Shrinking Sun

How itsybitsy little creatures on the itsybitsy little dot called planet earth inside one of the billions of galaxies can simply assume physical life such as is on earth is all there is, put together a few equasions and graphs to come up with what they're so buligerently sure things were millions to billions of miles and lightyears away hundreds of millions to billions of years ago is LAUGHABLE. I'm sure the creator MAJESTY OF THE UNIVERSE is shaking his majestic head in pitiful wonder at such arrogant ignorance his little bitty creatures whom he's given a little bit of intelligence have descended ideologically into.

Not bad Asgara. Instead of the leap minute, why not go right to the leap day. Using the same creationist argument we could say that the earth's orbit is slowing down 1 day every 4 years. At 0.25 days a year, this would mean that the year would have been 700 days long 1500 years ago. Of course, we know this isn't true. Nonetheless, this is creationist math.

No, they said (and you quoted) "it is possible to determine the average deceleration of the Earth to be roughly 1.4 milliseconds per day per century" {emphasis added}. That is, every 100 years the day gets 1.4 milliseconds shorter, or every year the day gets 1.4/100 = 0.014 milliseconds shorter, or every day the day gets 0.014/365 = 0.0004 milliseconds shorter. The Earth is slowing down by 0.00004 milliseconds per day.See also Indicator 13: Earth's rotational speed: and Claim CE011 and As the World Turns:
Can Creationists Keep Time? (a 22 year old article!) Why do you say it is a constant loss? In fact it is not, because of the resonance (or lack thereof) between the "sloshing" in the oceans and the rotation speed.But leap seconds are not added because the Earth's rotation is slowing. They are added because we use two different time systems, one based on atomic clocks and one based on the Earth's rotation, and the two systems don't run at exactly the same speed. Even if the Eart's rotation speed never changes, we'll still need leap seconds once in a while.

quote:

---

How itsybitsy little creatures on the itsybitsy little dot called planet earth inside one of the billions of galaxies can simply assume physical life such as is on earth is all there is, put together a few equasions and graphs to come up with what they're so buligerently sure things were millions to billions of miles. . . [shortened for brevity]

---

Or how about the little itsy bitsy people on the itsy bitsy planet who read a book about theology and try and apply the theology to physical reality as if reality is going to bend to their wishes. Scientists, more than creationists, understand the magnitude of the natural world and let the natural world tell them what reality is. Creationists get on their high horse and try and tell reality what it is. Which do you think is the most arrogant?

Lets keep the theology discussions in the theology forums please.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Ok Asgara, will do, but my comment was pertaining to my opinion that there's a whole lot of arrogant guesswork and assumption in these calculations about things like the sun sooo long ago and sooo far away. I thought it was pertaining to the topic but will move on and let the calculators alone to mull over their calculations.

Thanks hun, I do appreciate your general acceptance of moderation.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

yet earlier they said:

quote:

---

Through the use of ancient observations of eclipses, it is possible to determine the average deceleration of the Earth to be roughly 1.4 milliseconds per day per century

---

Note the highlighted parts. You didn't restate it correctly. It is NOT a change of 1.4 milliseconds per day. It is saying that the length of the day is changing by 1.4 milliseconds after a century.This works out to 14 seconds on the day in 1 million years assuming it remains constant. That is the day is a quater of an hour and some longer now than it was when the dinosaurs died.Is this clearer now.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-02-2004]

Laughable? How do you come to that conclusion?I don't understand how you can know that we don't know what we think we know unless you have some specific epistomology that allows you to know what is not knowable.Laughable? I find it admirable. Not everyone is as ignorant as you about what can be known.I don't understand what's so arrogant about doing math. Do you find it arrogant to multiply one million by one billion? Surely those numbers must be so large to you that they're the province of God, and no mere mortal could be trusted with that arithmetic?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-02-2004]

CF, Asgara has kindly asked that I move on from this point and I'm respecting that request.

and the moon is being accelerated by the tides ... which are pulled ahead by the earth's spin (which is also slowing down the spin ... equal and opposite, conservation of angular momentum ... etc.)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

tides are not the same everywhere, the vary from extremes (bay of fundie to gulf of mexico .... >30 ft to

