Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TiredJim · 07-14-2003, 01:54 PM

I was reading http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulle...&threadid=7709 and this struck me as an interesting claim.

Quote:

The Slow Sun: Everything in our solar system is spinning: thousands of heavenly bodies rotating, revolving, orbiting. And atheists currently agree that complex functioning systems cannot appear by chance in one single step (we�ll call this the honeymoon period of atheism). So today�s atheist assumes that a natural process formed the solar system from some swirling nebula, which had been spinning with a huge amount of momentum. They suppose that this swirling nebula condensed into our solar system in which the Sun holds 99.98% of our system�s mass. But then the Sun should possess 99.98% of the spin energy of the solar system. But it doesn�t. It has less than one percent. If atheists had a true commitment to natural process, every one of them would attribute great weight to this most massive feature of our solar system which goes against natural origins, but they generally ignore it. For by natural origins, the law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum would have the Sun spinning hundreds of times faster than its current rate.

Atheists can�t even stop the publication of the Bible, and now they�re trying to find a way to stop the Sun from turning. (I can�t claim they lack zeal.) That is, they must find a natural process that could stop the Sun from spinning, and yet, leave the rest of the solar system merrily on its way. If that is not physically possible, if a naturally condensing Sun�s lack of spin cannot be accounted for by any laws of physics, then that alone is another piece of evidence which itself proves that we have a Creator. The Sun�s spin is a showstopper for atheists. Welcome to the No Spin Zone of the solar system.

So, atheist desperation has launched its own spin, because in this showdown, they must somehow slow the Sun down. They look frantically for a solar brake. And unconstrained by reason or physical laws, they can always come up with something� Well, let�s not count that one. (Aliens again.) So, they keep looking. And they speculate, conjecture, imagine, and dream (all of which is valid). But the best they can do is hope that somehow the Sun reached out to the planets, grabbed onto them, and slowed itself down by speeding them up. But the Sun�s mass compares to the planets as a 499-pound ball compares to a one-pounder. If such an object were spinning in space and tried to slow itself down by magnetically grabbing onto a one-pound ball spinning with it, the most it could do is pull that ball into itself, it simply lacks the mechanisms necessary to transfer its spin into the one pound object floating along with it. For the planets themselves are falling through empty space with the Sun, and it is pulling them along! The atheist hope is tantamount to telling a paratrooper, �instead of using a parachute, just pull up on your shoes as you�re falling to slow yourself down.�

If the Sun coalesced from a spinning nebula, natural law predicts it would have almost all of the spin of our system. And since almost all the rotational force lies outside of the Sun, it therefore could not have coalesced from a spinning nebula. This is one way to show that Newton rightly criticized Descartes for proclaiming this swirling gas cloud theory. Isaac Newton in a letter to a Richard Bentley wrote, �The Cartesian [gas cloud] hypothesis� is plainly erroneous� saying of the solar system that, �I know of no reason [for the motion of the planets] but because the Author of the system thought it convenient.� And all atheists should agree, if there is no natural cause that could slow down the Sun from its original speed and leave the rest of the system spinning as it does, then only a supernatural Creator can account for the solar system.

Anyone know anything about this? The science part, not the bullshit theist arrogance.

Jesse · 07-14-2003, 02:20 PM

Their vague comments about the "spin energy" presumably refer to the sun's angular momentum...a search on angular momentum and the sun turned up this page:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-436/preface.htm

Quote:

Speculation concerning the origin of the solar system is as old as man himself. The "modern" era of such speculation is generally considered to have begun with Copernicus, who showed that Earth is not the center of the universe. The major cosmogonic hypotheses of this early period were those of Laplace and Kant. Although differing from each other in detail, their hypotheses were similar in that both men envisioned the planets as having formed from material that was spun off the Sun. These hypotheses were discarded a little over a century after they were advanced when it was realized that the Sun, which has about 99 percent of the mass in the solar system has only about 2 percent of the angular momentum of the solar system. The principal reason these hypotheses fell into disfavor was that, at the time of this observational discovery, there was no known mechanism that would remove angular momentum from the Sun thereby making it hard to understand why the planets have so much angular momentum relative to the Sun if they were originally part of the Sun.

The next generation of cosmogonic hypotheses was directed specifically at the problem of the angular momentum distribution in the solar system. Again, there were variations among the hypotheses, but they all tended to rely on singular or catastrophic events such as a supernova or a stellar collision, to account for the solar system. Most of these "catastrophic" hypotheses which were popular in the first few decades of this century, have subsequently been shown to be physically untenable or, at the very least, highly unlikely.

Most current hypotheses concerning the origin of the solar system are in many ways similar to the early hypotheses of Laplace and Kant. They envision the planets forming from a nebula of gas and dust which is thought to have surrounded the Sun early in its [x] history. This return to a "nebular" hypothesis has come about primarily for two reasons. First, unlike our counterparts of the previous century, we now know of several reasonable physical mechanisms that could have removed angular momentum from the Sun. Combining observational studies of the rotational velocities of stars on the main sequence (stars of various masses which, like the Sun, are deriving their luminous energy mainly from conversion of hydrogen into helium) with theoretical models of stellar structure, a consistent picture emerges which indicates that the Sun has very little angular momentum because most of it was removed by the solar wind, a plasma that continuously flows off the Sun's surface.

