Thanks for responding.
I don't hear Senior Research Physicist from Stanford University on Art Bell all the time. Michio Kaku a teacher of Theoretical Physicist used to go on Art Bell, but I do not believe he is a research physicist.
Difficulties Mount
The sun contains 99.86% of all the mass of the solar system. Yet the sun contains only 1.9% of the angular momentum. The nine planets contain 98.1%. (This was known in the time of Laplace a century ago.) There is no plausible explanation that would support a solar origin of the planets. James Jeans (1877-1946) pointed out that the outer planets are far larger than the inner ones. (Jupiter is 5,750 times as massive as Mercury, 2,958 times as massive as Mars, etc.) This is also a difficulty with current theories. Other observations seem to raise even more provocative enigmas concerning our planetary history:
There are three pairs of rapid-spin rates among our planets: Mars and Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, and Neptune and Uranus, are each within 3% of each other. Why?
Earth and Mars have virtually identical spin axis tilts (about 23.5°). Why? (From angular momentum and orbital calculations, it would seem that three pairs of these planets may have been brought here from elsewhere.)
Why does Mars have 93% of its craters in one hemisphere and only 7% in the other? It would appear that over 80% occurred within a single half-hour!
The Shrinking Sun
Has the size of the sun changed over the years? John A. Eddy (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boomazian (a mathematician with S. Ross Co. in Boston) seem to have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet/hour.3 The data Eddy and Boomazian examined spanned a 400-year period of solar observation, so that this shrinkage of the sun, though small, is apparently continual. If the sun was larger in the past than it is now by 0.1% per century, a creationist, who may believe that the world was created approximately six thousand years ago, has very little to worry about: the sun would have been only 6% larger at creation than it is now. However, if the rate of change of the solar radius remained constant, 100 thousand years ago the sun would have been twice the size it is now, and it is hard to imagine that any life could exist under such altered conditions. Yet 100 thousand years is a minuscule amount of time when dealing with traditional evolutionary time scales.4
Furthermore, assuming (by uniformitarian-type reasoning) that the rate of shrinkage has not changed with time, then the surface of the sun would have touched the surface of the earth at a time in the past equal to approximately 20 million B.C. And, since the time scales commonly assumed for organic evolution range from 500 million years to 2,000 million years,5 it would appear especially amazing since all of the evolutionary development, except the last 20 million years, took place on a planet that was inside the sun!
bondserv - find the rest of this article at:
http://khouse.org/articles/technical/20020601-418.htmlI might add, that you are suggesting tha sun was 8 percent larger 8,000 years ago -- well within the usual constraints for creationism -- but also well inside a significant ice age.
Sun size data should be taken with a grain of salt. It could be oscillating at a very slow rate (in the millennia range). If the sun has done nothing but shrink in recorded history, then what would that imply about observations of solar eclipses well B.C.? Wouldn't they all be annular eclipses? A young sun with its present mass but as large as the earth's orbit also might not be dense enough to burn.