percent is quite alot. That's besides the point that evolutionists claim that life started 3.8 billion years ago.

I'm a Metrologist.

Ok, let's continue that calculation for 3.8 billion years ago.

Ok 3.8 billion years is 25.33 times 150 million. So let's do 25.33 times 2.84012334e+24 , and we get 7.194979128e+25

Add that to the current mass of the sun of 2.e+30, and we get 2.00007194979128e+30 tons. Not much different. If luminosity is directly proportional to mass, then the luminosity is not much different. We aren't talking about the total amount of energy of the sun, but the energy delivered to earth. The difference in energy delivered to earth is minuscule. If you don't recognize that, I give up. You are totally irrational.

7.194979128e+25 tons is a HUGE amount of hydrogen . You’re not even considering that the sun’s mass is only about 75% hydrogen, the other 25% is helium.

2.e+30 is the entire mass of the sun including helium. Before we start accusing people of being irrational...let's look at the complete picture.

What is 25% of 2.e+30?

Wizard From Oz · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 10374 Location: Kansas

Quote: I guess you aren't going to bother to read what the website has to say about it.

I am sorry if you dont like the answer - pure and simple the yellowstone region is volcanic. In fact if findings are correct it is the largest existing volcanoe on the planet.

Petrefied wood is formed when a tree trunk is covered quickly with either ash fall from an erruption, or or burial via a mud flow. I cant change that fact one way or another. It is also an event that has been seen in historical times. IE Versuvus in 33AD and more recently Mount St Helenes.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15408 Location: Florida

John wrote: perdidochas wrote: John wrote: perdidochas wrote: John wrote: feederband wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.

Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?

How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?

At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live?

What the he$$ does that have to do with time span...

Everything...are you not a "free thinker"?

Sun burns several hundred million tons of hydrogen per second...

1 year = 31 556 926 seconds

That's 4 733 538 900 000 000 times 600 000 000...which would mean that the sun would be 2.84012334 to the 24th power tons bigger.

That would make the sun incredibly huge...which would mean that the earth would really really hot...molten hot.

Yes, but the sun is 2.e+30 tons now. Let's add the 2.84012334e+24 to that. The number we get is 2.00000284012334e+30 tons 150 million years ago. Not that much different. In fact, I doubt you can tell much of a difference in the intensity between those two points.

John, I thought you knew numbers better than that. You should know that adding 10^24 to 10^30 isn't going to produce a hugely different number. What is it that you do at NASA anyway?

Actually...when dealing in numbers as large as we are with the sun. 2 millionth of a percent is quite alot. That's besides the point that evolutionists claim that life started 3.8 billion years ago.

I'm a Metrologist.

Ok, let's continue that calculation for 3.8 billion years ago.

Ok 3.8 billion years is 25.33 times 150 million. So let's do 25.33 times 2.84012334e+24 , and we get 7.194979128e+25

Add that to the current mass of the sun of 2.e+30, and we get 2.00007194979128e+30 tons. Not much different. If luminosity is directly proportional to mass, then the luminosity is not much different. We aren't talking about the total amount of energy of the sun, but the energy delivered to earth. The difference in energy delivered to earth is minuscule. If you don't recognize that, I give up. You are totally irrational.

7.194979128e+25 tons is a HUGE amount of hydrogen . You’re not even considering that the sun’s mass is only about 75% hydrogen, the other 25% is helium.

2.e+30 is the entire mass of the sun including helium. Before we start accusing people of being irrational...let's look at the complete picture.

What is 25% of 2.e+30?

5e+29

75% of 2.e+30 is 1.5e+30.

Ok, let's just do the Hydrogen mass.

The difference in 3.8 billion years is between 1.5e+30 and 1.50007194979128e+30. Again, it's minuscule.

Random Evil Guy · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 1774

feederband wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.

Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?

How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?

At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live?

What the he$$ does that have to do with time span...

i think it is this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

a creationist claim debunked and refuted ages ago...

feederband · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 3937 Location: Florida

Random Evil Guy wrote: feederband wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.

Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?

How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?

At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live?

What the he$$ does that have to do with time span...

i think it is this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

a creationist claim debunked and refuted ages ago...

Oh, ok, Thanxs..

Wizard From Oz · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 10374 Location: Kansas

Okay let me explain how a star works. Now first thing to get out of your head is size. it means nothing at this stage.

