Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Ford v. Wainwright

2014-12-03T15:28:39Z

CastorPollox: though a quote, grammatical conventions need not be heeded when not warranted

In '''''Ford v. Wainwright''''', 477 U.S. 399, 409-410 (1986), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that:

:"The Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from carrying out a sentence of death upon a prisoner who is insane."

This prohibition applies despite a prisoner's earlier competency to be held responsible for committing a crime and to be tried for it. The Court held that prior findings of competency do not foreclose a prisoner from proving he is incompetent to be executed because of his present mental condition.

Under this rule, once a prisoner makes the requisite preliminary showing that his current mental state would bar his execution, the [[Eighth Amendment]], applicable to the States under the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], entitles him to an adjudication to determine his condition.
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:Eighth Amendment]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-03-20T17:51:58Z

CastorPollox: Gravitational waves have been proven and found.

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref group="note">See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]].</ref> The falsehood of Relativity is also useful to liberals in pulling impressionable students away from the truth of the [[Bible]]. Here is a list of 50 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.
#Computer simulations based on the theory of relativity predict far more [[black holes]] than are observed.<ref>"The ratio of the mass of black holes in galaxy centers to the rest of the matter in galaxies is larger in the simulations than in the real universe." [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biggest-black-hole-blast-ever Scientific American November 28, 2012]</ref> Indeed, it is debatable whether [[black holes]] exist at all.
#The [[orbital eccentricity]] of the [[Moon]]'s orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref>
#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#The [[Sun]] is a '''''perfect''''' sphere - "the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation."<ref>http://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/65491-why-is-the-sun-so-round</ref>
#[[Quantum entanglement]] near the [[event horizon]] of a [[black hole]] -- with one particle of the pair on one side, and other particle of the pair on the other side -- defies the Theory of Relativity.<ref>https://simonsfoundation.org/features/science-news/mathematics-and-physical-science/alice-and-bob-meet-the-wall-of-fire/</ref> Relativity is a mathematical theory that cannot permit any exceptions, just as arithmetic falls part if 2 times 2 is ever not equal to 4.
#"Celestial signals defy Einstein. Strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than Einstein believed."<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129500.700-breaking-relativity-celestial-signals-defy-einstein.html ''New Scientist'' (Jan. 2, 2014)]</ref>
#A physics article published in 2014 states that "general relativity, which describes gravity at low energies precisely, break[s] down at high energies."<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3720</ref>
#Subatomic particles with mass have a speed observed to be as fast as the speed of light ("we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos"<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682</ref>), which contradicts Relativity because the [[Lorentz factor]] is then infinite.<ref>http://www.hindustantimes.com/Roll-over-Einstein-Law-of-physics-challenged/Article1-749189.aspx - note that a similar observation of faster-than-light speeds was also made in 2007 (with a larger margin of error).</ref><ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-science-neutrinos-light-idUSTRE7AH0T720111118</ref> [[Neutrino]]s were observed to travel at the speed of light by an independent experiment also: "Their neutrinos traveled at precisely the speed of light, not faster or slower."<ref>http://junkscience.com/2012/03/21/no-you-still-cant-go-faster-than-light/</ref>
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by [[Earth]] ("flybys"). During the gravity assists from Earth, both the Galileo spacecraft and the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft experienced a change in velocity different than that predicted by General Relativity.<ref>http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19088/1/98-0296.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen, nonexistent "[[dark matter]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873</ref> "Dark matter mysteriously missing around sun. Theories say neighborhood should be filled with it, but new study shows otherwise."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47101905</ref>
#The acceleration in the expansion of the [[universe]] confounds Relativity, and unseen "[[dark energy]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the [[perihelion]] of [[Mercury]] show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<ref group="note">In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed [[precession]] of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of Relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming Relativity.</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref group="note">If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.</ref>
#The universe shortly after its creation, when [[Quantum mechanics|quantum]] effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref group="note">Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite spending hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. While these tax dollars were not necessarily "wasted", the lack of results indicate that scientists need to revisit their hypothesis.
#Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref group="note">For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]]. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref group="note">Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref group="note">Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”</ref> This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
#Relativity requires different values for the [[inertia]] of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the [[speed of light]] must have mass zero, so it must have [[momentum]] zero. But the laws of [[electrodynamics]] require that light have nonzero momentum.
#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref group="note">In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.) This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity." [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html] Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor. It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function. Energy is conserved.</ref>
#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the [[tangent]]ial [[velocity]] is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
#Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html</ref>
#The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because ''both'' twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.<ref group="note">Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be ''de minimis''.</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the [[aether (science)|aether]] does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]]. However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector have an inverse. Time (formally: movement forward in time) cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].
#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].
#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal]</ref>
#Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."<ref>http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping1.pdf</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504223</ref>
#Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279</ref>
#General Relativity predicts how the gravitational fields of the Sun and Moon generate ocean tides. However, in the summer of 2009, tides along the East Coast of the United States were higher than expected. <ref>http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/hightides/</ref>
#The supermassive black hole within the [[Andromeda galaxy]] puzzled researchers by increasing in brightness by a factor of 100 in 2006.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0525/Two-giant-black-holes-surprise-scientists-with-unexpected-behavior.</ref>
#Scientists are unable to explain a June 2012 cluster of [[earthquake]]s in [[Ireland]].<ref>http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0607/1224317443871.html</ref>
#Apparently, the equations of General Relativity do not apply to the motions of extra-solar planets. Scientists are studying Gamma Cephei, a system of two stars and one known planet. When data from the Hubble Space telescope was analyzed, it was found that the observed orbital arrangement should not be stable.<ref>http://stardate.org/radio/program/gamma-cephei-iv</ref>
#General Relativity fails to predict the Allais Effect. The Christian researcher and economist Maurice Allais noted a sudden change in the [[orientation]] of a swinging [[Foucault's Pendulum|pendulum]] during the 1959 [[solar eclipse]].<ref>http://www.allais.info/allaisdox.htm</ref> Many subsequent attempts to duplicate the result have been ''reported as'' failures, consistent with an concerted effort to suppress knowledge about the phenomenon.
#The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two electrons in a closed system can exist in the same quantum state and if one electron changes all others must compensate. As the universe is a closed system when one electron changes state so must all others, even if they are thousands of light years apart.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2012/feb/28/1.</ref>
(add to list)

''For a discussion of attempts to rebut some of these counterarguments, see [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

== See also ==
*[[Theory of relativity]]
*[[General Theory of Relativity]]
*[[Special Theory of Relativity]]
*[[E=mc²]]
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== Notes ==
<references group="note"/>
== References ==

{{Reflist}}
{{Counterexamples}}
{{Relativity}}
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:science]]

NATO Small Arms Ammunition

2013-05-05T05:53:21Z

CastorPollox:

'''NATO Small Arms Ammunition''' is firearms ammunition used within [[NATO]]. Some of these loads include:
*.22 cartridge: The smallest round in common use within NATO countries. Used in training and cadet forces. Not an operational round.
*9 mm cartridge: A low velocity round used in [[pistols]] and [[sub-machine guns]]. Probably the most familiar round to the public.
*5.56 cartridge; The most used round in NATO Armed Forces. A relatively new round introduced in the 1960's with the [[M-16]], itself the second most produced assault rifle after the Kalashnikov [[AK 47]].
*7.62 cartridge "Full Metal Jacket": An older far more powerful assault rife - Light/medium/general purpose machine gun round. Was largely replaced with the 5.56 during the 1980s/90s, but still the most common round for medium and GP machine guns.
*0.5 cal cartridge. The largest small arms round commonly used in NATO Armed Forces. Used in the [[M2 Browning]] heavy machine gun and similar weapons.

Talk:NATO Small Arms Amunition.

2013-05-05T05:49:38Z

CastorPollox: Page not needed.

NATO Small Arms Ammunition

2013-05-05T05:48:29Z

CastorPollox: Created page with "'''NATO Small Arms Ammunition''' is firearms ammunition used within NATO. The list below is by no means comprehensive. *.22 cartridge: The smallest round in common use with..."

'''NATO Small Arms Ammunition''' is firearms ammunition used within [[NATO]].
The list below is by no means comprehensive.

*.22 cartridge: The smallest round in common use within NATO countries. Used in training and cadet forces. Not an operational round.
*9 mm cartridge: A low velocity round used in [[pistols]] and [[sub-machine guns]]. Probably the most familiar round to the public.
*5.56 cartridge; The most used round in NATO Armed Forces. A relatively new round introduced in the 1960's with the [[M-16]], itself the second most produced assault rifle after the Kalashnikov [[AK 47]].
*7.62 cartridge "Full Metal Jacket": An older far more powerful assault rife - Light/medium/general purpose machine gun round. Was largely replaced with the 5.56 during the 1980s/90s, but still the most common round for medium and GP machine guns.
*0.5 cal cartridge. The largest small arms round commonly used in NATO Armed Forces. Used in the [[M2 Browning]] heavy machine gun and similar weapons.

NATO Small Arms Amunition.