A search on "angular momentum", "sun", and "solar wind" turned up this:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec15.html

Quote:

Protoplanet Hypothesis:

The current working model for the formation of the Solar System is called the protoplanet hypothesis. It incorporates many of the components of the nebular hypothesis, but adds some new aspects from modern knowledge of fluids and states of matter.

...

The current explanation for the fact that most of the angular momentum is in the outer planets is that, by some mechanism, the Sun has lost angular momentum. The mechanism of choice is magnetic braking.

The early Sun had a much heavier flow of solar winds particles. Many of the particles in the solar wind are charged, and are effected by the laws of motion as well as electromagnetic forces. As the solar wind leaves the solar surface, they are "dragged'' by the magnetic field, which in turn slows down the Sun's rotation.

You can find more pages if you add "magnetic braking" as a search term, but basically it seems the page you quoted was just uninformed nonsense, as usual for "God of the gaps"-type explanations.

Shadowy Man · 07-14-2003, 02:27 PM

Yes, there is an angular momentum "problem".

However, stellar system formation is still an area of active research. In fact, in light of the recently found planets, we know even less than we thought we did about 15 years ago.

Give it time. There have been many unexplained phenomenon that have gone on to be explained.

As Jesse said, if the original poster was implying that this must prove the existence of a god (and I'm hard pressed to find any reason why it should), then it is just a "god of the gaps" argument, and should be treated as such.

I wonder if the poster knows about the Solar Neutrino Problem. Oh wait, we solved that one recently.

Jesse · 07-14-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
Give it time. There have been many unexplained phenomenon that have gone on to be explained.

The pages above suggest they already have at least a tentative explanation, in terms of the angular momentum being removed by magnetic braking. Not sure if they've done any computer simulations or have any way to experimentally test this idea, though.

Azathoth · 07-14-2003, 03:28 PM

But they were right on this point.

Quote:

Atheists can�t even stop the publication of the Bible...

The EAC should be ashamed of it's lack of progress on the bible issue.It's even in the charter.Article 42,if I remember correctly.

Quote:

...and the EAC will commit itself to stopping the publication of the book called the bible.In Darwin's name.[sacrifice goat here]

I may turn in my membership,if this keeps up.I've been toying with the idea of forming the Atheist People's Front.

JusticeMachine · 07-14-2003, 05:24 PM

If magnetic braking is true, why doesn't it slow down the rest of the planets?

Coragyps · 07-14-2003, 05:44 PM

I saw a brief bit in the magazine Sky and Telescope a year or so ago where they did one better than a computer simulation of magnetic braking - they actually measured it with one of the sattelites up there. Whether it was SOHO or another, I don't remember, but the article referred to a paper in one of the mainline astronomy journals. I've probably tossed that issue....

Quote:

If magnetic braking is true, why doesn't it slow down the rest of the planets?

Probably because planets don't emit a charged "wind" for the field to get dragged through.

edit: satellites. I was just seeing if you were paying attention.

Coragyps · 07-14-2003, 06:15 PM

This may be the very paper I had in mind.

Shadowy Man · 07-14-2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesse
The pages above suggest they already have at least a tentative explanation, in terms of the angular momentum being removed by magnetic braking. Not sure if they've done any computer simulations or have any way to experimentally test this idea, though.

It'd be interesting to see if anyone has done the calculations for any of the stellar systems found. Granted they only have lower limits for the planets, but that will put a lower limit on the angular momentum of said planet and thus would know if these other systems also have an angular momentum "problem".

Actually now that I think about it, the sin(i) in the planet's mass may cancel out the sin(i) in the star's rotation velocity (if measurable).

Shadowy Man · 07-14-2003, 08:53 PM

Oh, and just remember we don't really understand the Sun that much... even though it is the closest star in the sky and we can get highly detailed measurements of it.

Just ask a solar physicist what causes the 11 year solar cycle.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-14-2003, 02:27 PM	#3
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Yes, there is an angular momentum "problem". However, stellar system formation is still an area of active research. In fact, in light of the recently found planets, we know even less than we thought we did about 15 years ago. Give it time. There have been many unexplained phenomenon that have gone on to be explained. As Jesse said, if the original poster was implying that this must prove the existence of a god (and I'm hard pressed to find any reason why it should), then it is just a "god of the gaps" argument, and should be treated as such. I wonder if the poster knows about the Solar Neutrino Problem. Oh wait, we solved that one recently.

07-14-2003, 05:24 PM	#6
JusticeMachine Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Arizona Posts: 403	If magnetic braking is true, why doesn't it slow down the rest of the planets?

07-14-2003, 06:15 PM	#8
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	This may be the very paper I had in mind.

07-14-2003, 08:53 PM	#10
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Oh, and just remember we don't really understand the Sun that much... even though it is the closest star in the sky and we can get highly detailed measurements of it. Just ask a solar physicist what causes the 11 year solar cycle.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.