A star is a very dynamic object. What you have to understand it is billions of tons of gas all trying to contract into a smaller ball. What stops this is the nuclear reaction at the centre. This force is pushing the gas outwards.

Now in terms of energy important to life. The larger a star, the cooler it is. The smaller, the hotter.

Now the geologic record shows that there has been been marked variances in the amount of solar radiation Earth has recieved in its history. During the Triassic period, the mean temperature was around 36C And the planet was very hot and dry - Yet earier during the pre-cambrian period, there is evidence that ice sheets a mile thick covered most of the planet.

There is no specific pattern or mechanism for this that is fully understood at this stage. However sun spots are seen as a key somehow.

Now the early sun - say 3 billion years ago would have appeared weaker and smaller from Earth, although in the infra red and ultra violet spectrum the energy coming through would be similar to today. When a star first reaches ignition, the area around it is full of a lot of gas dust and crap. Over time this refuse is pushed clear of the solar system via solar wind. Until that happens, and observer will percieve the star as not much at all.

The sun is very slowly burning hotter. As hydrogen is used, a layer of helium ash begins to form around the core. Over time, the hydrogen is exhuasted and the star switches to helium ignition, then expands very quickly into a red giant. This is the point that Earth and most of the inner system ceases to exist.

Finally it is not unusual for a star to have variability in both its size and heat production. In fact a fair percentage of stars we see in the sky today do vary in their intensity

http://www.aavso.org/

The above site has some wonderful resources in this field, and a good primer to explain the mechanics behind such behaviour

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22954

perdidochas wrote: John wrote: perdidochas wrote: John wrote: perdidochas wrote: John wrote: feederband wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.

Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?

How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?

At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live?

What the he$$ does that have to do with time span...

Everything...are you not a "free thinker"?

Sun burns several hundred million tons of hydrogen per second...

1 year = 31 556 926 seconds

That's 4 733 538 900 000 000 times 600 000 000...which would mean that the sun would be 2.84012334 to the 24th power tons bigger.

That would make the sun incredibly huge...which would mean that the earth would really really hot...molten hot.

Yes, but the sun is 2.e+30 tons now. Let's add the 2.84012334e+24 to that. The number we get is 2.00000284012334e+30 tons 150 million years ago. Not that much different. In fact, I doubt you can tell much of a difference in the intensity between those two points.

John, I thought you knew numbers better than that. You should know that adding 10^24 to 10^30 isn't going to produce a hugely different number. What is it that you do at NASA anyway?

Actually...when dealing in numbers as large as we are with the sun. 2 millionth of a percent is quite alot. That's besides the point that evolutionists claim that life started 3.8 billion years ago.

I'm a Metrologist.

Ok, let's continue that calculation for 3.8 billion years ago.

Ok 3.8 billion years is 25.33 times 150 million. So let's do 25.33 times 2.84012334e+24 , and we get 7.194979128e+25

Add that to the current mass of the sun of 2.e+30, and we get 2.00007194979128e+30 tons. Not much different. If luminosity is directly proportional to mass, then the luminosity is not much different. We aren't talking about the total amount of energy of the sun, but the energy delivered to earth. The difference in energy delivered to earth is minuscule. If you don't recognize that, I give up. You are totally irrational.

7.194979128e+25 tons is a HUGE amount of hydrogen . You’re not even considering that the sun’s mass is only about 75% hydrogen, the other 25% is helium.

2.e+30 is the entire mass of the sun including helium. Before we start accusing people of being irrational...let's look at the complete picture.

What is 25% of 2.e+30?

5e+29

75% of 2.e+30 is 1.5e+30.

Ok, let's just do the Hydrogen mass.

The difference in 3.8 billion years is between 1.5e+30 and 1.50007194979128e+30. Again, it's minuscule.

Scientist say that the sun only has about 5 billion years of fuel left. Why is that?

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22954

MG1962 wrote: Okay let me explain how a star works. Now first thing to get out of your head is size. it means nothing at this stage.

A star is a very dynamic object. What you have to understand it is billions of tons of gas all trying to contract into a smaller ball. What stops this is the nuclear reaction at the centre. This force is pushing the gas outwards.

Now in terms of energy important to life. The larger a star, the cooler it is. The smaller, the hotter.

