Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe with no reliance on a distance measurement. (Tidally locked moon, etc.)
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4365 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 1 of 3 (66755)
11-15-2003 10:34 PM


This observation is not a cast iron proof, so to speak, but it does involve an incredible set of coincidences to explain away.
Here goes:
As you probably know the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth. It's rotational period and orbital periods are the same. Thus it always keeps the same face towards the Earth. This is caused by the tidal forces in the Earth-Moon system. Since the Moon is only 1/81 times the mass of the Earth it long since became locked. The Earth's rotation rate is slowing down but is nowhere near being tidally locked with the Moon.
Now this effect also occurs in binary star systems. I should mention here that as this trend towards locking occurs there is a commensurate circularisation of the orbits. Initially elliptical orbits become more circular as time goes on.
So far so good, this is just basic Newtonian dynamics applied to masses with finite size - no idealised point masses here.
Now stellar evolution theory makes predictions as to the age of stars of an observed mass, spectral type etc.
When we observe a cluster of stars we see definite evidence of a common birth date for the stars in the cluster. We don't see a random conglomeration of ages - it all fits into the basic interpretation according to stellar evolution theory. Of course someone might trump up and say well they could all be very young, agreeing on the common birth time, but not accepting the astrophysicists dating of the stars via stellar theory.
Now many of these stars in these clusters are members of binary systems. We can measure the orbital properties of these systems. These parameters include, size of the orbit & eccentricity & masses of the component stars.
Now the important point is:
From Newtonian dynamics we can calculate the time it takes an orbit of a given size and star masses to circularise.
We also have our guess as to the age of the stars based upon stellar theory.
When we plot the average separation of the binaries that have become circular versus the age of the cluster we get a direct correlation.
Thus cluster stars we say are young are only in circularised binaries that are very close. The binaries of greater separation have not had time to do this. As the clusters get older more and more binaries have become circularised out to greater and greater separations.
NOT ONLY IS THE OBSERVED TREND CORRECT, THE THEORETICAL TIME SCALES OPERATING AS CALCULATED USING BASIC CLASSICAL MECHANICS ARE PRESENT IN THE DATA.
This phenomena is observed with clusters up to some 5 billion years old. And the fraction of binaries circularised for given separations is concordant with the known dynamical time scales operating.
This needs an incredible set of coincidences in stellar physics, Newtonian dynamics and observational biases to explain away as anything but evidence for an old Universe.
(There is related data on older globular cluster systems based upon core collapse and dynamical relaxation and the binary system properties that takes this time frame up to 11-12 billion years ago.)
Sorry for the length of this post, but I tried to be as precise as possible given the limited space and no place to put a graph.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 11-15-2003 10:40 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 3 (66758)
11-15-2003 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eta_Carinae
11-15-2003 10:34 PM


Thank you. I'd say it was just the right length. To be very rigourous we should have a reference or two for the details.
However, the references can wait until someone questions your assertions here. I think that is ok.
This one is new to me and is interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-15-2003 10:34 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-15-2003 10:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4365 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 3 of 3 (66761)
11-15-2003 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
11-15-2003 10:40 PM


I shall post references if required. I'm tired and off to bed soon so I'll check back tomorrow.
I have never heard a refutation of this argument. The beauty of it is the avoidance of a distance measurement. The only distance that crops up is the semi-major axis of the binary orbit but that is determined by classical celestial mechanics. Even the YEC I don't think throw that away (one can hope!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 11-15-2003 10:40 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024