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

On another forum I got into a disagreement with a Creationist poster called ikester7579. He has his own website full of the usual Creationist claptrap. He has one page dedicated to the shrinking Sun argument - except he claims it is 200 miles per year!
Anyway below is my respons on that forum to him.In another thread on here I took issue with ikester7579's website for posting erroneous information on solar radius changes. In fact I have accused him of ignorance to further his conjectures.He has said that my statements with regard to this topic are just my 'opinions' as opposed to his 'opinions'.Point 1) - facts are NOT opinionsWhen you post factual lies it is not a matter of opinion - it is a a case of not stating the facts - NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.I shall below show the current and past status of the solar radius measurements as well as a simple observation from history that NEGATES any such changes in the solar radius that ikester7579 offers.Current measurements of the solar radius and variationsThe following links are to results obtained in recent years: No webpage found at provided URL: alpha.uni-sw.gwdg.de/~wittma.../Solspa2000.pdfThis paper states a limit of the variation of no more than 0.0003 seconds of arc per year.By contrast ikester has a variation of 200 miles per year which equates to 0.44 seconds of arc per year - a factor of 1480 times greater. I think this may have been noticed - what do you think?It gets even better. No webpage found at provided URL: aa.springer.de/papers/7325003/2301174.pdfThis paper analyses the last 300 years of measurements and I quote from their conclusion:Quote:It may be concluded from the present investigation that the available
measurements of the solar diameter, which extend from the
17th century to the present day, reveal no evidence of any secular
variation.They mention that possible short term oscillations in the solar diameter may occur (as they are expected to) but long term changes are not in the data.Next we go on to measurements with the SOHO orbiting observatory.http://soi.stanford.edu/papers/Limb....2000/rfig4.gifThis plot shows the variations observed in the last few years - which are expected due to changes in the solar luminosity with the sunspot cycle. Look at the scale. We are here dealing with short term oscillations on the milliarc second scale. Also notice the diameter has been INCREASING recently. Not shrinking by 200 miles per year. LOLThe net increase is roughly 10 milliarcseconds over a 2 year period.This is an increase of approx. 8 km (5 miles) = 2.5 miles per year INCREASE. NOT A 200 miles per year DECREASE.Are we getting the picture yet?Here is a link that just mentions the capability of the SOHO/MDI experiment for detecting changes in diameter.http://soi.stanford.edu/results/agu96b.htmlAs mentioned variations in the solar diameter of as little as 10 feet can be detected. So I think 200 miles per year = 120 feet per hour would stand out like a sore thumbThere are many more papers on the web relating to these measurement.Point 2) All the data from various observatories plus historical analyses REFUTE the idea that the solar radius has been shrinking by 200 miles per year. This idea is refuted by FACTS to a level that it is a JOKE (or a LIE) to say anything different. The measurements are at a sensitivity compared to 200 miles per year that is pure DELUSION to pretend to the contrary.Simple argument why this 200 miles per year shrinking is a embarrassing lack of thought & scholarshipAs we know, a total solar eclipse is when the Moon occults the Sun totally covering the solar disk. Now the Moon is on an elliptical orbit around the Earth and varies in angular diameter accordingly.The maximum angular diameter of the Moon is 2013 seconds of arc. i.e. when the Moon is closest to us.The solar diameter is approx. 1920 seconds of arc. (it varies a little due to the Earth's orbit being elliptical but for this calculation it's negligible)Thus if the Sun's diameter is greater than 2013 seconds of arc it CANNOT be totally eclipsed by the Moon. We would never see total eclipses.Now ikester7579 claims this nonsensical 200 miles per year shrinking. Thus every year before it was 200 miles per year larger in radius.So let's put this to the testCurrent solar radius = 960 seconds of arc which is equivalent to 6.9598 X 10^10 cm.Hypothetical solar radius for NO eclipses to be possible is 1007 seconds of arc which is equivalent to 7.297 X 10^10 cm for solar radius.Now ikester's 200 miles per year radial change = 3.22 X 10^7 cm per year.So if solar radius increased by (7.297-6.9798) X 10^10 cm we have NO total eclipses.So dividing by the 200 miles per year number we have (7.297-6.9598) X 10^10/3.22 X 10^7 gives us approx. 105 years ago.So by ikester7579's claim No total solar eclipses could have occurred prior to about the year 1900. Because according to this 200 miles per year shrinkage the Sun would have been too large about the year 1900 and earlier.Is this lunacy or what? - Total solar eclipses have been observed and recorded for over 2000 years in Europe and I believe the earliest recorded was in approx. 1300 BC.What gives here?I'll tell you - this is a classic example of somene putting forward a hypothesis that flies in the face of both modern and historical measurements - it ignores the FACTS (these are not OPINIONS - they are FACTS) and leads to RIDICULOUS conclusions like no eclipses more than a century ago.I consider this to be a complete refutation of a ridiculous position. Contradicted by measurements (FACTS) and shown to lead to untenable predictions.[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 04-03-2004]

Hit and run case yet again.

Yes, the sun does occilate at a given time each day.