All times are UTC




Welcome
Welcome to creationvsevolution

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
  Print view | E-mail friend

Solar Mass Loss
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2011 5:39 pm 
Offline
Advanced Debater
Advanced Debater
Offline

Joined:Fri May 27, 2011 6:49 am
Posts:138
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
crazynutsx, it was reported that you had posted this:
Quote:
Here is just a few things that i think are wrong with the evolution theory
The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to fewer
than “billions of years.” The sun is losing both mass and
diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine
gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right
distance for life to survive

The ½ inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the
moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years


I have only ever seen the claim of solar mass loss being made by Kent Hovind and he not only refused to discuss it but he also refused to say whether he had originated it himself or had gotten it from someone else.

What do you know about that claim? Apparently you believe it to be true, but have you done anything to verify it? How much mass would have been lost in 5 billion (ie, 5 thousand millions, 5×10^9; Europe has a different definition for billion as a million millions)? Have you done the math? Hovind gives the rate of mass loss as 5 million tons per second, which is only slightly greater than the actual figure of about 4.6 million tons per second.

I have a few quotes of Hovind on this that I can post. One extra question that those quotes raise is: how does the sun burn?

We can turn to the moondust claim later in another topic.

_________________
I Thessalonians 5:21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Don Marquis: If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 

Re: Solar Mass Loss
PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2011 7:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar
Offline

Joined:Tue May 24, 2011 11:53 pm
Posts:408
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Image

As mass is lost via the solar wind and radiation (radiation energy will carry mass from the Sun due to the energy-mass relationship defined by Einstein’s E=mc2), the value of the Astronomical Unit will increase, and by its definition, the orbit of the planets should also increase

It has been calculated that Mercury will lag behind it’s current orbital position in 200 years time by 5.5 km if we continue to use today’s AU in future calculations

and ure we can turn the moondust into another topic :P


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 

Re: Solar Mass Loss
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 8:11 pm 
Offline
Advanced Debater
Advanced Debater
Offline

Joined:Fri May 27, 2011 6:49 am
Posts:138
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Not quite, though E=mc^2 does indeed enter into it. And even though mass loss via solar wind does contribute, it is small compared to the mass lost through the thermonuclear reaction running in the sun's core. The actual chains of reactions are more complex than this, but effectively the Sun converts about 600 million tons of hydrogen into 595.8 million tons of helium every second, with the 4.2 million ton difference being the mass that had been converted to energy as per Einstein's equation. Those are round figures; the rate of mass loss is determined by plugging in the sun's total energy output for E and then solving for m. In fusing four hydrogen nuclei into one helium nucleus, only 99.3% of the mass remains, the other 0.7% having been lost as energy. It's been quite a while and my notes are scattered, but I recall the figure for the mass lost per second to be closer to 4.6 or 4.7 million tons per second (meaning that the figure for the amount of hydrogen being involved would be a bit higher).

In comparison, the figures I've found for mass loss due to solar wind as ranging from 600 pounds per second to 10,000 tons per second to 1.4 million tons per second -- 10,000 tons per second seems to be more common. Still a fraction of the mass loss due to fusion.

Yes, the effect of the sun losing mass would be that the size of the planets' orbits would increase. Which means that in the past when the sun was more massive, the planets would have been closer in. But by how much?

So far, Hovind is the only creationist I've noticed using this claim, so when another creationist also uses it, I'm curious to find out where he had gotten it from (so far, it's most often from Hovind). Since you have also used it and stated that it's one of the things that you believe is wrong about "evolution theory", my primary question is: why do you think that about this particular claim?