2013-05-05T05:48:14Z

CastorPollox: R/d to correct titled page

#redirect [[NATO Small Arms Ammunition]]

Talk:Ole

2012-12-27T15:22:32Z

CastorPollox: Not working

This page is a protected broken redirect. [[User:CastorPollox|CastorPollox]] 10:22, 27 December 2012 (EST)

User:CastorPollox

2012-12-20T21:34:52Z

CastorPollox: Less is more

Blue is better

User talk:CastorPollox

2012-12-20T21:34:18Z

CastorPollox: Minor

Hello. [[User:CastorPollox|CastorPollox]] 16:34, 20 December 2012 (EST)

Sun

2012-12-20T20:36:20Z

CastorPollox:

{{Planet
|image=Moooghj.jpg
|caption=The Sun. The small blue dot in the upper-right corner is Earth.
|primary=Galaxy
|periapsis=27,600 ly<ref name=Trapp>Trapp, Andrew. "[http://www.geocities.com/dreamer-71/timescales.html Timescales in Open, Flat, and Very Large Closed Universes]." ''From Now Until the End of Time...'' Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>
|apoapsis=31,800 ly<ref name=apo>Author unknown. "[http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=apogalacticon Entry for 'Apogalacticon']." <http://everything2.com/> July 22, 2001. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>
|semimajor=29,700 ly<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
|eccentricity=0.07<ref name=apo/>
|sidereal=250,000,000 a
|orbitspeed=217 km/s
|inclination=25°
|reference=galactic plane
|siderealday = 25 da<ref name=Goddard>Williams, David R. "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html Sun Fact Sheet]." ''Goddard Space Flight Center ([[NASA]])'', September 1, 2004. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>
|solarday=27.2753 da<ref name=SunFact>Harvey, Samantha. "[http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sun&Display=Facts&System=Metric Sun Facts and Figures]." ''[[NASA]]'', April 26, 2007. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref><ref name=note1>This day is actually a synodic day and is the period for the same point on the Sun's equator to appear again directly facing the [[Earth]].</ref>
|mass=1.9891 * 1030 kg (332,848.616 * earth)<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=SunFact/>
|density=1408 kg/m³<ref name=Goddard/>
|surfacegrav=274.0 m/s² (27.94 ''g'')<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=SunFact/>
|escapespeed=618.02 km/s<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=SunFact/>
|meanradius=696,000 km<ref name=Goddard/>
|equatorradius=695,500 km<ref name=SunFact/>
|surfacearea=6,087,799,000,000 km² (11,935.176 * earth)<ref name=SunFact/>
|mintemp=4000 K<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=Britannica>"[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110144/Sun Entry for 'Sun']." ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref>
|meantemp=5777 K<ref name=SunFact/>
|maxtemp=8000 K<ref name=Britannica/>
|composition=92.1% [[hydrogen]], 7.8% [[helium]]<ref name=SunFact/>
|color=Yellow-orange
|pmdm=3.5 * 1029<ref name=Humphreys>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields]." ''Creation Research Society Quarterly'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.</ref><ref name=est>Estimated</ref>
|cmdm=4.65 * 1029<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mdt=19000 a<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mhl=13170 a<ref name=calc/>
}}The '''Sun''', also known by the name '''Sol''' (either from the Greek, ''helios'' or from the [[Latin]] word ''sol'') is a [[Star|yellow dwarf star]] of spectral type G2V. The eight [[planet]]s, including Earth, orbit the sun, as do countless other small objects.<ref name=Britannica/>

== Nomenclature ==
The sun a classified as spectral class G2 V. The "G" means it is a moderately warm yellow star. The "2" means it is in the third hottest group of stars within type "G" (the scale runs from 0 to 9). The "V" is a Roman numeral for 5 and indicates the Sun's size. A size V star is a dwarf, main sequence star. The sun is in the 95th percentile in its class by size and mass of other stars in its immediate region.

== History ==
=== Biblical ===
The [[Bible]] says:{{Bible quote|God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=16}}

This took place during the fourth [[Days of creation|day]] of Creation Week. More to the point, the sun is a part of God's creation, not a "god" in its own right.

=== Mythological ===
In contrast, virtually every other civilization has regarded the sun as one of many gods, a position that is not hard to understand given it's intended role and it's prominence in the daytime sky. The Egyptians called the sun '''Ra''' or '''Re''', a deity whom, they said, created the world.<ref name=touregypt>Dunn, Jimmy. "[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/re.htm Re (Ra) and Re-Horakhty]." <http://www.touregypt.net/>. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> The Egyptians also called the sun-disk '''Aten''', and for a brief period (during the reign of [[Pharaoh]] [[Amenhotep IV]] or '''Akhenaten'''), actually worshipped Aten as the one and only god of the universe.<ref name=touregypt2>Dunn, Jimmy. "[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/aten.htm The Egyptian God Aten Before and After Akhenaten]." <http://www.touregypt.net/>. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> In [[Babylonia]] and [[Assyria]] the sun was called '''Shamash''', a god who, because he could see everything happening on earth, was also associated with truth and justice.<ref name=MacKenzie>MacKenzie, Donald A. "[http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/mba/mba17.htm Chapter XI: The Golden Age of Babylonia]." ''Myths of Babylonia and Assyria'', IndyPublish.com (ISBN 1421962977), December 30, 2005, pp. 240-259. Accessed March 5, 2008, at <http://www.sacred-texts.com/></ref> The Greeks at first regarded ''Helios'' as a son of heaven and earth but later came to associate the sun with their god of truth, '''Apollo'''. According to the [[Apache Creation Story]], [[Creator]], the One Who Lives Above, created the sun by singing it into existence after he had created the Girl-Without-Parents.<ref>Welker, Glenn. "[http://www.indians.org/welker/creation.htm Apache Creation Story]" <Indians.org>, August 12, 2004. Accessed March 6, 2008.</ref>

The most common theme in all the sun-worship cults is the association of the sun with truth and justice personified. The second most common theme is the regarding of the sun as the creator.

=== Secular ===
According to the [[materialism|materialist]] and [[uniformitarianism|uniformitarian]] view, what eventually became the solar system initially existed as a large, rotating [[cloud]] of [[dust]] and [[gas]], composed of hydrogen and helium produced in the [[Big Bang theory|Big Bang]] as well as small amounts of heavier [[element]]s. Around 4.57 billion years ago, the cloud began to contract, perhaps as a result of a [[shock wave]] from a nearby [[supernova]]. [[Inertia]] caused the rotating cloud to flatten into a disk. Most of the mass concentrated in the middle, and began to heat up. Eventually, the kinetic energy of the hydrogen was sufficient to overcome the [[electromagnetic]] repulsion between the protons, and fusion began. The resulting solar wind helped clear away much of the material which had not coalesced into planets or other orbiting bodies.<ref>"[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_plan_1.html Cosmic Evolution, Epoch 4: Planetary Evolution]." ''[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind]'', Wright Center, [[Tufts University]]. Accessed March 6, 2008.</ref> The Sun is most likely a third-generation star, meaning it is in the latest generation.

Eventually, in a few billion years the sun will have expended most of it's Hydrogen, causing the outer shell to push outward and cool, turning into a Red giant, and Helium begins to be fused into Carbon. At this stage, Venus and Mercury will have been consumed by the now Red-Giant star, and possibly earth as well. Once the helium has been fused into carbon, there will not be enough heat to continue fusion to even heavier elements (as in larger stars), the core will collapse and the outer shell will be pushed off and form a Planetary Nebula, with a White Dwarf, and eventually a Black Dwarf at it's heart. <ref>http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-lifecycles.html</ref>

== Orbital characteristics and galactic relationships ==
The sun orbits the galactic center at a distance less than half the total estimated radius of the [[galaxy]], and in an orbit inclined about 25° from the galactic plane. The eccentricity of the sun's orbit is 0.07, about average in comparison to the eccentricities of the [[planet]]s and [[dwarf planet]]s of the [[solar system]]. At present the sun lies 50 light years north of the galactic plane and is continuing to climb north of it as it approaches [[apsis|perigalacticon]].<ref name=LeDrew>LeDrew, Glenn. "[http://ottawa.rasc.ca/astronotes/1997/an9701p3.html Our Galactic Home]." ''AstroNotes'', 1997. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>

==Properties and Characteristics==
The sun accounts for 99.8% of our solar system's total mass. With a mass of 2 x 1030 kg, an atmospheric temperature of about 5800 K, and a [[luminosity]] of 4x1020 megawatts, the sun is by far the most extraordinary object during the day-time sky and of our solar system.
However within our Milky Way [[galaxy]] it is one of probably 100 billion of the same types of stars.

By mass, it is composed of 72% [[hydrogen]], 26% [[helium]] and 2% trace elements of [[oxygen]], [[carbon]], [[neon]], [[nitrogen]], [[magnesium]], [[iron]], and [[silicon]].<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/sun_worldbook.html World Book Encyclopedia @ NASA]</ref>

Core temperatures reach 15,000,000 K (K = Kelvin) while the sun's surface or ''photosphere'' temperature is 5,800 K. When the photosphere is hit by the heat of the sun the temperature drops to a minimum of 4,000 K. It then continues further until it encounters a thin layer of [[atmosphere]] roughly 10,000 kilometers deep called the ''chromosphere'' and reverses trend to rise to 8,000 K. Even further is another part of the sun's total atmosphere called the ''corona'' that blends in with interplanetary space.

=== Relationship to Earth ===
The sun produces a vast amount of [[energy]], only a tiny fraction of which the Earth receives, yet this small amount powers practically all [[life]] (and [[industry]]) on Earth, either directly or indirectly. It is also the main force controlling Earth's [[climate]] and [[weather]]. [[Plant]]s and other organisms capture the energy of the sun in a process called [[photosynthesis]]. Animals and other [[heterotroph]]s obtain food and energy from consuming plants or from consuming [[animal]]s which have consumed the plants. Only a few microscopic organisms obtain energy directly from chemical reactions.

The tremendous light and heat that the sun releases, and the delicate position that the [[Earth]] occupies in relation to the sun, combine to make the sun an integral part of sustaining life.

[[Human]] civilization, too, is dependent on the sun. Much of humanity's [[industry|industrial]] energy needs are obtained through the combustion of [[fossil fuel]]s, the remains of dead plants and animals. Uneven heating of the atmosphere provides [[wind power]]. Also, the sun evaporates water from lower-lying bodies of water; this then falls as rain and flows back down channels, providing hydroelectric power. On a limited basis, [[solar power]] is directly utilized. [[Geothermal energy]] and [[nuclear energy]] are examples of energy sources to which the Sun does not directly contribute.

=== Energy production and transport ===
The sun produces its energy through [[nuclear fusion]].<ref name=sunspot1>"[http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/research2.html Sunspots: Modern Research, Page 2]." ''The Exploratorium'', 1998. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> The favored model for energy production relies on tremendous pressures resulting from the Sun's own mass to overcome the natural electrostatic repulsive forces that normally keep hydrogen atoms from coming together and fusing.<ref name=Britannica/>

The model for hydrogen fusion includes these three equations:

<math>{}^0_{-1}\!e + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^2_1\!\mbox{H} + {}^0_0\!\nu + \mbox{1.44 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^2_1\!\mbox{H} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^3_2\!\mbox{He} + \gamma + \mbox{5.49 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^3_2\!\mbox{He} + {}^3_2\!\mbox{He} \to {}^4_2\!\mbox{He}+ {}^1_1\!\mbox{H}+ {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} + \mbox{12.85 MeV}</math>

Here, <math>e</math> represents an electron, H means [[hydrogen]], He means [[helium]], <math>\gamma</math> represents a gamma photon, <math>\nu</math> represents a small, uncharged particle called a [[neutrino]] that is not supposed to have any proper mass, and the energy unit eV, or ''electron volt'', is the product of the charge on a single electron and the standard unit of electromotive force or electromotive potential.

The energy produced varies as the fourth power of the temperature--and at the temperatures thought to prevail in the sun's core, matter exists, not as ordinary matter with atomic nuclei and electrons, but as [[plasma]]--a form of super-hot matter in which atoms are totally denuded of their electrons.

