|
|
|
|
Our Shrinking Sun
Mercury's scorched, torched surface is an evidence of a nova of the Sun, and of Little Brother's approach very close to our Sun. Tumultuous tides increase as the inverse of the cube of the distance. This means that "L. B." would create 8 x as many tides at 30,000,000 miles than at 60,000,000 miles. At 15,000,000 miles Little Brother would create 64 x as much internal tidal turmoil as at 60,000,000 miles. At 7,500,000 miles, the turmoil would be 512 times as much, if not more, as at 60,000,000 miles. Thus, the greater the Sun's internal turmoil, evidently the closer "L. B." approached before "passing Go" (passing perihelion and turning around to return to remote, frigid, dark space.)
It's approach was a close enough flyby to create gigantic mutual, reciprocal tides. Novas in our galaxy have a wide range of sizes; Little Brother's approach apparently converted the Sun into a modest nova by Milky Way standards. Otherwise, Mercury's crust would have been melted down completely. And there would have been a partial meltdown of the crusts of Venus and the Earth.
Mercury's average distance from the Sun is 36,000,000 miles. That of Venus today is 67,200,000 miles, and the Earth's distance is 92,960,000 miles. Based on the principle of the inverse of the distance squared, it can be calculated how much heat, square mile to square mile, Venus and the Earth received.
Venus received about 29% as much radiation as Mercury, and the Earth 15%. For temperatures to rise to 3,000° F. on Venus, and begin melting its crust, there would have to have been sustained temperatures of 12,000° F. on Mercury. The crust of Venus does not appear to haveeen torched that hot, to 3,000° F. However, it's oceans and atmospheres did experience a runaway greenhouse effect of severe proportions. Venus boiled. It was a nova below the average in luminosity compared to other novae of the Milky Way galaxy in this era. But while that outburst was below average for the Milky Way, nevertheless it was very hot for nearby Mercury, for nearby Venus, and to a lesser extent, even the Earth.
For this reason we conclude that the Sun's nova was moderate-sized compared to those elsewhere in our galaxy that have been sized.
If this figure was correct, and represented a uniform rate of decrease, then the Sun would have been twice its present size about 1,200,000 years ago, and would shrink to a point in the next 100,000 years. SUCH A CONCLUSION IS PATENTLY ABSURD, BUT IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE SUN EXPANDS AND CONTRACTS PERIODICALLY, POSSIBLY OVER HUNDREDS OF YEARS. Fl (Emphasis ours.)
Both of these paragraphs are extremely interesting. The first paragraph is interesting for its data; the second paragraph for its emotional reaction. Gradualists in astronomy have considered the Sun's level of radiation to have been virtually unchanged over the last four billion years. Perhaps the data indicates otherwise. Thus the second paragraph quoted above contains an emotional, faith statement, a recommended conclusion for which neither logic nor data exists. That means that this piece of evidence devastates the dogma of gradualism. Indeed.
First, Moore and Hunt view this decrease to be an arithmetical rate decrease. Certainly it is a decay gradient decline, a type far more common in science. A decay curve means that the Sun's historical shrinkage in the past was even faster, but its future shrinkage should be somewhat slower than their faith statement proposes. This is an additional bit of bad news for traditionalism and the status quo.
Next, they imply that this new (1979) data on solar shrinkage possibly could be correct, but possibly could also be incorrect. Then they make their arithmetical projection and pronounce their result to be "patently absurd" but without laying a foundation for their rejection. Theirs is a faith statement (in gradualism) and is not really worthy of the balance of their work. It is logical that the Sun is cooling down, and hence is contracting, just like many other fires on Earth within our experience.
The data indicates the Sun is both cooling and contracting. There is no sine curve in the data. Were a sine curve detected, it could indicate a cylicism and "oscillations." But no sine curve is present. Thus, logic, data and theory all unite to affirm that this steady shrinkage of the Sun as very, very real, even inexorable, inevitable, pitiless.
The problem is that were the Sun, twice the present diameter, regardless of whether 50,000 or 100,000 years ago, gradualistic dogma is tortured. The pain shows up in their statement allegation that "such a conclusion is patently absurd."F2
The next problem is that Moore and Hunt supply the notion that there must be "solar oscillations" but they do not identify who made the suggestion, or on what basis. Perhaps the suggestion was offered by an unnamed scientist who was one of themselves. It is very difficult to interview an unnamed scientist. Their performance again is a reiteration of their "faith" in tradition, in gradualist dogma.
Third, the authors of this fine atlas of the Solar System present this data in a two-page presentation. It happens to be last in order among the 20 fine two-page presentations on various characteristics of the Sun. The last is certainly not the least insignificance.
