Evolution is Dead

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are trying to answer the wrong question. The question is how big was the Sun 4.57 billion years ago?

Slightly smaller than it is now.

EDIT: If we stick to wiki ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle

You can see that the sun slowly increases in size and luminosity over it's life as a main sequence star.
[added an extra space in the links to avoid smiley's. spaces in-between the : and the S after /file ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: Solar_evolution_%28English%29.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: Solar_Life_Cycle.svg

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are trying to answer the wrong question. The question is how big was the Sun 4.57 billion years ago?

The 'hypothesis' in the video was that the sun is losing so much mass per second that if it
was really as old as science says it is it would have in the past been so large as to swallow
the earth.

My post demonstrates that actually it would have been at most (with just this effect) 0.031%
more massive. Assuming it stayed at the same density that corresponds to an increased
size of about 0.01%.

So I was answering your question.

However as I said stellar dynamics is more complicated than that, and while the sun was more
massive it was also smaller and less luminous in the past.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are trying to answer the wrong question. The question is how big was the Sun 4.57 billion years ago?

if you had basic, rudimentary knowledge of mathematics, you would know that he answered your question.

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

From the article the main figures we need to consider are:
1. Sun fusion rate - 620 million metric tons
2. Mass-energy conversion rate - 4.26 million metric tons
3. Age of the Sun - 5.57 billion years
4. Mass of sun today - 2×10^30 kilograms

To determine if the kid is right we need to calculate how big the Sun ...[text shortened]... .57 billion years ago? It is now 330,000 times bigger that the Earth, according to this article.

do you think more massive means it has to be bigger?

if you have a steel ball that's 1 inch in diameter and a cotton ball that's one inch in diameter, are they the same mass?

Originally posted by googlefudge
The 'hypothesis' in the video was that the sun is losing so much mass per second that if it
was really as old as science says it is it would have in the past been so large as to swallow
the earth.

My post demonstrates that actually it would have been at most (with just this effect) 0.031%
more massive. Assuming it stayed at the same density that ...[text shortened]... that, and while the sun was more
massive it was also smaller and less luminous in the past.

I understand what you are saying, now. I now see that this is not a simple calculation as I had assumed. I don't know how the kid did his calculations, but it can't be the way you did it and the assumption that the same amount of hydrogen is released as it is now is false. That is because the mass of the sun is made of 75% hydrogen and as we move back in time the sun would have had more hydrogen to fuse and an increased mass. So the mass-energy conversion rate would be increasing every second as the mass increases with time. This therefore is a calculus problem and it has been so long since I have done calculus, I do not remember how to do it for this situation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I understand what you are saying, now. I now see that this is not a simple calculation as I had assumed. I don't know how the kid did his calculations, but it can't be the way you did it and the assumption that the same amount of hydrogen is released as it is now is false. That is because the mass of the sun is made of 75% hydrogen and as we move back in ...[text shortened]... as been so long since I have done calculus, I do not remember how to do it for this situation.

So do you now accept that this video you have posted (hoax or otherwise) is not 'proof' or
even evidence of a young earth or evidence against evolution and that this particular
argument you have presented is wrong?

Originally posted by googlefudge
So do you now accept that this video you have posted (hoax or otherwise) is not 'proof' or
even evidence of a young earth or evidence against evolution and that this particular
argument you have presented is wrong?

No. That was only one argument among many and I have not seen the Kid's calculations anyway. He only presented a few examples and there are a hugh number he might have presented. So I am still convinced the Earth and life on it is too young to allow for evolution to occur as the evolutionists claim.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. That was only one argument among many and I have not seen the Kid's calculations anyway. He only presented a few examples and there are a hugh number he might have presented. So I am still convinced the Earth and life on it is too young to allow for evolution to occur as the evolutionists claim.

That wasn't my question.

My question was "Do you accept that THIS argument has now been shown to be wrong?"

Do you accept that the argument you presented at the top of THIS thread is not valid and
thus is not a disproof of evolution?

Originally posted by googlefudge
That wasn't my question.

My question was "Do you accept that THIS argument has now been shown to be wrong?"

Do you accept that the argument you presented at the top of THIS thread is not valid and
thus is not a disproof of evolution?

No. I have yet to see a convincing calculation done by calculus.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. I have yet to see a convincing calculation done by calculus.

you confessed to not knowing calculus, how is it that you will be convinced when you see such an argument? you have no capacity (by your own confession) to understanding the calculations, one way or the other.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. I have yet to see a convincing calculation done by calculus.

And you never will, because you forgot how it works. 🙂

It would be interesting to see if you understand any of the actual evidence used to back up the arguments in your boyfriend's video.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you confessed to not knowing calculus, how is it that you will be convinced when you see such an argument? you have no capacity (by your own confession) to understanding the calculations, one way or the other.

I used to be able to do calculus when I was in college. That has been 40+ years ago. I can't remember exactly how I would do this problem now. But sometimes when I see something done that I haven't done in a long time, it refreshes my memory.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
And you never will, because you forgot how it works. 🙂

It would be interesting to see if you understand any of the actual evidence used to back up the arguments in your boyfriend's video.