The first equation above is assumed to be the rate-limiting step. The neutrinos produced should have an energy of 0.26 MeV--too little energy to be detectable by current technology. But processes occurring after this step ought to produce higher-energy neutrinos that ''would'' be detectable. Such neutrinos have been detected, but at a flux much smaller than predicted. This indicates that the presumed rates for these subsequent processes are higher than the true rates, or else the neutrinos produced somehow transform to a different type of neutrino that would be unobservable. That in turn would imply that neutrinos ''do'' have rest mass.<ref name=Britannica/>

According to current models, some of this energy is transferred to the surface by convection in the outer 20-30% of the body of the sun.<ref name=sunspot1/> [[Helium]] in this ''convective zone'' rises to or near the surface, releases its heat, and then sinks back to the center. Helium absorbs radiation more readily than does hydrogen, and for that reason the Sun is always getting marginally brighter with the passage of time.<ref name=Britannica/>

The remaining energy is transferred in the gamma photons, which must take a "random walk" to reach the corona of the sun. Current models suggest that the light generated by these processes takes 50 million years to reach the surface.<ref name=sunspot1/>

=== Sunspots ===
The earliest observations of sunspots might have been made in the fourth century BC by the Greeks. Chinese astronomical records dating back to 28 BC include descriptions of changing dark patches on the Sun that might have been sunspots.<ref name=sunspot2>"[http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/history.html Sunspots: History]." ''The Exploratorium'', 1998. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref>

[[Galileo Galilei]] in 1613 was the first astronomer to study sunspots in any detail. It was a revolutionary observation, and one that clashed greatly with Western man's ideas of the heavens, propounded chiefly by Aristotle, as a perfect, unblemished place.<ref name=sunspot2/><ref name=heavens>[[Paul]] describes a region called the "third heaven" as the actual "heaven" where [[God]] has His throne. See {{Bible ref|book=II_Corinthians|chap=12|verses=2}}. But the Bible was not yet readily available to laymen in Galileo's day, and Western man might naturally confuse God's heaven with the lesser "heaven" that we call "outer space" today.</ref>

An amateur astronomer, Heinrich Schwabe, was the first to note the ''sunspot cycle'' in 1843.<ref name=sunspotcycle>"[http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/research4.html The Sunspot Cycle]." ''The Exploratorium'', 1998. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> The sunspots are dark on account of their cooler temperature. This in turn is due to strong magenetic fields which allow the transport of heat via convective motion in the sun. At times these sunspots can be 50,000 miles in diameter and appear in two bands, one being north and the other south in the direction of the sun's equator.

Observations have also shown that the number and location of sunspots come and go in a semi-periodic 9.5 to 11-year solar cycles. At the start of this cycle they are about 30 degrees from the equator. Midway through, the cycle of the number of sunspots observed is maximum, usually about 15 degrees from the equator. Near the end of this on average 10.8-year cycle, the sunspots are very near the equator.<ref name=curious>"[http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/sun.php The Sun]." ''Curious about Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer'', Cornell University, October 18, 2007. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref><ref name=Maunder>"[http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderf/ Factors Affecting Global Temperature]." ''Ponder the Maunder''. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref>

=== The solar magnetosphere ===
The magnetosphere oscillates in synchrony with the sunspots in a twenty-two-year cycle. The current amplitude of that cycle is 3.5 * 1029 N-m-T. This amplitude has been decaying since creation, but relatively slowly, with a half-life of 13,170 Julian years. In fact, according to Humphreys<ref name=Humphreys/>, the sun's magnetic field has lost perhaps 25 percent of its strength since creation.

Measurements of the sun's magnetic dipole moment have not been exact enough to demonstrate whether the amplitude of the field's oscillations is constant or decaying. If those oscillations are in fact decaying, then the Sun cannot be a dynamo.<ref name=Humphreys/>

== Problems for uniformitarian theories posed by the sun ==
[[Uniformitarianism|Uniformitarians]] must admit that the sun continues to brighten as it continues to fuse hydrogen into helium. In fact, by uniformitarian estimates, the sun ought to be 40% brighter today than it was when the planets formed and 33% brighter than it was when life first formed (3.8 billion years ago by evolutionary assumptions). The Earth thus ought to be much hotter today than it once was--or rather, the Earth was much colder in the early days in which life has existed than it is today. The fossil record demonstrably does not bear this out.<ref name=Britannica/><ref name=Psarris>Psarris, Spike. ''Our Created Universe''. Seattle Creation Conference, 2007. Video presentation, 55 minutes.</ref> Uniformitarians answer that the Earth's atmosphere might be compensating for this increased brightness. (But these are often the same scientists who insist that industrial and transport-related introduction of [[carbon dioxide]] into Earth's atmosphere threatens to overheat the Earth, with potentially disastrous results.)

Uniformitarians have also had to admit that the sun rotates about 200 times more slowly than the [[nebula hypothesis]] would predict, simply on account of the contraction of the solar mass into its present volume. This violates of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. This "angular momentum" problem has been apparent for hundreds of years and remains unresolved to this day.<ref name=Psarris/>

The sun's equatorial plane is inclined 7.25° to the ecliptic. (See [[Earth]].) By the nebula hypothesis, that inclination should be zero. The errant inclination poses an especially acute problem for the orbit of [[Neptune]]. Uniformitarians have speculated that a collision with an even larger object knocked the sun off a true perpendicular to its present inclination--but no scientist has offered a convincing speculation as to what that object might be.<ref name=Psarris/>

Conventional astronomers, [[Carl Sagan]] among them, insist that our star is mediocre and unremarkable. Yet the G-type of star is relatively rare, and furthermore its mass and position in the galaxy lie within very narrow tolerances for the support of life. The sun is also a singular star, not part of a binary--also a rare finding--and is remarkably stable in its energy output. These facts combine to make the sun an unusually hospitable star for a planet to have life on it.<ref name=Psarris/>

Finally, the only reason that uniformitarians can cite for a great age of the sun is the apparent great age of the Earth.<ref name=Britannica/>. Astronomer John Eddy has frankly admitted that the sun itself gives no clue to any such tremendous age, and that the acceptance of a very young age of the sun, like the six-thousand-plus years calculated by [[James Ussher]], might logically follow from a modicum of new evidence:<ref name=Psarris/><ref name=Ussher>Eddy, John. Remarks at a seminar reported in ''Geotimes'', 23:18, September, 1978. Quoted in [[Larry Pierce|Pierce, Larry]], "The Forgotten Archbishop", in [[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pp. 891-2.</ref>{{cquote|There is no evidence based solely on solar observations, Eddy stated, that the Sun is 4.5-5 x 109 years old. "I suspect," he said, "that the sun is 4.5-5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop [[James Ussher|Ussher]]'s value for the age of the Earth and sun. I don't think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that."}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm Glossary]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Solarsystem}}

Sun

2012-12-20T20:35:12Z

CastorPollox: Copyedit

{{Planet
|image=Moooghj.jpg
|caption=The Sun. The small blue dot in the upper-right corner is Earth.
|primary=Galaxy
|periapsis=27,600 ly<ref name=Trapp>Trapp, Andrew. "[http://www.geocities.com/dreamer-71/timescales.html Timescales in Open, Flat, and Very Large Closed Universes]." ''From Now Until the End of Time...'' Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>
|apoapsis=31,800 ly<ref name=apo>Author unknown. "[http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=apogalacticon Entry for 'Apogalacticon']." <http://everything2.com/> July 22, 2001. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>
|semimajor=29,700 ly<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
|eccentricity=0.07<ref name=apo/>
|sidereal=250,000,000 a
|orbitspeed=217 km/s
|inclination=25°
|reference=galactic plane
|siderealday = 25 da<ref name=Goddard>Williams, David R. "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html Sun Fact Sheet]." ''Goddard Space Flight Center ([[NASA]])'', September 1, 2004. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>
|solarday=27.2753 da<ref name=SunFact>Harvey, Samantha. "[http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sun&Display=Facts&System=Metric Sun Facts and Figures]." ''[[NASA]]'', April 26, 2007. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref><ref name=note1>This day is actually a synodic day and is the period for the same point on the Sun's equator to appear again directly facing the [[Earth]].</ref>
|mass=1.9891 * 1030 kg (332,848.616 * earth)<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=SunFact/>
|density=1408 kg/m³<ref name=Goddard/>
|surfacegrav=274.0 m/s² (27.94 ''g'')<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=SunFact/>
|escapespeed=618.02 km/s<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=SunFact/>
|meanradius=696,000 km<ref name=Goddard/>
|equatorradius=695,500 km<ref name=SunFact/>
|surfacearea=6,087,799,000,000 km² (11,935.176 * earth)<ref name=SunFact/>
|mintemp=4000 K<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=Britannica>"[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110144/Sun Entry for 'Sun']." ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref>
|meantemp=5777 K<ref name=SunFact/>
|maxtemp=8000 K<ref name=Britannica/>
|composition=92.1% [[hydrogen]], 7.8% [[helium]]<ref name=SunFact/>
|color=Yellow-orange
|pmdm=3.5 * 1029<ref name=Humphreys>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields]." ''Creation Research Society Quarterly'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.</ref><ref name=est>Estimated</ref>
|cmdm=4.65 * 1029<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mdt=19000 a<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mhl=13170 a<ref name=calc/>
}}The '''Sun''', also known by the name '''Sol''' (either from the Greek, ''helios'' or from the [[Latin]] word ''sol'') is a [[Star|yellow dwarf star]] of spectral type G2V. The eight [[planet]]s, including Earth, orbit the Sun, as do countless other small objects.<ref name=Britannica/>

== Nomenclature ==
The sun a classified as spectral class G2 V. The "G" means it is a moderately warm yellow star. The "2" means it is in the third hottest group of stars within type "G" (the scale runs from 0 to 9). The "V" is a Roman numeral for 5 and indicates the Sun's size. A size V star is a dwarf, main sequence star. The sun is in the 95th percentile in its class by size and mass of other stars in its immediate region.

== History ==
=== Biblical ===
The [[Bible]] says:{{Bible quote|God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=16}}

This took place during the fourth [[Days of creation|day]] of Creation Week. More to the point, the sun is a part of God's creation, not a "god" in its own right.

