Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: evidence for an old universe

Expand Messages
  • Laurie Appleton
    To All, ... From: Eric To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:59 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: evidence for an old universe Eric
    Message 1 of 34 , Aug 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      To All,
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Eric
      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:59 AM
      Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: evidence for an old universe


      Eric wrote that:
      In fact "balanced treatment of the scientific evidence" is exactly
      what students get here. Unfortunately for people like Laurie, this
      has nothing to do with Creationism or any other of its bastard
      children such as Intelligent Design or Irreducible Complexity.


      LA> Perhaps Eric is not aware, or has forgotten, that Sir Fred Hoyle's co-author of a number of books, appeared on behalf of the STATE defence of its Balanced Treatment legislation! Thus it is clear that both those seasoned ex atheist scientists were quite SURE that balanced treatment was precisely what students were NOT getting at all. They wrote that;
      -----------------------

      "'Scientists' often cease to be real scientists,
      preferring dogma to facts, thereby adopting the same mental
      processes as the creationists. This was the essence of the
      testimony given by one of us in defense of the state of
      Arkansas in 1981."

      "The state was under trial before a US Federal Court
      on account of an educational policy that permitted a
      hearing to the creationists, who form a fair fraction of
      the population in that region of the United States and
      whose taxes help support the education system."

      "The whole affair struck us as an odd phenomenon in a
      land that was supposed to be dedicated to the concept of
      free speech. Our point was that in their interpretation of
      the origin and development of life on the Earth, the
      so-called evolutionists were just as surely wrong as the
      creationists, but whereas it is easy to see that the
      creationists are wrong - a visit to the High Force
      waterfall will do that - the evolutionists hide behind a
      facade that is not so easily penetrated, especially by
      children at school. . . ."

      (Our Place in the Cosmos, Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, (1993), p.
      15)
      ============


      LA> Thus those two noteworthy scientists positively refute Eric's claims about there supposedly being any balanced treatment in education. Thus we seem to have some examples in the recent messages here of their charge of 'evolutionists hiding behind a facade that is not so easily penetrated'.


      Laurie.

      In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost
      all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend"
      their observations to fit in with it. (Physics Prof. H.S. Lipson, 1980)



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Victor
      ... 1/fig10-11.htm By the way, SN1987a s star (Sandulaek 69 202) was a blue B3 super giant. Such stars were not supposed to nova. After the event, the
      Message 34 of 34 , Sep 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        >--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "hecd2" <macandrew@n...> wrote:
        > SNIP
        >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > Can't resist the temptation to jump into this thread -- even though
        > I
        > > haven't been following it. Sorry for the intrusion.
        > >
        > > The THEORIES about the main sequence of stars - are untested over
        > > time. They work only with respect to trying to make data fit into >a
        > > modern theoretical, mathematical framework. However, a simple >test
        > > for the main sequencing of red giants into white dwarfs is >actually
        > > available in history. The brightest star in the heavens is
        > currently
        > > Sirius. It was the calendar star for the Egyptians. It's heliacal
        > > rising rotated through all the Egyptian months in 1491 Egyptian
        > years
        > > (but always came at about the time that the Nile flooded). >Aratus,
        > > Cicero, Horace, Seneca, and Ptolemy described it as fiery red,
        > ruddy,
        > > reddish, blazing as fire, redder than Mars etc. In 1892 Professor
        > See
        > > did a 28 page study published in "Astronomy and Astrophysics" of >the
        > > ancient references for a red Sirius. He concluded that it is >beyond
        > > doubt that Sirius was red in antiquity until Al Sufi did not list >it
        > > among the red stars about a thousand years ago.
        > >
        > > According the to H-R diagram it should take a hundred thousand >years
        > > for a red giant to collapse into a white dwarf. Sirius is >actually
        > a
        > > binary system. The interesting thing is that Sirus B must be very
        > > small since it is very dim (estimate is 2% the diameter of the >Sun)
        > > but is supposed to be several thousand degrees hotter than the >sun.
        > > We are told that this means it is a recently collapsed red giant.
        > One
        > > explanation is that Sirius B was the bright red star known as Sirius
        > > in antiquity and collapsed into a minuscule but very hot white >dwarf
        > > that is very difficult to see in the glare of the companion that >is
        > > now called Sirius. One problem - the main sequence predicts that
        > red
        > > giants take a hundred thousand years to become white dwarfs - not >a
        > > thousand years. Another neighbor, the fourth brightest star,
        > > Arcturus, was also classified as fiery red in antiquity. It seems
        > to
        > > be in the final stages of its giant phase and is golden yellowish
        > > today. Another bright star listed as fiery red in antiquity was
        > > Pollux. It is orange colored and is said to be in the last phases
        > of
        > > the main sequence before collapsing into a white dwarf. Ptolemy
        > lists
        > > six fiery red stars in his catalog from 1850 years ago. Of his
        > fiery
        > > red stars, only Pollux still has a reddish tinge. Castor is no
        > longer
        > > red - but tinged with green! They all seemed to have moved in the
        > > sequence thousands of times faster than theory expects.
        > >
        >
        > I don't normally respond to Victor at all anymore, because it is
        > utterly pointless attempting to engage in discussion with someone >who
        > rejects the foundations of logic and inference and deduction from
        > evidence.
        >
        The first principle is not like a theory since it is very rudimentary,
        being: * * * the modern fundamental assumption about the nature of
        matter. * * * Scientific reasoning and deduction are HISTORICALLY
        based on the assumption that matter does not change as a relationship.
        In the Old Testament era people thought that time and substance
        degenerated in irreducible ways. Peter says the first thing to know
        about the mockers [Greek empaiktes - scoffers] of the last days is
        this first principle.