Now the geologic record shows that there has been been marked variances in the amount of solar radiation Earth has recieved in its history. During the Triassic period, the mean temperature was around 36C And the planet was very hot and dry - Yet earier during the pre-cambrian period, there is evidence that ice sheets a mile thick covered most of the planet.

There is no specific pattern or mechanism for this that is fully understood at this stage. However sun spots are seen as a key somehow.

Now the early sun - say 3 billion years ago would have appeared weaker and smaller from Earth, although in the infra red and ultra violet spectrum the energy coming through would be similar to today. When a star first reaches ignition, the area around it is full of a lot of gas dust and crap. Over time this refuse is pushed clear of the solar system via solar wind. Until that happens, and observer will percieve the star as not much at all.

The sun is very slowly burning hotter. As hydrogen is used, a layer of helium ash begins to form around the core. Over time, the hydrogen is exhuasted and the star switches to helium ignition, then expands very quickly into a red giant. This is the point that Earth and most of the inner system ceases to exist.

Finally it is not unusual for a star to have variability in both its size and heat production. In fact a fair percentage of stars we see in the sky today do vary in their intensity

http://www.aavso.org/

The above site has some wonderful resources in this field, and a good primer to explain the mechanics behind such behaviour

Great info.. :-D

Wizard From Oz · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 10374 Location: Kansas

Quote: Scientist say that the sun only has about 5 billion years of fuel left. Why is that?

Although the sun x amount of fuel. Unlike a petrol tank it does not have access to all of it. At a certain point it will expand into a red giant, then begin to pulse. Each of these pulses throws material away from the star. Hence planetary nebular.

Over time so much mass is lost, the core cant keep firing. This is because the core needs a certain amount of pressure to keep the heat up to continue the nuclear chain reaction. At this point the star begins to contract to a white dwarf. The only thing keeping it going is graviation contraction.

These conditions are what stops planets like Jupiter and Saturn from becoming stars. In fact it appears there are far more failed stars in the galaxy than working ones (Brown Dwarfs)

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22954

MG1962 wrote: Quote: Scientist say that the sun only has about 5 billion years of fuel left. Why is that?

Although the sun x amount of fuel. Unlike a petrol tank it does not have access to all of it. At a certain point it will expand into a red giant, then begin to pulse. Each of these pulses throws material away from the star. Hence planetary nebular.

Over time so much mass is lost, the core cant keep firing. This is because the core needs a certain amount of pressure to keep the heat up to continue the nuclear chain reaction. At this point the star begins to contract to a white dwarf. The only thing keeping it going is graviation contraction.

These conditions are what stops planets like Jupiter and Saturn from becoming stars. In fact it appears there are far more failed stars in the galaxy than working ones (Brown Dwarfs)

Interesting.

So why do scientists claim that the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago. Is 7.194979128e+25 tons of hydrogen burning off the sun enough to make that much of a difference?

5 billion years will burn off 9.4670778e+25 tons of mass from the sun. According to perdidochas, we shouldn't even notice this.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: 'Monster' fossil find in Arctic
Quote: Norwegian scientists have discovered a "treasure trove" of fossils belonging to giant sea reptiles that roamed the seas at the time of the dinosaurs.

The 150 million-year-old fossils were uncovered on the Arctic island chain of Svalbard - about halfway between Norway and the North Pole.

The finds belong to two groups of extinct marine reptiles - the plesiosaurs and the ichthyosaurs.

One skeleton has been nicknamed The Monster because of its enormous size.

~snip~

~@~

I've always been interested in how Religions explain the vast difference between their 'Word of God' and the evidence to the contrary regarding life on earth and the time-line of such life.

In my opinion, you can't have a spontaneous creation alongside evolution.

Did GOD create life with evolution in mind ?
Are the '6 days' in reality a day equals one hundred million years?

I don't believe any story in the bible to be 100% true - even the 4 gospels have different story lines for cryin out loud :roll: :roll:
There is no reputable proof the world was created in 5, 6, 7, 8 days. There is more proof that it was created over a much longer time than that. Personally I like to believe things that make logical sense, so I take the bible stories for what they are - stories.
People who believe the bible to be 100% true are, in my POV, needy and looking for obscene truth, refussing to believe what is in front of them. Believing in supernatural mystical happenings when it suits their needs.