=== Mythological ===
In contrast, virtually every other civilization has regarded the sun as one of many gods, a position that is not hard to understand given it's intended role and it's prominence in the daytime sky. The Egyptians called the sun '''Ra''' or '''Re''', a deity whom, they said, created the world.<ref name=touregypt>Dunn, Jimmy. "[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/re.htm Re (Ra) and Re-Horakhty]." <http://www.touregypt.net/>. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> The Egyptians also called the sun-disk '''Aten''', and for a brief period (during the reign of [[Pharaoh]] [[Amenhotep IV]] or '''Akhenaten'''), actually worshipped Aten as the one and only god of the universe.<ref name=touregypt2>Dunn, Jimmy. "[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/aten.htm The Egyptian God Aten Before and After Akhenaten]." <http://www.touregypt.net/>. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> In [[Babylonia]] and [[Assyria]] the sun was called '''Shamash''', a god who, because he could see everything happening on earth, was also associated with truth and justice.<ref name=MacKenzie>MacKenzie, Donald A. "[http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/mba/mba17.htm Chapter XI: The Golden Age of Babylonia]." ''Myths of Babylonia and Assyria'', IndyPublish.com (ISBN 1421962977), December 30, 2005, pp. 240-259. Accessed March 5, 2008, at <http://www.sacred-texts.com/></ref> The Greeks at first regarded ''Helios'' as a son of heaven and earth but later came to associate the sun with their god of truth, '''Apollo'''. According to the [[Apache Creation Story]], [[Creator]], the One Who Lives Above, created the sun by singing it into existence after he had created the Girl-Without-Parents.<ref>Welker, Glenn. "[http://www.indians.org/welker/creation.htm Apache Creation Story]" <Indians.org>, August 12, 2004. Accessed March 6, 2008.</ref>

The most common theme in all the sun-worship cults is the association of the sun with truth and justice personified. The second most common theme is the regarding of the sun as the creator.

=== Secular ===
According to the [[materialism|materialist]] and [[uniformitarianism|uniformitarian]] view, what eventually became the solar system initially existed as a large, rotating [[cloud]] of [[dust]] and [[gas]], composed of hydrogen and helium produced in the [[Big Bang theory|Big Bang]] as well as small amounts of heavier [[element]]s. Around 4.57 billion years ago, the cloud began to contract, perhaps as a result of a [[shock wave]] from a nearby [[supernova]]. [[Inertia]] caused the rotating cloud to flatten into a disk. Most of the mass concentrated in the middle, and began to heat up. Eventually, the kinetic energy of the hydrogen was sufficient to overcome the [[electromagnetic]] repulsion between the protons, and fusion began. The resulting solar wind helped clear away much of the material which had not coalesced into planets or other orbiting bodies.<ref>"[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_plan_1.html Cosmic Evolution, Epoch 4: Planetary Evolution]." ''[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind]'', Wright Center, [[Tufts University]]. Accessed March 6, 2008.</ref> The Sun is most likely a third-generation star, meaning it is in the latest generation.

Eventually, in a few billion years the sun will have expended most of it's Hydrogen, causing the outer shell to push outward and cool, turning into a Red giant, and Helium begins to be fused into Carbon. At this stage, Venus and Mercury will have been consumed by the now Red-Giant star, and possibly earth as well. Once the helium has been fused into carbon, there will not be enough heat to continue fusion to even heavier elements (as in larger stars), the core will collapse and the outer shell will be pushed off and form a Planetary Nebula, with a White Dwarf, and eventually a Black Dwarf at it's heart. <ref>http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-lifecycles.html</ref>

== Orbital characteristics and galactic relationships ==
The sun orbits the galactic center at a distance less than half the total estimated radius of the [[galaxy]], and in an orbit inclined about 25° from the galactic plane. The eccentricity of the sun's orbit is 0.07, about average in comparison to the eccentricities of the [[planet]]s and [[dwarf planet]]s of the [[solar system]]. At present the sun lies 50 light years north of the galactic plane and is continuing to climb north of it as it approaches [[apsis|perigalacticon]].<ref name=LeDrew>LeDrew, Glenn. "[http://ottawa.rasc.ca/astronotes/1997/an9701p3.html Our Galactic Home]." ''AstroNotes'', 1997. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>

==Properties and Characteristics==
The sun accounts for 99.8% of our solar system's total mass. With a mass of 2 x 1030 kg, an atmospheric temperature of about 5800 K, and a [[luminosity]] of 4x1020 megawatts, the sun is by far the most extraordinary object during the day-time sky and of our solar system.
However within our Milky Way [[galaxy]] it is one of probably 100 billion of the same types of stars.

By mass, it is composed of 72% [[hydrogen]], 26% [[helium]] and 2% trace elements of [[oxygen]], [[carbon]], [[neon]], [[nitrogen]], [[magnesium]], [[iron]], and [[silicon]].<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/sun_worldbook.html World Book Encyclopedia @ NASA]</ref>

Core temperatures reach 15,000,000 K (K = Kelvin) while the sun's surface or ''photosphere'' temperature is 5,800 K. When the photosphere is hit by the heat of the sun the temperature drops to a minimum of 4,000 K. It then continues further until it encounters a thin layer of [[atmosphere]] roughly 10,000 kilometers deep called the ''chromosphere'' and reverses trend to rise to 8,000 K. Even further is another part of the sun's total atmosphere called the ''corona'' that blends in with interplanetary space.

=== Relationship to Earth ===
The sun produces a vast amount of [[energy]], only a tiny fraction of which the Earth receives, yet this small amount powers practically all [[life]] (and [[industry]]) on Earth, either directly or indirectly. It is also the main force controlling Earth's [[climate]] and [[weather]]. [[Plant]]s and other organisms capture the energy of the sun in a process called [[photosynthesis]]. Animals and other [[heterotroph]]s obtain food and energy from consuming plants or from consuming [[animal]]s which have consumed the plants. Only a few microscopic organisms obtain energy directly from chemical reactions.

The tremendous light and heat that the sun releases, and the delicate position that the [[Earth]] occupies in relation to the sun, combine to make the sun an integral part of sustaining life.

[[Human]] civilization, too, is dependent on the sun. Much of humanity's [[industry|industrial]] energy needs are obtained through the combustion of [[fossil fuel]]s, the remains of dead plants and animals. Uneven heating of the atmosphere provides [[wind power]]. Also, the sun evaporates water from lower-lying bodies of water; this then falls as rain and flows back down channels, providing hydroelectric power. On a limited basis, [[solar power]] is directly utilized. [[Geothermal energy]] and [[nuclear energy]] are examples of energy sources to which the Sun does not directly contribute.

=== Energy production and transport ===
The sun produces its energy through [[nuclear fusion]].<ref name=sunspot1>"[http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/research2.html Sunspots: Modern Research, Page 2]." ''The Exploratorium'', 1998. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> The favored model for energy production relies on tremendous pressures resulting from the Sun's own mass to overcome the natural electrostatic repulsive forces that normally keep hydrogen atoms from coming together and fusing.<ref name=Britannica/>

The model for hydrogen fusion includes these three equations:

<math>{}^0_{-1}\!e + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^2_1\!\mbox{H} + {}^0_0\!\nu + \mbox{1.44 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^2_1\!\mbox{H} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^3_2\!\mbox{He} + \gamma + \mbox{5.49 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^3_2\!\mbox{He} + {}^3_2\!\mbox{He} \to {}^4_2\!\mbox{He}+ {}^1_1\!\mbox{H}+ {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} + \mbox{12.85 MeV}</math>

Here, <math>e</math> represents an electron, H means [[hydrogen]], He means [[helium]], <math>\gamma</math> represents a gamma photon, <math>\nu</math> represents a small, uncharged particle called a [[neutrino]] that is not supposed to have any proper mass, and the energy unit eV, or ''electron volt'', is the product of the charge on a single electron and the standard unit of electromotive force or electromotive potential.

The energy produced varies as the fourth power of the temperature--and at the temperatures thought to prevail in the sun's core, matter exists, not as ordinary matter with atomic nuclei and electrons, but as [[plasma]]--a form of super-hot matter in which atoms are totally denuded of their electrons.

The first equation above is assumed to be the rate-limiting step. The neutrinos produced should have an energy of 0.26 MeV--too little energy to be detectable by current technology. But processes occurring after this step ought to produce higher-energy neutrinos that ''would'' be detectable. Such neutrinos have been detected, but at a flux much smaller than predicted. This indicates that the presumed rates for these subsequent processes are higher than the true rates, or else the neutrinos produced somehow transform to a different type of neutrino that would be unobservable. That in turn would imply that neutrinos ''do'' have rest mass.<ref name=Britannica/>

According to current models, some of this energy is transferred to the surface by convection in the outer 20-30% of the body of the sun.<ref name=sunspot1/> [[Helium]] in this ''convective zone'' rises to or near the surface, releases its heat, and then sinks back to the center. Helium absorbs radiation more readily than does hydrogen, and for that reason the Sun is always getting marginally brighter with the passage of time.<ref name=Britannica/>

The remaining energy is transferred in the gamma photons, which must take a "random walk" to reach the corona of the sun. Current models suggest that the light generated by these processes takes 50 million years to reach the surface.<ref name=sunspot1/>

=== Sunspots ===
The earliest observations of sunspots might have been made in the fourth century BC by the Greeks. Chinese astronomical records dating back to 28 BC include descriptions of changing dark patches on the Sun that might have been sunspots.<ref name=sunspot2>"[http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/history.html Sunspots: History]." ''The Exploratorium'', 1998. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref>

[[Galileo Galilei]] in 1613 was the first astronomer to study sunspots in any detail. It was a revolutionary observation, and one that clashed greatly with Western man's ideas of the heavens, propounded chiefly by Aristotle, as a perfect, unblemished place.<ref name=sunspot2/><ref name=heavens>[[Paul]] describes a region called the "third heaven" as the actual "heaven" where [[God]] has His throne. See {{Bible ref|book=II_Corinthians|chap=12|verses=2}}. But the Bible was not yet readily available to laymen in Galileo's day, and Western man might naturally confuse God's heaven with the lesser "heaven" that we call "outer space" today.</ref>

An amateur astronomer, Heinrich Schwabe, was the first to note the ''sunspot cycle'' in 1843.<ref name=sunspotcycle>"[http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/research4.html The Sunspot Cycle]." ''The Exploratorium'', 1998. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> The sunspots are dark on account of their cooler temperature. This in turn is due to strong magenetic fields which allow the transport of heat via convective motion in the sun. At times these sunspots can be 50,000 miles in diameter and appear in two bands, one being north and the other south in the direction of the sun's equator.