        To deny Aristotle's assumption and replace it with biblical principles
        does NOT mean that one rejects clear thinking. It just means that you
        stand on a different foundation. Without Aristotle's foundation,
        one's inferences about the primordial universe crumble into a heap of
        rubble. You have to pick through the rubble and reorganize the data.
        I ask myself, how was this piece or that piece affected by the
        assumption? That may seem like rejecting what does not suit me but it
        is not an arbitrary process. The first principle is such a broad
        conjecture that it affects most theories. The evidence does not
        change, but ones reference point does. To carefully consider the
        first principle does not result in muddled thinking because it allows
        one to emphasize the simplest, most reliable kinds of evidence instead
        of relying on complex mathematical things that few can even understand.

        Since it is impossible to hold two first principles, I accept what the
        Bible says about time and matter as fundamentally true and reject the
        pagan's principle even though it is the foundation of the Western
        system. Without Aristotle's foundation, I must question the basic
        definitions of matter that are founded on his principle. I can no
        longer imagine that mass, energy or time are independent attributes of
        matter. Someone could say, we measure these things as independent.
        NO, YOU BELIEVE that energy or time is a separate characteristic of
        matter. Matter or light can have energetic properties, but no one has
        ever found a separate entity called energy except in mathematical
        formulas that are founded on Aristotle's Conjecture. Whatever time
        is, no one has ever measured it apart from matter or measured an
        interval of nothing. [The idea that empty space stretches out time and
        light, cosmological expansion, is ludicrous. It is another of those
        irrational inventions to preserve the first principle in its
        unquestioned status of a dogma.] In order to never question their
        first principle, scientists must conjure up a universe filled with 99%
        phantom, ghost like things that no one could see even if they existed.
        They write thousands of complex mathematical articles analyzing
        invisible ghost matter.

        Is there evidence that matter really is a relationship? It is all
        around us, but we are under the pagan Aristotle's little assumption,
        which makes it extremely difficult to think outside the box.
        Westerners rarely consider their first principle, although they
        unconsciously use it every day. We all learn to think of time as some
        sort of independent thing that we live our lives "in." Even before
        kindergarten, we learn to read clocks and regulate every aspect of our
        lives by them. Most of us no longer know how to think about change
        using the cycles of nature that God provided for that purpose and that
        all the ancients used. (Genesis 1:14)

        > However he makes a couple of claims here about evidence (engaging as
        > he does in his hopelessly muddled approach to evidence and logic –
        > using them when he thinks it suits him and rejecting them entirely
        > when he thinks it doesn't) that bear some comment.
        >
        > First, it is clear that Victor does not understand Astrophysics 101.
        > He says for example: `The THEORIES about the main sequence of stars -
        > are untested over time.' The main sequence is a static description
        > of the state of stars burning hydrogen in their core and relates the
        > properties of luminosity, surface temperature and mass. If Victor
        > disagrees with this, perhaps he can render an alternative >explanation
        > for undoubted existence of the main sequence band on the
        > luminosity/temperature diagram (the HR diagram).
        >
        > He also says: `a simple test for the main sequencing of red giants
        > into white dwarfs is actually available in history'. The evolution
        > of red giants into white dwarfs has nothing whatsoever to do with
        > main sequence so this statement is meaningless. We'll return to his
        > claims for Sirius in a moment.
        >
        You are correct. I should have written: "THEORIES about the
        disintegration of stars" since stars are said to change their position
        on the chart as they age. Hertzsprung & Russell arranged the stars by
        temperature and luminosity. The main sequence is a subset of the HR
        diagram. The diagram also has clusters of super giants like
        Betelgeuse and red giants like Aldebaran. On the hotter and dimmer
        side of the main sequence are the white dwarfs like Sirius B. Some
        theories assume that stars like the sun will leave the main sequence
        and become red giants and eventually white dwarfs. About half way
        down the below link is a speculative HR chart showing the changes to
        the sun when it leaves the main sequence. Notice the time line
        associated with the assumed eventual changes to our sun. It is this
        sort of timing that I question using the historical record of Sirius'
        change.

