Cape Canaveral On Figuring Sun Age Vs Eta

Cape Canaveral: http://www.geocities.com/...averal/Launchpad/1364/Stars.html
{Fixed link - You had a blank space in there - AM}Eta: I have been contending with Eta that physicists would/should figure the age of the sun from it's beginning of formation if it had evolved naturally. This would give a created sun arriving on the scene instantly in it's main sequence phase as our sun would have been if created 6000 years ago on day four of Genesis 1, AN APPEARANCE of A MINIMUM of 30 million years of age according to most physicist's estimate of the protostar pre-main sequence stage of our sun, regardless of how old the sun is calculated to be.So do we go with Cape Canaveral {and, ahem, buz) as counting from the beginning of the life of our sun or do we go with Eta in the main sequence phase of it's life?P.S. suggestion: In posting what you are saying a counterpart is saying it would be nice to cut and paste pertinent segments of what the counterpart is saying so as not to have this thread get confusedly outa hand. Hopefully we can wrap this up soon as the general topic has been already belabored extensively.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-19-2003][This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-19-2003]

Not to dispute the information on that site, but it sure looks to be someones personal webpage (note that it's on geocities.com).I didn't notice any link to information on who or what organization was behind the page. I strongly suspect it isn't NASA.Adminnemooseus

Moose, this is typical of using information on the internet. It only takes the inclination and a small amount of money to post something onto the internet, there is no verification or quality control process. Buzzy's webarticele is singularly devoid of external, verifiable references. It might even be a Raelian site.

Hi Moose: I fixed the link so as to be able to access it. I see it doesn't give a home page address. Do you think the link is quoting Nasa and thus the notation in the link address, or what??At any rate it might prove interesting for members to critique the information given in the site. I liked it because it gives the whole story so as to be understood.

Wi, what in the site gives you the notion of cultish origin? It appears to me to be pretty down the line on mainline sun science/physics that I've been reading.

Why does it matter when we "start the clock" on counting a stars age. As Eta noted it is common for astrophysicists to count a stars "birth" as when it reaches the main sequence (or about when it "ignites" ).We all know that there is such a fallacy as arguing from authority. However, in this case, you are arguing WITH authority. If an astrophyscist tells you what the converntion for detemining a stars "birth" is why on earth would you argue with him? For one thing it is very unlikey he would be wrong about what his own profession usually does. For a second thing he has no reason to lie. For a third thing it makes no significant differenct. (i.e., who cares is the sun is 4,500,000,000 years old or 4,530,000,000 years old when we as long as we understand the convention we know that both numbers mean exactly the same thing).You want to count the suns "birth" at a somewhat fuzzy point when the nebula starts condensing. Astrophysicists use a point that is a lot less fuzzy. For any given discussion as long as all parties understand which is being used it amounts to the same thing.(btw I would suggest that the analogy would be better if the 30 million years was taken as the stars gestation before "birth" )

Ok, I found the home page at the link and here is who did it. It appears that she just designed the home page from her statement above for the department at the university.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-19-2003]-----
Added by AM - For what it's worth, the homepage is at:
http://www.geocities.com/...averal/Launchpad/1364/index.html[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-19-2003]

1. Ned, with all due respect, Eta isn't Mr. God in astro-science. I could be mistaken, but from implications in what I've read so far is that his starting date is not the majority opinion in the field.2. Your statement above is simply reflecting/agreeing with Eta's starting time for determination of age as a mature star in it's main sequence phase and not at it's protostar phase. Is that correct?Gotta hit hay for now.

Apparently we both submitted link fixes.Re: http://www.geocities.com/...averal/Launchpad/1364/Stars.htmlAs I know it, geocities hosts a truly massive number of websites (I think geocities merged with Yahoo a few years back). They organize the websites into directories and subdirectories. Apparently, a directory name can be chosen, to at least vaguely reflect the nature of the website.Anyhow, "CapeCanaveral" is a directory created by geocities; "Launchpad" is a subdirectory. the "1364" is the designation of the particular user (which I note, you have tracked down).Have fun,
Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-19-2003]

quote:

---

At any rate it might prove interesting for members to critique the information given in the site. I liked it because it gives the whole story so as to be understood.

---

Seems like a reasonable request to me.People, let's keep it friendly now.Adminnemooseus

As I thought I had noted; I don't think it matters what point we pick for the start of a star.It is simply a matter of being consistant.As for Eta being Mr. God: Of course he's not, however if I'm too lazy to do the research I will take his word for it over an undergraduate teaching student. What are your sources that you've been reading?

CHALLENGE:WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME ONE OBSERVATION (ON TODAY'S SUN) IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE THAT GIVES THE TIME FOR THE SUN TO COLLAPSE TO THE MAIN SEQUENCE?From what I quickly scanned the website posted in the original post makes no such claim.There is no observation that gives you the collapse time.Don't you understand Buzsaw, that information is not retained.The clock for a star we calculate is based from it's arrival on the main sequence. Plus, as someone else mentioned, the difference between 4.6 billion and 4.6 billion + 30 million is negligible anyway.

Point #1The website you posted is nothing to do with NASA. Plus NASA are not directly in the stellar physicss business. Actually they outsource such work, via grants, to people like me.The webpage does not say anything I really take odds with.But it never says anything about calculating the age from protostar collapse. The 30 million year figure is a number based upon theoretical calculation NOT observation. REPEAT NOT OBSERVATION.Point #2The quote above shows you just don't understand.THERE IS NO APPEARANCE OF A 30 MILLION number. NONE. That number is a theoretical calculation.But once a star has arrived on the ZAMS (zero age main sequence) then we can start a clock so to speak. (In reality this isn't that straightforward but I don't have time to get into the details.)FOR THE LAST TIME:THERE IS NO OBSERVATION (the key word here) THAT WILL GIVE US THIS NUMBER (30 million.)THUS it is meaningless to really give that number. The number that can be given (to some measure) is the time from the ZAMS to the time of observation.[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 12-19-2003]

Buz, don't you think it's probable that the phrase "zero-age main sequence" was chosen for a reason? Similar, perhaps, to the Western tradition of counting human age from birth, not conception?

this is a link to my personal site which i am working. It is not scientific but im planning to defend the creationist view with it.http://www.geocities.com/imetal2000/jazzlover_pr.html