Observations have also shown that the number and location of sunspots come and go in a semi-periodic 9.5 to 11-year solar cycles. At the start of this cycle they are about 30 degrees from the equator. Midway through, the cycle of the number of sunspots observed is maximum, usually about 15 degrees from the equator. Near the end of this on average 10.8-year cycle, the sunspots are very near the equator.<ref name=curious>"[http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/sun.php The Sun]." ''Curious about Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer'', Cornell University, October 18, 2007. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref><ref name=Maunder>"[http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderf/ Factors Affecting Global Temperature]." ''Ponder the Maunder''. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref>

=== The solar magnetosphere ===
The magnetosphere oscillates in synchrony with the sunspots in a twenty-two-year cycle. The current amplitude of that cycle is 3.5 * 1029 N-m-T. This amplitude has been decaying since creation, but relatively slowly, with a half-life of 13,170 Julian years. In fact, according to Humphreys<ref name=Humphreys/>, the sun's magnetic field has lost perhaps 25 percent of its strength since creation.

Measurements of the sun's magnetic dipole moment have not been exact enough to demonstrate whether the amplitude of the field's oscillations is constant or decaying. If those oscillations are in fact decaying, then the Sun cannot be a dynamo.<ref name=Humphreys/>

== Problems for uniformitarian theories posed by the sun ==
[[Uniformitarianism|Uniformitarians]] must admit that the sun continues to brighten as it continues to fuse hydrogen into helium. In fact, by uniformitarian estimates, the sun ought to be 40% brighter today than it was when the planets formed and 33% brighter than it was when life first formed (3.8 billion years ago by evolutionary assumptions). The Earth thus ought to be much hotter today than it once was--or rather, the Earth was much colder in the early days in which life has existed than it is today. The fossil record demonstrably does not bear this out.<ref name=Britannica/><ref name=Psarris>Psarris, Spike. ''Our Created Universe''. Seattle Creation Conference, 2007. Video presentation, 55 minutes.</ref> Uniformitarians answer that the Earth's atmosphere might be compensating for this increased brightness. (But these are often the same scientists who insist that industrial and transport-related introduction of [[carbon dioxide]] into Earth's atmosphere threatens to overheat the Earth, with potentially disastrous results.)

Uniformitarians have also had to admit that the sun rotates about 200 times more slowly than the [[nebula hypothesis]] would predict, simply on account of the contraction of the solar mass into its present volume. This violates of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. This "angular momentum" problem has been apparent for hundreds of years and remains unresolved to this day.<ref name=Psarris/>

The sun's equatorial plane is inclined 7.25° to the ecliptic. (See [[Earth]].) By the nebula hypothesis, that inclination should be zero. The errant inclination poses an especially acute problem for the orbit of [[Neptune]]. Uniformitarians have speculated that a collision with an even larger object knocked the sun off a true perpendicular to its present inclination--but no scientist has offered a convincing speculation as to what that object might be.<ref name=Psarris/>

Conventional astronomers, [[Carl Sagan]] among them, insist that our star is mediocre and unremarkable. Yet the G-type of star is relatively rare, and furthermore its mass and position in the galaxy lie within very narrow tolerances for the support of life. The sun is also a singular star, not part of a binary--also a rare finding--and is remarkably stable in its energy output. These facts combine to make the sun an unusually hospitable star for a planet to have life on it.<ref name=Psarris/>

Finally, the only reason that uniformitarians can cite for a great age of the sun is the apparent great age of the Earth.<ref name=Britannica/>. Astronomer John Eddy has frankly admitted that the sun itself gives no clue to any such tremendous age, and that the acceptance of a very young age of the sun, like the six-thousand-plus years calculated by [[James Ussher]], might logically follow from a modicum of new evidence:<ref name=Psarris/><ref name=Ussher>Eddy, John. Remarks at a seminar reported in ''Geotimes'', 23:18, September, 1978. Quoted in [[Larry Pierce|Pierce, Larry]], "The Forgotten Archbishop", in [[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pp. 891-2.</ref>{{cquote|There is no evidence based solely on solar observations, Eddy stated, that the Sun is 4.5-5 x 109 years old. "I suspect," he said, "that the sun is 4.5-5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop [[James Ussher|Ussher]]'s value for the age of the Earth and sun. I don't think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that."}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm Glossary]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Solarsystem}}

Star

2012-12-20T20:20:01Z

CastorPollox: Wikify

[[Image:Moooghj.jpg|300px|right]]'''Stars''' are extremely large, luminous bodies of gas. They are the most obvious features found in the [[universe]]. They are principally composed of [[hydrogen]] that is undergoing nuclear [[fusion]] to become [[helium]]. Our sun, ([[Sol]]), is the nearest star to Earth, at a distance averaging 93 million miles. The Earth orbits the sun in a period of approximately 365.25 days, and this defines the [[year]]. The diameter of the sun, which is a typical star, is about 870,000 miles and its power output is about 1026 watts. The temperature inside the sun is estimated to be in excess of ten million degrees, and this is hot enough for [[nuclear reactions]] to occur.

In Genesis, the stars were made in the fourth day<ref>[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Gen 1:14]</ref>, and their number is compared to the number of descendants of Abraham<ref>[Genesis 9-16 (Translated)|Gen 15:5]; an earlier count of the number of descendants of Abraham was the number of grains of dust of the Earth (Gen 13:16)</ref>.

The [[Bible]] implies that the number of stars is virtually countless<ref>[Jeremiah 27-34 (Translated)|Jeremiah 33:22]; similarly to Genesis, the number of descendants of David is compared to the number of stars and the number of grains of sand</ref>, but for many years this was not accepted. [[Hipparchus]] in 128 B.C. stated there were 1,026 stars in the sky. [[Kepler]] in 1600 A.D. did his own count and found the number to be 1,005. Today, thanks to telescopes (especially the [[Hubble Telescope]]) showing many stars previously too dim to be seen, the current estimate is 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (7*1025).<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey Star survey reaches 70 sextillion</ref>

==Measuring stellar positions==
=== Distances ===
The oldest method of measuring the distance from our solar system to a distant star is the parallax method. To use this method, astronomers measure the right ascension on the sky of the star at two times of the year, half a year apart. The two measurements will differ by a small angle with respect to the most distant stars in that region of the sky. Exactly half this angle is the ''parallax angle'', having symbol ''p''. This is the angle that the star makes with the [[sun]] and the position of the [[earth]] at a right angle with that star.<ref name=Britannica3>"[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-52809/star Star: Determining stellar distances]." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed 21 Apr. 2008</ref> The distance s of the star, in astronomical units (AU), is:

<math>\,\!s = \cot p</math>

In the range of the very small angles typically encountered, the cotangent of the angle measure (in radians) is very nearly equal to the reciprocal, and thus:

<math>\,\!s \approx \frac {180 \times 3600}{p \times \pi}</math>

where p is measured in seconds of arc.

The cotangent of one second (1/3600 of a degree) of arc is approximately 206,264.81. No parallax angle for any star will be larger than one second. Therefore astronomers initially defined a unit of stellar distance, the ''parsec'' (symbol pc), from this relationship. One parsec is the distance corresponding to a parallax angle of one second of arc. Hence:

<math>1 pc \approx 206,264.81 AU</math>

However, the error of measurement of parallax angle is 0.005 arc seconds, and beyond a distance of 100 parsecs, this error becomes significant. 700 stars are near enough to measure their distances directly by using parallax.<ref name=Britannica3/> To measure distances further out than this, astronomers typically use absolute and relative magnitudes, or they apply [[Hubble Law|Hubble's Law]] to the star's estimated [[redshift]].

=== Positions in sky ===
The most common system for describing the position of a star in the sky is the equatorial system. This system uses two coordinates:
# Right ascension on the sky, or the number of hours required for the earth to rotate before an observer can see the star at its highest point in the sky. The zero for right ascension is midnight on the day of the vernal equinox.<ref name=WeissteinRA>Weisstein, Eric W. "[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/RightAscension.html Right Ascension]." ''Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy'', 2007. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>
# Declination, or the north-south angle between the star and the celestial equator.<ref name=WeissteinD>Weisstein, Eric W. "[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Declination.html Declination]." ''Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy'', 2007. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

===Proper motion===
All stars move, but the most distant stars are considered "fixed" because their motion would be undetectable. The ''proper motion'' (symbol m) of any star is the angular velocity of its position across the sky. This describes the motion at right angles to the line of sight of the observer. To convert this to actual ''tangential velocity'', multiply the tangent of this angular velocity by the star's distance.

The motion ''in'' line of sight, or ''radial velocity'', is currently determined from spectral shift.

== Measuring stellar magnitudes ==
The visual magnitude system is defined as follows: a star of any given magnitude is about 2.512 times as bright as is a star of the next magnitude. [[Hipparchus]] devised the magnitude system, and [[Ptolemy]] refined it further. By convention, an arbitrary sample of the twenty brightest stars that they could observe were assigned to the first magnitude, and the stars that they could barely observe were assigned to the sixth. Sixth-magnitude stars are actually 100 times less bright than first-magnitude stars. Magnitude levels between these extremes are assigned on a logarithmic scale. Thus, given two stars of brightness l1 and l2, their magnitude difference (V2 - V1) relates to their respective brightnesses in this way:<ref name=Haworth>Haworth, David. "[http://www.stargazing.net/david/constel/magnitude.html Star Magnitudes]." ''[http://www.stargazing.net/david/index.html Observational Astronomy]'', 2003. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

<math>\,\!V_2 - V_1 = 2.5 \times \log \frac{l_1}{l_2}</math>

The ''absolute'' magnitude of any star is the visual magnitude that it would have if it were ten parsecs distant. To convert apparent magnitude V to actual magnitude M, use this formula:

<math>\,\!M = V + 5 \times \log \frac{s_0}{s}</math>

where s0 is the standard distance. This distance is ten parsecs, or about 2,062,650 AU.

Brightness declines with the square of distance, and squares correspond to doubling of logarithms. One must then multiply that result by 2.5 to stay within the magnitude scale.

== Stellar colors and spectra ==
The ''color'' of a star is objectively quantifiable. To determine color, astronomers view the star through a variety of colored filters and compute ''color indices'' as the differences in apparent magnitudes through the various filters. Stellar colors vary, in order from the coolest to the hottest, from red to yellow to white to blue-white to blue or violet. This is the same gamut of colors that a black body shows as its temperature rises.

In addition, each star has a unique ''spectrum'', which depends on the gases and other elements that it contains, and their distribution. A spectrum can serve two purposes:
# It can serve as a unique signature for the star, to distinguish it from other stars.
# It can provide information on the star's radial velocity vis-à-vis the earth.