        http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/stars/stars.asp

        The below link shows how various kinds of stars are thought to leave
        the main sequence.

        http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/fall98/ast1002/section4/stardeath/fig10-=
        1/fig10-11.htm

        By the way, SN1987a's star (Sandulaek 69 202) was a blue B3 super
        giant. Such stars were not supposed to nova. After the event, the
        theories were adjusted without questioning the first principle - but
        there were difficulties doing this. Some have suggested that the star
        swallowed one or more companions just before it blew. This supposedly
        made it spin very rapidly and perhaps mix its onion layers so that it
        could blow. Of course, there is no way that we can tell if the core
        of a star is iron. The important thing to remember about all these
        theories is that they do not question that atoms are a fixture. They
        never imagine that atoms decay as a relationship over the ages and at
        varying rates in the core of dense objects.

        The Bible clearly agrees that stars change. Psalm 102:25 - 27 "Of old
        Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands.
        Even they will perish, but Thou dost endure; And all of them will
        wear out like a garment; Like clothing Thou wilt change them, and they
        will be changed. But Thou art the same, And Thy years will not come to
        an end." Yet it also says that stars do not go missing. Isaiah
        40:26 "Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars,
        The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by
        name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His
        power Not one of them is missing." He can cause things to continually
        change even while He preserves (continuously and intentionally
        maintains) in unbroken continuity the stars and the earth (Neh 9:6).
        So stars do change - wear out - but not one is missing. The Bible
        repeatedly mentions that God continually spreads out the heavens.
        This spreading is validated in the most distant photos of the
        primordial universe where galaxies are spreading out and naked
        primordial galaxies move in single file.

        Someone could say, even if this is true, this would be evidence
        against YECs. I claim that what the Bible says about time and matter
        contradicts the pagan's principle. The LMC, where SN1987a occurred,
        is connected to the Milky Way by a trail of hydrogen gas. Did God put
        that trail there to deceive? Did he make all the craters in the solar
        system to deceive us into thinking that they are ancient when they are
        not. NO! He is righteous - He does not deceive. The LMC was ejected
        from the milky way while our ancestors lived on a tinier earth. Even
        the pagans had stories of how the stars shot out and expanded from
        compact places - what we see in the Hubble deep fields. We no longer
        know how to think of the degeneration of time and matter like our
        ancestors because we force all the evidence to fit Aristotle's first
        principle.

        > He further says: `According the to H-R diagram it should take a
        > hundred thousand years for a red giant to collapse into a white
        > dwarf'. The HR diagram has nothing to say whatsoever about how long
        > it takes a red giant to evolve into a white dwarf. That is not
        > something that anyone can deduce by inspection of an HR diagram. The
        > time taken for how long this process takes is determined by
        > calculating how long the helium and heavier element fuel lasts and
        > this can be determined in exactly an analogous way to age on the main
        > sequence. It is a calculation based on the luminosity of the star
        > and the amount of fuel it contains that determines how long that
        > luminosity can be maintained at the known rate of fuel consumption.
        > The time spent as a red giant depends on the mass of the progenitor
        > star. The red giant eventually blows off its outer layers to form a
        > planetary nebula – these are very commonly observed - before becoming
        > a white dwarf.

        We have no way of knowing the properties of matter in the center of
        stars, so we must use Aristotle's assumption as the foundation for
        such calculations. Even if hydrogen were fusing into helium, silicon
        and iron, it should only occur in the core which is forever out of
        reach of even the best instruments. The Homestake mine and other
        neutrino experiments were only able to detect about a third of the
        expected "neutrinos" from the sun. Strangely the neutrino flux seems
        to vary over the years and no one knows if this is due to changes in
        the sun or the "neutrinos" from cosmic rays. Some theorize that the
        shortage of solar neutrinos is because solar fusion is lower than
        expected. Others explain that neutrinos can transform and that is why
        they are not detected. A 15 second burst was detected in two neutrino
        experiments about twenty hours before SN1987a was visible. Theories
        of how stars function are based more on mathematics and assumptions
        than unambiguous evidence.