Whatever its position in the sequence, evidence of a shrinking Sun is one of the most important of issues for a cosmologist. This data also points to a past nova of the Sun, and subsidence thereof, a subsidence still ongoing. Furthermore, because a new equilibrium for the Sun's diameter is not yet achieved, it suggests recentness, as astronomers measure time. Finally, and interestingly, perhaps humorously, Moore and Hunt entitle this two-page spread "Solar Oscillations." There is no data indicating oscillations. There is no logic indicating oscillations. There is no sine curve indicating oscillations. This heading combines the features of both the red herring and a faith statement. It is not a scientific spin that they give to this very significant data.
The discs of the Sun and the Moon happen to be nearly identical in size. Today, the Moon's disc is minutely larger. But in 1567, astronomers in Rome noticed and recorded that there was a full eclipse of the Sun. During the height of this eclipse, the Moon was surrounded by a tiny ring of light. This report seems innocuous enough, but it may be cosmologically important.
This late medieval observation may be additional support for a shrinking Sun. The Sun in this decade is shrinking l20 feet per day, which is 8.3 miles per year. It is a shrinkage of 830 miles per century on a diameter that today (1995) is 865,150 miles. The year 1567 was 4.28 centuries ago. We can expect therefore that the Sun's diameter then was at least 3,552 miles greater than at this point in time.F3
In this decade, the diameter of the Sun is 865,l50 miles. In 1576, its diameter was some 868,700+ miles. That seemingly slight difference calculates at 0.4l%. This amount could be the difference as to whether the Moon's disc, or the Sun's disc was larger at that time. It was generous of Moore and Hunt to list this information, even though it is contrary to their faith statements on solar oscillations.
Moore and Hunt close the subject with a note of their uncertainty.
More to the point, a recent nova of the Sun "should not be ruled out." A typical nova, many light years distant, will flare suddenly, from invisibility to flare status in a period of 48 hours or even less. Then the nova will gradually lose luminosity over a period of several months, or even a year or two. Novas in our galaxy are too distant to determine whether the nova diminishes in diameter but since they are cooling, such a conclusion is logical. Projecting backward at today's "decay rate," how big would the Sun have been in diameter 700,000 years ago? Projecting arithmetically, the Sun supposedly would have expanded out as far as Mercury's perihelion. And it would have swallowed up both the asteroid Icarus and tiny Mercury. Employing a more realistic decay curve, Mercury would have been swallowed up even more recently.
Obviously the Sun did not swallow up either Mercury, some 700,000 years ago, or Icarus, yet nearer to the Sun, (17,709,000 miles.) At the arithmetical rate of shrinkage, Icarus would have been swallowed by an immensely hot Sun some 450,000 years ago. Hence, obviously something has happened to the Sun, restructuring its functions sometime within the last 450,000 years, and probably, within the last 100,000 years.
At a contraction rate arithmetically of 8.3 miles per year, the Sun's diameter 25,000 years ago would have been 10,075,000 miles, not the 865,150 miles as it is now. Probably it was more. And the Sun would have radiated more vigorously into the surrounding space. But the Sun could not have lost this amount of mass due to radiation and the solar wind. Therefore, we must search for a better answer, such as a cooling, shrinking from a "recent" nova.
This whole scenario, however it is analyzed and concluded, is uncomfortable for dogmatists of gradualism. Their tradition, or dogma is that the Sun radiated at its present rate 4.6 billion years ago, supposedly a given.
Story # 14 is that the Sun has experienced a nova, and recently in astronomical parlance. That nova torched the surface of nearby Mercury. It boiled the surface of nearby Venus. It toasted the surface of the Earth, warming its oceans. It even warmed the surface of Mars, some 140,000,000 miles distant.
Story # 14 of our 70-story skyscraper of cosmology is "the shrinking Sun." The Sun is shrinking at the current rate of 8.3 miles per years, or 120 feet per day. Its rate of shrinking follows a decay curve.
In past times, the annual shrinking was faster, and in future eras it will be slower. The present rate of shrinkage was established in a report in 1979, based on data from the Greenwich Observatory, London. The data included measurements, both latitudinal and longitudinal, of the Sun's diameter dating back into the 1930's.
A very detailed study of that data might yield a slope to the decay curve. If the slope of the decay curve were known, it would assist us in understanding how recently was the Sun's last nova, which possibly was its only nova.
We are now on the ironwork of the 14th story of a planned 70-story skyscraper. We are 20% of the way to the apex. The scenario of the cosmology of our Solar System, a catastrophic cosmology, presents a view that is increasingly awesome.
Novas (novae) means "new star." In ancient times, when such an outburst brought a star's luminosity up to naked-eye visibility, it seemed like a new star. In Chinese star annals, extending back to 400 B.C.E., they were called "guest stars." Novas often are thought to be changes in hot sub dwarf stars, stars of high temperatures but small size. In our case of the Sun, we are considering a nova of an average-sized mainline star.
More than 100 novas have been recorded in our galaxy, a number that is increasing by an average of two per year. Many escape detection. It is estimated that 25 or 30 appear every year in the Milky Way.