Here is the first instance of Hovind's claim that I found. It's my own transcription from a radio interview with Hovind on Southwest Radio Church, 13 Sep 2002. The audio file of that interview seems to still be intact at http://www.swrc.com/ramfiles/sept1302.ram. The transcription is taken from 8 minutes 53 seconds into the broadcast:
Quote:
For instance, the sun is burning, of course, and it's burning an enormous amount of fuel. It's losing about 5 million tons every second. Well, if the earth is billions of years old that creates a problem, because you couldn't go back 5 billion or 20 billion years like they say with the sun constantly getting larger and larger and heavier and heavier. The sun's gravity would of course become real great and would suck the earth in. Plus the sun would be bigger and burn the earth up. It can't possibly be true that it's billions of years old.


Do you buy that claim? Forget the 20 billion years ago part of the claim; that would make the sun much older than the universe itself. Scientists gauge the sun's age to be about 5 billion years old, so go with that one instead. Do you think that 5 billion years ago the sun would have been massive enough to "suck the earth in"?

_________________
I Thessalonians 5:21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Don Marquis: If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 

Re: Solar Mass Loss
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 9:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar
Offline

Joined:Tue May 24, 2011 11:53 pm
Posts:408
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
im not sure about it sucking the Earth in as such, but if you look at the rate of matter being lost and trace it back, you start to see that the Sun would most defenetly of heated the earth soo much nothin could survive on it :)


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 

Re: Solar Mass Loss
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 10:48 pm 
Offline
Advanced Debater
Advanced Debater
Offline

Joined:Fri May 27, 2011 6:49 am
Posts:138
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
How so? How do you see that matter having been lost? How do you see that as having affected the earth differently than it does now?

_________________
I Thessalonians 5:21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Don Marquis: If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 

Re: Solar Mass Loss
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 11:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar
Offline

Joined:Tue May 24, 2011 11:53 pm
Posts:408
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
10,000 tons per second is the loss of mass as quoted

This would obviously suggest the sun is shrinking due to loosing mass

So back in the suns history it must have been must larger if you add all the mass it has lost back into it

this would severly the graviational force on the Earth and not to mention the temperature due the sun being much larger then it is today


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 

Re: Solar Mass Loss
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 11:16 pm 
Offline
Advanced Debater
Advanced Debater
Offline

Joined:Fri May 27, 2011 6:49 am
Posts:138
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
By how much!

Ever hear of Sega? It was a game system ... I forget how many years ago, since I'm not active in electronic game systems. When they transitioned from 16 bits to 32 bits (circa 1995, I would guess) , their marketing slogan was "Do the math!" That is exactly what I am saying.

10,000 tons per second? A mere pittance! I'm talking about 4.6 million tons per second! What effect would this have in 5 billion years?

Again, do the math!

Kent Hovind refused to, even though he apparently created the claim.

Pay attention to my signature! I chose those quotes for a very specific purpose!

_________________
I Thessalonians 5:21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Don Marquis: If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 

Re: Solar Mass Loss
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 5:43 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar
Offline

Joined:Tue May 24, 2011 11:53 pm
Posts:408
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Right by the calculation :geek: of loosing 10,000 tones of mass per second it would look like this

10,000(Mass being lost) x 31 556 926(Amount of seconds in a year) = 315,596,260,000(Amount of mass lost in a year)

Thats the math based on the above figures, thats alot! of mass to loose each year


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 

Re: Solar Mass Loss
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 6:33 am 
Offline
Advanced Debater
Advanced Debater
Offline

Joined:Fri May 27, 2011 6:49 am
Posts:138
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
No, you're still missing it. We're not talking about the small amount of mass lost through solar wind, but rather the mass lost through fusion, 4.6 million tons per second.

Do the math on that. For 5 billion years.

And then tell us how that compares to the sun's total mass.

Do the math!

_________________
I Thessalonians 5:21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Don Marquis: If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 

Re: Solar Mass Loss
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 6:50 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar
Offline

Joined:Tue May 24, 2011 11:53 pm
Posts:408
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
ok my apolgies

4.6 billion tones per second

+

155 quadrillion, 540 trillion (seconds in 5 billion years.)


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


  Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
suspicion-preferred