        You say there is not enough time - for Sirius to transform - but you
        use the ideas of time based on Aristotle. In the original languages,
        the Bible makes it plain that ancient time was long. All the ancients
        thought ancient time was long. The ancients longed to experience the
        time of the patriarchs when people lived interminably long. The
        Babylonians recorded the period of Sirius [Kaksidi] or [Kakshisha -
        the dog that leads] as 27 years. (About half the modern full cycle)
        Yet it is supposed to be currently approaching us at about ten miles a
        second. It was called Mullikud by the Akkadians - the Star dog - or
        Kalbu - the dog - in Chaldean times and its hieroglyph was a dog in
        Egypt. In China Lang Hoo or Tseen Lang - the heavenly wolf.

        >
        > Turning now to his claims about Sirius. He correctly says Sirius is
        > a binary. Sirius is very close to us at 8.6 light years distance.
        > It consists of a closely coupled binary system with a period of
        > rotation of 51 years and an average separation of 20AU (1AU is the
        > distance between earth and the sun). Sirius A is an A1 main sequence
        > star with about 2.2 times the mass of the sun. Its luminosity is 24
        > times that of the sun and its surface temperature is about 10,000
        > Kelvin, making it a white star. Sirius B, which was discovered in
        > 1862, is a white dwarf, with a carbon and oxygen core and hydrogen
        > atmosphere. It currently has about the same mass as the sun, but a
        > diameter less than that of the earth. Its absolute luminosity is
        > only 1/40th of that of the sun (its luminosity in visible wavelengths
        > is 1/400th that of the sun as much of its radiation is in the UV and
        > soft X-ray), and its surface temperature is 25,000 Kelvin, which
        > means that it is a brighter X-ray source than Sirius A. Its
        > progenitor was considerably more massive than Sirius A – it was a B5
        > star of about 7 solar masses with about 1000 times the luminosity of
        > the sun, a surface temperature of 17,000 Kelvin and a life on the
        > main sequence of about 225 million years. Analysis of both Sirius A
        > and Sirius B indicate an age since formation of both stars of about
        > 250 million years.
        >
        > So what about these claims that Sirius has changed colour in the last
        > 2000 years? Well first of all, it's quite inconceivable that Sirius
        > B was a red giant in historical times and has evolved to a white
        > dwarf since. The reason for this is not so much that there is not
        > enough time for that to happen (although that does come into it) but
        > more tellingly that there is no sign of any envelope of nebular
        > matter around Sirius B which would be expected (since the star would
        > have lost about six stellar masses of material in the late red giant
        > phase) and its current temperature, luminosity and radius are
        > consistent with it having been a white dwarf for at least 10 million
        > years and are not consistent with recent shedding of the envelope
        > (see Holberg et al, ApJ 497, 935). There has been some suggestion
        > that Sirius B lost part of its mass to Sirius A by lobe filling which
        > could explain a more rapid transition from red giant to white dwarf,
        > but this doesn't seem to hold water since the mass of Sirius A is
        > inconsistent with substantial mass transfer (although some mass
        > transfer has taken place as Sirius A is particularly rich in heavier
        > elements) and the suggestion also fails to alleviate the objection
        > around the fact that the current physical properties of Sirius B
        > would take at least ten million years to develop. So we can discount
        > the idea that Sirius B was a red giant in historical times.

        You say there is not enough time - for Sirius to transform - but you
        use the ideas of time based on Aristotle. In the original languages,
        the Bible makes it plain that ancient time was long. All the ancients
        thought ancient time was long. The ancients longed to experience the
        time of the patriarchs when people lived interminably long. The
        Babylonians recorded the period of Sirius [Kaksidi] or [Kakshisha -
        the dog that leads] as 27 years. (About half the modern full cycle)
        Yet it is supposed to be currently approaching us at about ten miles a
        second. It was called Mullikud by the Akkadians - the Star dog - or
        Kalbu - the dog - in Chaldean times and its hieroglyph was a dog in
        Egypt. In China Lang Hoo or Tseen Lang - the heavenly wolf.