To accomplish the latter, astronomers note the placement of various lines in the spectrum and then determine the star's likely constituent elements from the spacing of those lines. Lines that are out of ''place'' are shifted, either toward the blue or toward the red. Nearly all stellar spectra are shifted toward the red; this [[redshift]] indicates a recession, either of the star or of the part of space where the star resides.<ref>Some [[cosmology|cosmological]] models call for an expansion of space itself, not merely the matter in it. According to these models, a redshifted star is in a part of space that was still expanding as the incident light was generated.</ref>

=== Spectral Type ===
[[Image:Hertzsprung-Russell.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram]]
In the late nineteenth century, astronomers at the [[Harvard University]] observatory developed the first classification scheme for stellar spectra that would become known as the '''Harvard spectral classification'''. In 1924, Annie Jump Cannon<ref name=Cannon>"[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lifecycles/LC_main_p8.html Life Cycles of Stars]." ''Goddard Space Flight Center'', November 21, 2002. Accessed April 22, 2008.</ref> refined the classification from the original A-Q gamut to the familiar "OBAFGKM" gamut. Astronomers have since added classes to this range at the high end and the low.<ref name=Swinburne>"[http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/H/Harvard+Spectral+Classification Harvard Spectral Classification]." ''Study Astronomy Online at Swinburne University''. Accessed April 22, 2008.</ref><ref name=Seattle>Irizarry, David. "[http://www.seattleastro.org/webfoot/feb00/pg2.htm The Secrets of the Harvard Classification Revealed]." ''The Webfooted Astronomer'', Seattle Astronomical Society, February 2000. Accessed April 22, 2008.</ref>

The classic Harvard spectral classes are O, B, A, F, G, K, and M. Each of these has ten subclasses, varying from 0 to 9 in order of decreasing stellar temperature. Thus, for example, the next class after an F9 star is a G0 star. Recently astronomers recognized one class of stars hotter than the O stars (the very hot Wolf-Rayet stars) and three classes of stars (the N, R, and S stars) cooler than the M stars. (Some astronomers include the N and R stars in one class, the C stars, for the carbon compounds that their spectra exhibit). There is an additional spectral class for the smallest and dimmest stars (Class L), that still fuse hydrogen, although warmer [[brown dwarf|brown dwarfs]] also fall into this class (but referred to as L dwarfs instead of L stars). Cooler still methane dwarfs are classified as [[Brown_dwarf#Spectral_class_T|T dwarfs]].<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007arXiv0704.1522K</ref> A proposed spectral class Y has been suggested for the coolest brown dwarfs, which also have a different spectra from T class dwarfs.<ref>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0607305</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Class
! [[Temperature]]
! Color
! [[Element]]s
! Notes
|-
| W
| 106,000 K
| Violet
| Ionized [[helium]], [[carbon]], [[oxygen]], [[nitrogen]]
| Wolf-Rayet stars. Additional subclasses include WC (overabundant carbon and oxygen) and WN (overabundant nitrogen)
|-
| O
| 30,000 K
| Blue
| Ionized [[Helium]], [[nitrogen]], [[oxygen]]
| Weak Balmer lines ([[hydrogen]]) at higher subclasses.
|-
| B
| 13,000 K to 20,000 K
| Blue
| Neutral helium; ionized [[silicon]], oxygen and [[magnesium]].
| [[Hydrogen]] (Balmer lines) appear in strength
|-
| A
| 75,00 to 10,000 K
| Blue-white
| [[Hydrogen]], [[calcium]], [[helium]]
| Balmer lines dominant. K lines (calcium) now appearing.
|-
| F
| 7,000K to 9,000K
| White-yellow
| [[Hydrogen]], [[calcium]], [[iron]], [[manganese]], [[sodium]]
| Balmer lines weakening. K lines stronger.
|-
| G
| 5,200 to 6,000K
| Yellow
| [[Calcium]], [[hydrogen]], other [[metal]]s
| Balmer lines weaker still. K lines dominant. Metals now appearing.
|-
| K
| 4000K to 5100K
| Orange
| [[Calcium]], neutral metals, [[titanium oxide]]
|
|-
| M
| 3000K
| Red
| [[Titanium oxide]], [[iron iodide]]
| Strong molecular bands
|-
| N,R
| 2300K to 2600K
| Red
| [[Carbon]] compounds
|
|-
| S
| 2300K to 2600K
| Red
| [[Hydrogen]], [[zirconium oxide]]
|
|}

In the early twentieth century, astronomers Ejnar Hertzsprung and Henry Norris Russell prepared the first plot of stellar temperature as a function of luminosity, or brightness. Other astronomers have since prepared versions of the diagram showing absolute magnitude as a function of color. This diagram shows a "main sequence" of stars for which brightness declines as temperature increases, but also shows a "white dwarf" population of very hot but dim stars, and the population of giants and supergiants that are far brighter than their temperatures would indicate.<ref name=HR>"[http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/H/Hertzsprung-Russell+Diagram Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram]." ''Study Astronomy Online at Swinburne University''. Accessed April 22, 2008.</ref>

===Luminosity Class===

In addition to the spectral type, astronomers today add a ''luminosity class'', which varies from 0 to VII in order of decreasing brightness. This is known as the '''Yerkes spectral classification'''. This classification was first developed by astronomers William Wilson Morgan, Phillip C. Keenan and Edith Kellman at the [[Yerkes Observatory]] in 1943.<ref>Morgan, William Wilson; Keenan, Philip Childs; Kellman, Edith (1943), "An atlas of stellar spectra, with an outline of spectral classification", Chicago, Ill., The University of Chicago press</ref> Adding a luminosity classification added a second dimension to the single dimensional [[Harvard University|Harvard]] spectral sequence. Today the two classifications of temperature and luminosity is used to give the spectral sequence for a star.<ref>http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1973ARA%26A..11...29M&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=449aa1cc7c02014</ref> For example, the [[sun]]'s spectral type is G2 and its luminosity class is V (five).

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Luminosity Class
! Star Type
|-
| 0 - 0Ia - Ia0
| hypergiants
|-
| Ia - Iab - Ib
| [[Supergiant|supergiants]]
|-
| IIa - IIab - IIb
| bright giants
|-
| IIIa - IIIab - IIIb
| giants
|-
| IVa - IVab - IVb
| subgiants
|-
| Va - Vab - Vb
| main sequence stars (dwarfs)
|-
| VI
| subdwarfs
|-
| VII
| [[white dwarf|white dwarfs]]
|}

==Variable stars==

Some stars vary in brightness and are known as variable stars. The star [[Algol]] in the constellation of Perseus can drop from its normal magnitude of 2.3 to magnitude 3.5. This is now known to be caused by a dim companion star orbiting Algol, which occasionally passes between Algol and the Earth, blocking some of the light. Other variable stars vary in brightness due to actual variations in the luminosity of the star itself. The time taken from one maximum brightness to the next one is called the '''period'''. The most famous of the variable stars is delta Cepheus, the first-found member of the [[Cepheid]] group of variable stars. In 1908 [[Henrietta Swan Leavitt]] noticed that the variable stars in the [[Magellenic Clouds]] (two nearby galaxies in the [[Local Group]]) had a relationship between their period and their apparent brightness. At that time galaxies outside our own (the [[Milky Way]]) had been discovered, but it was not possible to measure the distances to them. It was soon realized that the variable stars in the Magellenic Cloud were of the Cepheid type. Since Cepheid variables also occur in our [[galaxy]] it was possible measure their distances and thus convert (using the inverse square law) Leavitt's relationship between apparent brightness and period to one of actual brightness and period. Once this formula was discovered, it became possible to apply to Cepheids of unknown distance. By observing their periods, their actual brightness can be calculated and, by the inverse square law, their distance. Through observations of Cepheids in [[globular cluster]]s (compact bunches of stars) in our galaxy it was shown that our galaxy is about 300,000 light-years in diameter.

== Energy production ==
[[Image:CNO_Cycle.png|300px|thumb|CNO cycle]]The [[Sun]], and stars as massive as the Sun or less massive, commonly use a [[nuclear fusion]] process called the '''proton-proton chain reaction''' to produce [[energy]]. A full description of that process appears [[Sun#Energy production and transport|here]].

In 1938 and 1989, two physicists, Carl F. von Weizsäcker<ref name=Weiz>Von Weizsäcker, Carl F. ''Physik. Zeitsch.'' 39:633, 1938.</ref> and Hans Bethe<ref name=Bethe>Bethe, Hans A. "[http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v55/i5/p434_1 Energy Production in Stars]." ''Physics Review'' 55(5):434-456, 1939. {{doi|10.1103/PhysRev.55.434}} Accessed June 27, 2008.</ref> independently proposed a [[nuclear fusion]] process, the '''Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen cycle''', by which stars more massive than the [[sun]] produce energy. In this process, stars convert [[hydrogen]] to [[helium]] using [[carbon]], [[nitrogen]], and [[oxygen]] as catalysts. The reaction also produces two [[positron]]s and two [[electron neutrino]]s.<ref name=Krane>Krane, Kenneth S. ''Introductory Nuclear Physics''. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1988, p. 537. ISBN 9780471805533</ref>

The equations for the cycle are as follows:

<math>{}^{12}_6\!\mbox{C} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^{13}_7\!\mbox{N} + \gamma + \mbox{1.95 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{13}_7\!\mbox{N} \to {}^{13}_6\!\mbox{C} + {}^0_1\!e^+ + {}^0_0\!\nu_e + \mbox{2.22 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{13}_6\!\mbox{C} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^{14}_7\!\mbox{N} + \gamma + \mbox{7.54 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{14}_7\!\mbox{N} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^{15}_8\!\mbox{O} + \gamma + \mbox{7.35 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{15}_8\!\mbox{O} \to {}^{15}_7\!\mbox{N} + {}^0_1\!e^+ + {}^0_0\!\nu_e + \mbox{2.75 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{15}_7\!\mbox{N} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^{12}_6\!\mbox{C} + {}^4_2\!\mbox{He} + \mbox{4.96 MeV}</math>

The last reaction reproduces the <math>{}^{12}_6\!\mbox{C}</math> nucleus that the first reaction consumes. The end result of this process is:

<math>\mbox{4} {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^4_2\!\mbox{He} + \mbox{2} {}^0_1\!e^+ + \mbox{2} {}^0_0\!\nu_e + \mbox{3} \gamma + \mbox{26.8 MeV}</math>

Rarely, this cycle branches into a somewhat different cycle involving [[fluorine]], and that second cycle is thought to branch again in some of the most massive stars.