One of the brightest was observed by Tycho Brahe, in November, 1574. It became as bright as Venus. It gradually faded from Tycho's view and disappeared by the spring of 1576. It was visible for 17 months. Another, "Kepler's star in Ophiuchus, in 1604 rivaled Jupiter in brightness, and remained visible for 18 months.
Figure 4 illustrates the light curve of a typical nova, Nova Puppis, 1942. Figure 5 illustrates the subsidence of three additional novas of our century, Nova Aquilae (1918), Nova Persei (1901) and Nova Geminorum (1912). Their flaring to maximum brightness happened within a time span of two days. Their subsidence required months.
Brightness in a nova can increase as much as 60,000 times. These four novas (novae) were still radiating vigorously 150 days after their flaring. With cooling and dimming comes a contraction of diameters.
Our interpretation of the shrinkage of the diameter of the Sun is that the Sun's nova was "recent," tens of thousands of years ago. The Sun is still in the recovering stage, still slowly cooling and hence slowly contracting. "Slow recovery" of course is a relative term; it means a few days to doctors, and a few years to economists and politicians. But its meaning is much longer in cosmology and gradualistic geology.
Our estimate of the Sun's last nova, which is based on only two categories of data, is less than 25,000 years. One of those categories is the shrinkage of the Sun. The second category is discussed in Chapter 12.
Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? Job 38:33
Conclusion
The Sun had a nova, due to a very close flyby of Little Brother. As a result, the nova subsided in luminosity and the Sun began to shrink. Today it still is shrinking, at a current rate of some 10% of its diameter in 20,000 years. This is 86,000 miles of the Sun's 860,000-mile diameter. This is an arithmetical projection; a decay curve projection into history yields a faster contraction for the past.
Were the cosmos gradualistic in nature, some 30,000 years ago, the Sun would have to have had a diameter of 1,100,000 miles. But it is catastrophic. A nova happened to the Sun, possibly 30,000 years ago, possibly less. In an age of gradualist dogma and conformity, the topic of the "Nova of the Sun" is not politically correct. So is the shrinking Sun and the torching of Mercury's surface. However, this trio of topics is scientifically correct.
At some time in our galaxy within the last 100,000 years, and very possibly within the last 25,000 years, one of the novas occurring in the Milky Way was that of the Sun. The Sun was experiencing a very close flyby, a very fast assault by Little Brother. Tides in the solar plasma went completely out of control, both in volume and in direction.
At some point in this rising chaos, the surface of the Sun became incapable of radiating away energy fast enough. The Sun flared suddenly. A surrounding shell of luminous scorching plasma developed, possibly 10,000,000 miles from the Sun. It allowed for an increase in the rate of export of solar energy. The Sun's luminosity increased.
How much it increased in luminosity is not understood. Some novas in our galaxy increase in luminosity a thousand fold, and come to a peak in 48 hours. Then decline sets in, but they can still be tracked often for months, occasionally for a couple of years.
This nova torched the surface of Mercury. The oceans of Venus were boiled away into its atmosphere. The surface of the Earth also was toasted. Even the surface of Mars became warm. While the Earth's oceans were warmed, they were not warmed enough to create a global serving of clam chowder. However, our oceans did release massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, creating a primordial greenhouse effect.
The torching of the crust of Mercury is the 13th story of our celestial cosmology. The nova of the Sun is the 14th story. The ongoing shrinkage of the Sun's diameter is the l5th level. As one goes upward, even during construction the view gets better and better.
The rate of shrinkage of the Sun, 43,000 feet per year, or 8.3 miles, is relatively small. And it is typical of a nova nearing the end of its decay. That the Sun's nova was "recent", astronomically speaking, is certain. How recently it occurred is not yet certain. But chapter 12 has some further light to shed as to how recent was the Sun's last nova.
PREVIEW; In Chapter 9 we deal with two more levels of evidence of the Sun's recent nova, and of a close flyby of a super-planet, Little Brother.
F2 Ibid. "If this figure was correct, and represented a uniform rate of decrease, then the Sun would have been twice its present size about 100,000 years ago, and would shrink to a point in the next 100,000 years". Such a conclusion is patently absurd, but it was suggested that the Sun expands and contract periodically, possibly over hundreds of years. Nowhere do Moore and Hunt indicate who decried this data as "patently absurd" and nowhere do they indicate who it was that suggested periodic expansions of the Sun, for which no data or logic exists.
F3 The Sun's diameter is 864,000 miles. A shrinkage of 3,544 miles for the Sun's diameter over the last 4.27 centuries is a shrinkage of 0.41%.
F4 Moore, Patrick & Garry Hunt, loc. cit.
The Recent Organization of The Solar System by
Patten & Windsor
<http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenRecOrgSolSys/>
|
|
|
|
|