        One translation of Homer is:
        Terrific glory. For his burning breath
        Taints the red air with fevers, plagues and death,

        You are arguing with Schiaparelli that Sirius could not have changed
        color - but the Arabs called it Barakish - of a thousand colors - so
        something surely changed. Tennyson wrote,
        the fiery Sirius alters hue And bickers into red and emerald;

        I disagree that the Chinese say it was always white.
        "To its east there is a large star called Wolf. If Wolf shows horns
        (jiao) or changes colour, then there will be much banditry [4]."
        "If the Wolf Star ...... shows rays or horns, or shakes about, or
        changes colour, then there will be war; if it shows great brilliance,
        then weapons will be sought after ...... if its colour is yellow and
        smooth, there will be joy; if the colour is black, there will be
        sorrow [5]."

        A Chinese writer of the last dynasty wrote: "The ancient people
        invariably said Sirius was red, but to-day it is white, the reason is
        not known."

        I cannot explain the fact that the ancient Babylonians measured the
        synodic period of Sirius in relation to more distant stars. I can
        only say these are evidences against the first principle that the
        Bible denies.

        >
        > If that's the case then why are there all these reports of Sirius as
        > a red star? It's a good question. Well first of all, it's very
        > important to note that although there are several descriptions of
        > Sirius as red from the classical and Egyptian worlds, ALL reliable
        > reports of the colour of Sirius from China are consistent with it
        > being white (Jiang, Chin Astron Astrophys 17, 223 (1998) and Tang,
        > Nature 352, 25 (1991) ). So what possible explanations for the red
        > reports are there?
        >
        > 1 D'Antona and Mazzitelli, Nature, 275, 726 (1978) and Bruhweiler,
        > Kondo and Sion, Nature 324, 235 (1986) suggest that transient events
        > (either accretion of mass from Sirius A or instability in the
        > hydrogen atmosphere) can trigger a transient event in Sirius B that
        > makes Sirius B have the appearance of a red giant temporarily. Such
        > a transient event would last about 250 years but would probably lead
        > to ejection of material. We do not observe this material which is
        > evidence against this idea.
        >
        > 2 Sirius could have been reddened in the past by the transient
        > passage of an intervening interstellar cloud such as a Bok globule (a
        > Bok globule is a collapsing cloud of gas on its way to becoming a
        > star). There are many references to this possibility. The transit
        > time for a Bok globule would be of the order of a 1000 years.
        >

        I have never seen evidence for new stars forming - only the expansion
        of highly dense primordial stars into diffuse stars and galaxies.

        > 3 Colour shift owing to telluric extinction or reddening in the
        > earth's atmosphere at low elevations (within 5 degrees above the
        > horizon) has been suggested. See for example Whittet, Mon Not R
        > Astronom Soc 310, 355 – 359 (1999). Whittet shows that under these
        > conditions Sirius has similar appearance (visibility and colour) to
        > red giants such as Arcturus, Aldebaran, Betelgeuse, Pollux and
        > Antares. Since Sirius had greatest attention owing to its
        > astrological significance in Egyptian and classical cultures, it
        > would receive most attention at heliacal rising and setting
        > (Ceragioli, J Hist Astron 27, 93 (1996) ). This overwhelming
        > attention to Sirius at low elevation in Western (but not Far Eastern)
        > cultures can explain the description of Sirius as red in these
        > classical cultures but not in Chinese culture.
        >
        > As for Victor's nonsense about other red giants, they all lie in the
        > B-V range of 1 to 2 (ie red). And Castor is actually a multiple star
        > (it consists of at least six components) that has never been viewed
        > as red giant, but always as a yellow–white star. So why does Victor
        > introduce it?
        >

        Sorry - my mistake. I looked it up in Toomer's translation of Ptolemy
        and it is the other twin, Pollux, that he lists as red.

        > So, to conclude, Victor shows a severe lack of understanding of the
        > astrophysics he would criticize and his historical conundrums have
        > perfectly natural explanations.

        >
        > Alec
        > http://www.evolutionpages.com

        Atmospherics will not solve a problem that is evident over centuries
        and over wide areas of the world. The ancients were certainly aware
        that the atmosphere changes the color of things near the horizon
        (moon, sun, planets and stars). They would surely have distinguished
        such horizon color changes since Sirius is only about 17 degrees
        south of the earth's equator so it should be visible above the horizon
        all the way to the arctic circle.

        I am sorry to read that you are quitting the discussion. I am not
        trying to make you angry - just to stimulate your thinking about what
        the Bible says is the FIRST (most important) thing to know about our
        era. This is indeed very important since modern people learn science
        as a system without examining its historical foundations. This little
        idea is so prevalent that even fundamentalist Christians use the pagan
        fundamentals to think about earth-history. There is a simple answer
        to the whole puzzle - that is to take what the Bible says about matter
        as fundamentally true - not to read the Bible from the perspective of
        the Western system.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.