==Origins==
Christian scientists assert that [[materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the origin of stars are errant and contra-evidence and reports of stars forming are invalid. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/403/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/stars.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences21.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#55</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/feedback.asp</ref> In addition, creationists cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of star formation are inadequate:

“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5665/1750</ref>

“Nobody really understands how star formation proceeds. It’s really remarkable.” Rogier A. Windhorst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell, “A Matter of Timing,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, October 1992, p. 30. <ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992SciAm.267Q..26P</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Other References==
The ''Observer's Book of Astronomy'', by Patrick Moore. Published by Frederick Warne and Co. 1967.

The ''Cosmological Distance Ladder'', by Michael Rowan-Robinson. Published by Freeman. 1985.

[[category:astronomy]]

Star

2012-12-20T20:17:48Z

CastorPollox: Grammar

[[Image:Moooghj.jpg|300px|right]]'''Stars''' are extremely large, luminous bodies of gas. They are the most obvious features found in the [[universe]]. They are principally composed of [[hydrogen]] that is undergoing nuclear [[fusion]] to become [[helium]]. Our sun, (Sol), is the nearest star to Earth, at a distance averaging 93 million miles. The Earth orbits the sun in a period of approximately 365.25 days, and this defines the [[year]]. The diameter of the sun, which is a typical star, is about 870,000 miles and its power output is about 1026 watts. The temperature inside the sun is estimated to be in excess of ten million degrees, and this is hot enough for [[nuclear reactions]] to occur.

In Genesis, the stars were made in the fourth day<ref>[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Gen 1:14]</ref>, and their number is compared to the number of descendants of Abraham<ref>[Genesis 9-16 (Translated)|Gen 15:5]; an earlier count of the number of descendants of Abraham was the number of grains of dust of the Earth (Gen 13:16)</ref>.

The [[Bible]] implies that the number of stars is virtually countless<ref>[Jeremiah 27-34 (Translated)|Jeremiah 33:22]; similarly to Genesis, the number of descendants of David is compared to the number of stars and the number of grains of sand</ref>, but for many years this was not accepted. [[Hipparchus]] in 128 B.C. stated there were 1,026 stars in the sky. [[Kepler]] in 1600 A.D. did his own count and found the number to be 1,005. Today, thanks to telescopes (especially the [[Hubble Telescope]]) showing many stars previously too dim to be seen, the current estimate is 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (7*1025).<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey Star survey reaches 70 sextillion</ref>

==Measuring stellar positions==
=== Distances ===
The oldest method of measuring the distance from our solar system to a distant star is the parallax method. To use this method, astronomers measure the right ascension on the sky of the star at two times of the year, half a year apart. The two measurements will differ by a small angle with respect to the most distant stars in that region of the sky. Exactly half this angle is the ''parallax angle'', having symbol ''p''. This is the angle that the star makes with the [[sun]] and the position of the [[earth]] at a right angle with that star.<ref name=Britannica3>"[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-52809/star Star: Determining stellar distances]." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed 21 Apr. 2008</ref> The distance s of the star, in astronomical units (AU), is:

<math>\,\!s = \cot p</math>

In the range of the very small angles typically encountered, the cotangent of the angle measure (in radians) is very nearly equal to the reciprocal, and thus:

<math>\,\!s \approx \frac {180 \times 3600}{p \times \pi}</math>

where p is measured in seconds of arc.

The cotangent of one second (1/3600 of a degree) of arc is approximately 206,264.81. No parallax angle for any star will be larger than one second. Therefore astronomers initially defined a unit of stellar distance, the ''parsec'' (symbol pc), from this relationship. One parsec is the distance corresponding to a parallax angle of one second of arc. Hence:

<math>1 pc \approx 206,264.81 AU</math>

However, the error of measurement of parallax angle is 0.005 arc seconds, and beyond a distance of 100 parsecs, this error becomes significant. 700 stars are near enough to measure their distances directly by using parallax.<ref name=Britannica3/> To measure distances further out than this, astronomers typically use absolute and relative magnitudes, or they apply [[Hubble Law|Hubble's Law]] to the star's estimated [[redshift]].

=== Positions in sky ===
The most common system for describing the position of a star in the sky is the equatorial system. This system uses two coordinates:
# Right ascension on the sky, or the number of hours required for the earth to rotate before an observer can see the star at its highest point in the sky. The zero for right ascension is midnight on the day of the vernal equinox.<ref name=WeissteinRA>Weisstein, Eric W. "[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/RightAscension.html Right Ascension]." ''Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy'', 2007. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>
# Declination, or the north-south angle between the star and the celestial equator.<ref name=WeissteinD>Weisstein, Eric W. "[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Declination.html Declination]." ''Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy'', 2007. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

===Proper motion===
All stars move, but the most distant stars are considered "fixed" because their motion would be undetectable. The ''proper motion'' (symbol m) of any star is the angular velocity of its position across the sky. This describes the motion at right angles to the line of sight of the observer. To convert this to actual ''tangential velocity'', multiply the tangent of this angular velocity by the star's distance.

The motion ''in'' line of sight, or ''radial velocity'', is currently determined from spectral shift.

== Measuring stellar magnitudes ==
The visual magnitude system is defined as follows: a star of any given magnitude is about 2.512 times as bright as is a star of the next magnitude. [[Hipparchus]] devised the magnitude system, and [[Ptolemy]] refined it further. By convention, an arbitrary sample of the twenty brightest stars that they could observe were assigned to the first magnitude, and the stars that they could barely observe were assigned to the sixth. Sixth-magnitude stars are actually 100 times less bright than first-magnitude stars. Magnitude levels between these extremes are assigned on a logarithmic scale. Thus, given two stars of brightness l1 and l2, their magnitude difference (V2 - V1) relates to their respective brightnesses in this way:<ref name=Haworth>Haworth, David. "[http://www.stargazing.net/david/constel/magnitude.html Star Magnitudes]." ''[http://www.stargazing.net/david/index.html Observational Astronomy]'', 2003. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

<math>\,\!V_2 - V_1 = 2.5 \times \log \frac{l_1}{l_2}</math>

The ''absolute'' magnitude of any star is the visual magnitude that it would have if it were ten parsecs distant. To convert apparent magnitude V to actual magnitude M, use this formula:

<math>\,\!M = V + 5 \times \log \frac{s_0}{s}</math>

where s0 is the standard distance. This distance is ten parsecs, or about 2,062,650 AU.

Brightness declines with the square of distance, and squares correspond to doubling of logarithms. One must then multiply that result by 2.5 to stay within the magnitude scale.

== Stellar colors and spectra ==
The ''color'' of a star is objectively quantifiable. To determine color, astronomers view the star through a variety of colored filters and compute ''color indices'' as the differences in apparent magnitudes through the various filters. Stellar colors vary, in order from the coolest to the hottest, from red to yellow to white to blue-white to blue or violet. This is the same gamut of colors that a black body shows as its temperature rises.

In addition, each star has a unique ''spectrum'', which depends on the gases and other elements that it contains, and their distribution. A spectrum can serve two purposes:
# It can serve as a unique signature for the star, to distinguish it from other stars.
# It can provide information on the star's radial velocity vis-à-vis the earth.

To accomplish the latter, astronomers note the placement of various lines in the spectrum and then determine the star's likely constituent elements from the spacing of those lines. Lines that are out of ''place'' are shifted, either toward the blue or toward the red. Nearly all stellar spectra are shifted toward the red; this [[redshift]] indicates a recession, either of the star or of the part of space where the star resides.<ref>Some [[cosmology|cosmological]] models call for an expansion of space itself, not merely the matter in it. According to these models, a redshifted star is in a part of space that was still expanding as the incident light was generated.</ref>

=== Spectral Type ===
[[Image:Hertzsprung-Russell.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram]]
In the late nineteenth century, astronomers at the [[Harvard University]] observatory developed the first classification scheme for stellar spectra that would become known as the '''Harvard spectral classification'''. In 1924, Annie Jump Cannon<ref name=Cannon>"[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lifecycles/LC_main_p8.html Life Cycles of Stars]." ''Goddard Space Flight Center'', November 21, 2002. Accessed April 22, 2008.</ref> refined the classification from the original A-Q gamut to the familiar "OBAFGKM" gamut. Astronomers have since added classes to this range at the high end and the low.<ref name=Swinburne>"[http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/H/Harvard+Spectral+Classification Harvard Spectral Classification]." ''Study Astronomy Online at Swinburne University''. Accessed April 22, 2008.</ref><ref name=Seattle>Irizarry, David. "[http://www.seattleastro.org/webfoot/feb00/pg2.htm The Secrets of the Harvard Classification Revealed]." ''The Webfooted Astronomer'', Seattle Astronomical Society, February 2000. Accessed April 22, 2008.</ref>

The classic Harvard spectral classes are O, B, A, F, G, K, and M. Each of these has ten subclasses, varying from 0 to 9 in order of decreasing stellar temperature. Thus, for example, the next class after an F9 star is a G0 star. Recently astronomers recognized one class of stars hotter than the O stars (the very hot Wolf-Rayet stars) and three classes of stars (the N, R, and S stars) cooler than the M stars. (Some astronomers include the N and R stars in one class, the C stars, for the carbon compounds that their spectra exhibit). There is an additional spectral class for the smallest and dimmest stars (Class L), that still fuse hydrogen, although warmer [[brown dwarf|brown dwarfs]] also fall into this class (but referred to as L dwarfs instead of L stars). Cooler still methane dwarfs are classified as [[Brown_dwarf#Spectral_class_T|T dwarfs]].<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007arXiv0704.1522K</ref> A proposed spectral class Y has been suggested for the coolest brown dwarfs, which also have a different spectra from T class dwarfs.<ref>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0607305</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Class
! [[Temperature]]
! Color
! [[Element]]s
! Notes
|-
| W
| 106,000 K
| Violet
| Ionized [[helium]], [[carbon]], [[oxygen]], [[nitrogen]]
| Wolf-Rayet stars. Additional subclasses include WC (overabundant carbon and oxygen) and WN (overabundant nitrogen)
|-
| O
| 30,000 K
| Blue
| Ionized [[Helium]], [[nitrogen]], [[oxygen]]
| Weak Balmer lines ([[hydrogen]]) at higher subclasses.
|-
| B
| 13,000 K to 20,000 K
| Blue
| Neutral helium; ionized [[silicon]], oxygen and [[magnesium]].
| [[Hydrogen]] (Balmer lines) appear in strength
|-
| A
| 75,00 to 10,000 K
| Blue-white
| [[Hydrogen]], [[calcium]], [[helium]]
| Balmer lines dominant. K lines (calcium) now appearing.
|-
| F
| 7,000K to 9,000K
| White-yellow
| [[Hydrogen]], [[calcium]], [[iron]], [[manganese]], [[sodium]]
| Balmer lines weakening. K lines stronger.
|-
| G
| 5,200 to 6,000K
| Yellow
| [[Calcium]], [[hydrogen]], other [[metal]]s
| Balmer lines weaker still. K lines dominant. Metals now appearing.
|-
| K
| 4000K to 5100K
| Orange
| [[Calcium]], neutral metals, [[titanium oxide]]
|
|-
| M
| 3000K
| Red
| [[Titanium oxide]], [[iron iodide]]
| Strong molecular bands
|-
| N,R
| 2300K to 2600K
| Red
| [[Carbon]] compounds
|
|-
| S
| 2300K to 2600K
| Red
| [[Hydrogen]], [[zirconium oxide]]
|
|}

