Population?

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Is the earth ever going to be flat? Nope. 

Is this suppose to be a referance to that flat earth myth? No one that I can find, ever said the earth was flat. That is just a myth that someone, somewhere, must have made up. What is really funny is that so many people buy into it hook, line and sinker. The only theory ever suggested in regards to a flat earth was that at a early stage when the earth was more of a gas than a solid, it was suggested that it was flatter then what it is now. But as it converted from a gas to a solid, it began to form into the shape we accept it as being now.

 

[lithium.]

Willowolf:


Hey, lucaspa, good reply. I'll have to look into this, sounds pretty convincing. I apreciate a good answer based on facts. Keep it up.
But here is another fact that disproves the millions and millions of years old that the evolutionists claim earth is. The Sun is shrinking, proven fact. This is based on observations made all the way back in 1750 in the British Royal Observatory. From the observations, the sun is in fact shrinking at a rate of about one-tenth of a percent (1/10 of 1%) per century. Our sun shrink about five feet an hour. Of course, when you understand that the sun is roughly 835,000 to 840,000 feet in diameter, five feet is hardly anything at all.
Now, If we believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old, then the sun in that period of time, has shrunk only 6%.
But, if the sun is say 100,000 years old, then it would be the double of it present diameter. And if we count back to 20 million years ago the Sun would be touching the earth (in other words no planet). Just imagine if we were to count back to 4.5 or 5 billion years ago.


seesaw:

There have been claims over the years that the Sun is contracting slowly over time. Here, we examine that claim.

Let us assume that the Sun is shrinking is by gravity. Then from the equation that scientists have for the change of the Sun's luminosity (luminosity is an energy output) versus its radius, the Sun would be shrinking in its radius 74 centimeters per year. We would have detected such a noticeable change over the past history (over 500 years this would be a 0.005 arc seconds difference in the radius of the Sun from our viewing position on the Earth), and we haven't detected such a change. So our observations don't show the Sun to be shrinking by gravitational contraction.

What about the Sun's mass becoming less by its process of producing energy (fusion)?

The Sun actually does lose mass in the process of producing energy. Let us see how much.

We can use the following numbers from Kenneth R. Lang's book: _Astrophysical Data_:

Solar Mass = 1.989 x 1033 g
Absolute luminosity = 3.86 x 1033 erg/sec
Speed of light c = 2.99 x 1010 cm/sec

Start with Einstein's famous equation: "E = mass times c2" and rearrange the terms to solve for the mass M:

M = E/c2

And after inputting our numbers:

= 3.86x1033/(2.99x1010)2
= 4.289x1012 g/sec

we find that the Sun loses mass 4.289x1012 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353x1020 g every year to energy.

The Sun is thought to have a remaining lifetime of about 5x109 years. If we assume that the Sun's rate of fuel consumption (the luminosity value given above) remains constant (it won't, but it isn't a bad assumption) in the remaining time of 5x109 years, then let us see how much mass the Sun will convert to energy in its remaining lifetime.

Mass = (1.353x1020 g/year) * 5x109 years = 6.8 x 1029 g

In units of tons, every second, the Sun's fusion processes are converting about 700 million tons of hydrogen into helium "ashes". In doing so, 0.7 percent of the hydrogen matter (5 million tons) disappears as pure energy. (My reference for this paragraph is "The Sun" chapter in _The New Solar System_ editor: Beatty and Chaikin, Sky Publishing Press.)

Since the Sun's current mass is 1.989 x 1033 g, the percentage of its current mass that will be converted to energy is:

6.8 x 1029 g / 1.989 x 1033 g = 0.00034 of its current mass or .034 percent.

In other words, the Sun's mass at the end of its lifetime is 99.966% of its current mass. See.. nothing to worry about!

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html

 

[lithium.]

#
Myth: Sun is Shrinking
The Sun is shrinking at five feet per year. Considering the temperature of the Sun, how would the average temperature of the Earth be affected by increasing the size of the Sun by 5 million feet per million years? If we went back say, one million, ten million, or a hundred million years?

It is incorrect to say that the Sun is shrinking and it has been since the "creation" of the Universe. The Sun is not shrinking at a consistent rate. The data that were used to derive that were both wrong and misinterpreted. See the Skeptic Friends Network.

Dr. Eric Christian

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html#shrink

 

[Willowolf]

Hey seesaw, I just read that article from NASA you posted. It never gives proof that the sun isn't shrinking at this minimal rate. So I went to the site that it listed at The Skeptics Network. In this site they claim that the sun cann't be shrinking because if it were, then the total solar eclipses that occured 3,000 years ago couldn't have happened. Because the Sun would have been to big .
So let's do the math. The Christian Scientists claim that the Sun is shrinking at a rate of 1/10 a percent or 0.10% a century. So 3,000 years ago (0r 30 centuries ago) the mass of the sun would have been 3% bigger than it is now. Tell me something, if you would increase a body that is 840,000 miles (I said feet above, it's miles) in dameter, how much difference would it make.
Take a bottle of one liter bottle of Coke for example. There are 1000 ml (mililiters) in a liter. Three percent of 1000ml is 30ml. So if I add 30ml to a 1000ml Coke bottle, I have 1030ml of Coke.
In the same way that it would be a cinch to add 30ml of Coke to a 1000ml uncompressed Coke bottle, and still fit in the bottle. So can you add 3% to the sun and still have a full solar eclipse.
Keep up the good work seesaw, thanks for the good cites!
God Bless, Willowolf : )

 

[seebs]

3% would be pretty noticable in an eclipse. As is, the sun is large enough that you occasionally get annular eclipses - eclipses where you can see the corona around the moon. (I saw one once!) 3% larger would be enough larger that no one would describe "total" eclipses; they would always be able to see some of the sun.

 

[Orihalcon]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Is this suppose to be a referance to that flat earth myth? No one that I can find, ever said the earth was flat. That is just a myth that someone, somewhere, must have made up. What is really funny is that so many people buy into it hook, line and sinker.

so if anyone says that the earth is flat then you CAN say that he is wrong, not just "i think/i believe/in my opinion you are wrong"

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Orihalcon
so if anyone says that the earth is flat then you CAN say that he is wrong, not just "i think/i believe/in my opinion you are wrong"

I just about alway preface what I say. So I would say something like I believe, or current scientific theory tells us...

The pastor at my church will from time to time say: "Thus sayeth the Lord". Then whatever follows you can be 100% sure that it is true and accurate. He has recorded all of the prophecys for the last 50 years and they are available to anyone that wants to try and prove than even one of them has not come true.

The rest of the time, he will qualify what he says with I believe with all of my heart, or something like that.