Yes, I would like to see that, too. I think he may know calculus for he is a student. My genius son took calculus in High School and many other college level courses. He graduated valedictorian from high school and summa cum laude from college. My genius son worked his way through college with the help of scholarships and some small student loans that he has paid off already. He plans on getting a PHD and is presently teaching 7th grade science in California. This young fellow on the video jokes more that my genius son, but I think he is intelligent, because he doesn't just go along believing everything, like many other kids today.. Besides, he believes like me, a very intelligent guy.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I used to be able to do calculus when I was in college. That has been 40+ years ago. I can't remember exactly how I would do this problem now. But sometimes when I see something done that I haven't done in a long time, it refreshes my memory.

However what you never studied, and know nothing of, are the internal workings of a star.

And the first step of solving this 'problem' is not maths it's physics.

You need to know what physical processes you are trying to model and how they work before you can create an equation to solve.


I am not entirely sure what you mean when you say this because you are not clear...

... That is because the mass of the sun is made of 75% hydrogen and as we move back in time the sun would have had more
hydrogen to fuse and an increased mass. So the mass-energy conversion rate would be increasing every second as the mass increases
with time. ...

So I will give you a very basic explanation of how stars on the main sequence actually work and we can move on from there.


Stars are formed by giant collapsing clouds of gas made of hydrogen and helium (with small amounts of other elements
generated inside other stars) the ratio of hydrogen to helium left over from the big bang is predicted to be, and is observed as,
a ratio of about 74:26 hydrogen to helium.

As the clouds of gas collapse the pressure increases and they heat up (basic physics that you as an 'engineer'
aught to know and understand) converting gravitational potential energy into heat.

They also rotate faster as they collapse to conserve angular momentum.


The gas collapses and collapses down under the immense gravitational pull of it's own weight.

The heat energy being generated however acts to hold up and slow this collapse.

As the gas gets denser and denser it becomes harder and harder to lose heat so the centre of this cloud gets very hot.


Eventually this spinning ball of (now plasma and degenerate matter) gets hot enough and the pressure gets high enough
at it's core to start fusing hydrogen atoms together to form helium.

The extra energy generated by the fusion stops the further collapse of the star and it enters dynamic equilibrium where the
outward push of the energy generated by the fusion exactly balances the inward pressure of the stars mass and it's consequent
gravitational attraction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core#Equilibrium

As time goes on the fusion in the core reduces the amount of hydrogen and increases the amount on helium in the stars core.
This effect increases the closer you get to the centre of the core as that is where the temperature and pressure are highest
and correspondingly where the fusion rate is also highest.

Thus over time the energy output of the centre of the core diminishes as hydrogen gets rarer and thus the chances of hydrogen
atoms colliding and fusing reduces.

This reduction in energy output causes the stars core to contract as the energy output ceases to match the inward pressure from
gravity.

As the core contracts it heats up, expanding the volume in which fusion can happen and increasing the energy output by increasing
the fusion rate to again match the inward pressure.

Thus as the star ages it's core contracts and heats up burning through it's hydrogen faster and faster.


As it does so the increased temperature of the core causes the outer layers of the star to expand thus making the external size
and luminosity of the star increase with time.

As no fusion happens in the outer layers of the star the hydrogen/helium content stays roughly as it was at formation with the
only the hydrogen:helium ratio in the core significantly changing.

This is why the wiki article talks about "Photospheric composition (by mass)". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Core

This is the composition of the photosphere, the bit we can see, not the core where fusion happens. And basically is the composition
of the gas cloud that the star (and the rest of the solar system, including us) came from.


So as you can see, stars get larger over their lives and get brighter over their lives and do not shrink.

Even though they do lose (a trivial amount) mass over that lifetime.


It gets more complicated when a star leaves the main sequence but our sun has not done that yet and wont for about 5 billion more years.


Thus the sun will have been smaller and dimmer and not larger and brighter in the distant past and thus it is not an argument against an
old earth/universe and certainly isn't an argument against evolution.



So will you concede that the fact that the sun presently loses appx 4.26E9 Kg of mass per second in fusing hydrogen into helium
does not mean that the sun would have been large enough to engulf the earth 4 and a half billion years ago when it had first formed?

And that therefore this is not an argument against an old earth or an old universe and thus is also not an argument against evolution?

I am not asking you to accept the blindingly obvious fact of evolution and an ancient earth/universe.

I am just asking you to concede that you have not presented here in this thread an argument or evidence that contradicts or refutes an
ancient earth/universe or consequently evolution.



Note:
It doesn't matter if you think that if this matter was analysed closer and that calculations were done in more detail that you might be able
to prove that the sun would have engulfed the earth in the past if it were really as old as we say it is.
I am asking you to concede that you have NOT YET produced an argument or evidence in this thread that demonstrates that you are right.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I would like to see that, too. I think he may know calculus for he is a student. My genius son took calculus in High School and many other college level courses. He graduated valedictorian from high school and summa cum laude from college. My genius son worked his way through college with the help of scholarships and some small student loans that h ...[text shortened]... oday.. Besides, he believes like me, a very intelligent guy.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

ah another BS story. tell us what your "genius" son is up to next. better yet, don't because he know about calculus about as much as you do, which is to say, zip-nil.