In the early twentieth century, astronomers Ejnar Hertzsprung and Henry Norris Russell prepared the first plot of stellar temperature as a function of luminosity, or brightness. Other astronomers have since prepared versions of the diagram showing absolute magnitude as a function of color. This diagram shows a "main sequence" of stars for which brightness declines as temperature increases, but also shows a "white dwarf" population of very hot but dim stars, and the population of giants and supergiants that are far brighter than their temperatures would indicate.<ref name=HR>"[http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/H/Hertzsprung-Russell+Diagram Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram]." ''Study Astronomy Online at Swinburne University''. Accessed April 22, 2008.</ref>

===Luminosity Class===

In addition to the spectral type, astronomers today add a ''luminosity class'', which varies from 0 to VII in order of decreasing brightness. This is known as the '''Yerkes spectral classification'''. This classification was first developed by astronomers William Wilson Morgan, Phillip C. Keenan and Edith Kellman at the [[Yerkes Observatory]] in 1943.<ref>Morgan, William Wilson; Keenan, Philip Childs; Kellman, Edith (1943), "An atlas of stellar spectra, with an outline of spectral classification", Chicago, Ill., The University of Chicago press</ref> Adding a luminosity classification added a second dimension to the single dimensional [[Harvard University|Harvard]] spectral sequence. Today the two classifications of temperature and luminosity is used to give the spectral sequence for a star.<ref>http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1973ARA%26A..11...29M&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=449aa1cc7c02014</ref> For example, the [[sun]]'s spectral type is G2 and its luminosity class is V (five).

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Luminosity Class
! Star Type
|-
| 0 - 0Ia - Ia0
| hypergiants
|-
| Ia - Iab - Ib
| [[Supergiant|supergiants]]
|-
| IIa - IIab - IIb
| bright giants
|-
| IIIa - IIIab - IIIb
| giants
|-
| IVa - IVab - IVb
| subgiants
|-
| Va - Vab - Vb
| main sequence stars (dwarfs)
|-
| VI
| subdwarfs
|-
| VII
| [[white dwarf|white dwarfs]]
|}

==Variable stars==

Some stars vary in brightness and are known as variable stars. The star [[Algol]] in the constellation of Perseus can drop from its normal magnitude of 2.3 to magnitude 3.5. This is now known to be caused by a dim companion star orbiting Algol, which occasionally passes between Algol and the Earth, blocking some of the light. Other variable stars vary in brightness due to actual variations in the luminosity of the star itself. The time taken from one maximum brightness to the next one is called the '''period'''. The most famous of the variable stars is delta Cepheus, the first-found member of the [[Cepheid]] group of variable stars. In 1908 [[Henrietta Swan Leavitt]] noticed that the variable stars in the [[Magellenic Clouds]] (two nearby galaxies in the [[Local Group]]) had a relationship between their period and their apparent brightness. At that time galaxies outside our own (the [[Milky Way]]) had been discovered, but it was not possible to measure the distances to them. It was soon realized that the variable stars in the Magellenic Cloud were of the Cepheid type. Since Cepheid variables also occur in our [[galaxy]] it was possible measure their distances and thus convert (using the inverse square law) Leavitt's relationship between apparent brightness and period to one of actual brightness and period. Once this formula was discovered, it became possible to apply to Cepheids of unknown distance. By observing their periods, their actual brightness can be calculated and, by the inverse square law, their distance. Through observations of Cepheids in [[globular cluster]]s (compact bunches of stars) in our galaxy it was shown that our galaxy is about 300,000 light-years in diameter.

== Energy production ==
[[Image:CNO_Cycle.png|300px|thumb|CNO cycle]]The [[Sun]], and stars as massive as the Sun or less massive, commonly use a [[nuclear fusion]] process called the '''proton-proton chain reaction''' to produce [[energy]]. A full description of that process appears [[Sun#Energy production and transport|here]].

In 1938 and 1989, two physicists, Carl F. von Weizsäcker<ref name=Weiz>Von Weizsäcker, Carl F. ''Physik. Zeitsch.'' 39:633, 1938.</ref> and Hans Bethe<ref name=Bethe>Bethe, Hans A. "[http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v55/i5/p434_1 Energy Production in Stars]." ''Physics Review'' 55(5):434-456, 1939. {{doi|10.1103/PhysRev.55.434}} Accessed June 27, 2008.</ref> independently proposed a [[nuclear fusion]] process, the '''Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen cycle''', by which stars more massive than the [[sun]] produce energy. In this process, stars convert [[hydrogen]] to [[helium]] using [[carbon]], [[nitrogen]], and [[oxygen]] as catalysts. The reaction also produces two [[positron]]s and two [[electron neutrino]]s.<ref name=Krane>Krane, Kenneth S. ''Introductory Nuclear Physics''. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1988, p. 537. ISBN 9780471805533</ref>

The equations for the cycle are as follows:

<math>{}^{12}_6\!\mbox{C} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^{13}_7\!\mbox{N} + \gamma + \mbox{1.95 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{13}_7\!\mbox{N} \to {}^{13}_6\!\mbox{C} + {}^0_1\!e^+ + {}^0_0\!\nu_e + \mbox{2.22 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{13}_6\!\mbox{C} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^{14}_7\!\mbox{N} + \gamma + \mbox{7.54 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{14}_7\!\mbox{N} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^{15}_8\!\mbox{O} + \gamma + \mbox{7.35 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{15}_8\!\mbox{O} \to {}^{15}_7\!\mbox{N} + {}^0_1\!e^+ + {}^0_0\!\nu_e + \mbox{2.75 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{15}_7\!\mbox{N} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^{12}_6\!\mbox{C} + {}^4_2\!\mbox{He} + \mbox{4.96 MeV}</math>

The last reaction reproduces the <math>{}^{12}_6\!\mbox{C}</math> nucleus that the first reaction consumes. The end result of this process is:

<math>\mbox{4} {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^4_2\!\mbox{He} + \mbox{2} {}^0_1\!e^+ + \mbox{2} {}^0_0\!\nu_e + \mbox{3} \gamma + \mbox{26.8 MeV}</math>

Rarely, this cycle branches into a somewhat different cycle involving [[fluorine]], and that second cycle is thought to branch again in some of the most massive stars.

==Origins==
Christian scientists assert that [[materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the origin of stars are errant and contra-evidence and reports of stars forming are invalid. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/403/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/stars.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences21.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#55</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/feedback.asp</ref> In addition, creationists cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of star formation are inadequate:

“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5665/1750</ref>

“Nobody really understands how star formation proceeds. It’s really remarkable.” Rogier A. Windhorst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell, “A Matter of Timing,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, October 1992, p. 30. <ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992SciAm.267Q..26P</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Other References==
The ''Observer's Book of Astronomy'', by Patrick Moore. Published by Frederick Warne and Co. 1967.

The ''Cosmological Distance Ladder'', by Michael Rowan-Robinson. Published by Freeman. 1985.

[[category:astronomy]]

Star

2012-12-20T20:16:59Z

CastorPollox: "sun" is not a place name.

[[Image:Moooghj.jpg|300px|right]]'''Stars''' are extremely large, luminous bodies of gas. They are the most obvious features found in the [[universe]]. They are principally composed of [[hydrogen]] that is undergoing nuclear [[fusion]] to become [[helium]]. Our sun, (Sol),is the nearest star to Earth, at a distance averaging 93 million miles. The Earth orbits the sun in a period of approximately 365.25 days, and this defines the [[year]]. The diameter of the sun, which is a typical star, is about 870,000 miles and its power output is about 1026 watts. The temperature inside the sun is estimated to be in excess of ten million degrees, and this is hot enough for [[nuclear reactions]] to occur.

In Genesis, the stars were made in the fourth day<ref>[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Gen 1:14]</ref>, and their number is compared to the number of descendants of Abraham<ref>[Genesis 9-16 (Translated)|Gen 15:5]; an earlier count of the number of descendants of Abraham was the number of grains of dust of the Earth (Gen 13:16)</ref>.

The [[Bible]] implies that the number of stars is virtually countless<ref>[Jeremiah 27-34 (Translated)|Jeremiah 33:22]; similarly to Genesis, the number of descendants of David is compared to the number of stars and the number of grains of sand</ref>, but for many years this was not accepted. [[Hipparchus]] in 128 B.C. stated there were 1,026 stars in the sky. [[Kepler]] in 1600 A.D. did his own count and found the number to be 1,005. Today, thanks to telescopes (especially the [[Hubble Telescope]]) showing many stars previously too dim to be seen, the current estimate is 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (7*1025).<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey Star survey reaches 70 sextillion</ref>

==Measuring stellar positions==
=== Distances ===
The oldest method of measuring the distance from our solar system to a distant star is the parallax method. To use this method, astronomers measure the right ascension on the sky of the star at two times of the year, half a year apart. The two measurements will differ by a small angle with respect to the most distant stars in that region of the sky. Exactly half this angle is the ''parallax angle'', having symbol ''p''. This is the angle that the star makes with the [[sun]] and the position of the [[earth]] at a right angle with that star.<ref name=Britannica3>"[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-52809/star Star: Determining stellar distances]." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed 21 Apr. 2008</ref> The distance s of the star, in astronomical units (AU), is:

<math>\,\!s = \cot p</math>

In the range of the very small angles typically encountered, the cotangent of the angle measure (in radians) is very nearly equal to the reciprocal, and thus:

<math>\,\!s \approx \frac {180 \times 3600}{p \times \pi}</math>

where p is measured in seconds of arc.

The cotangent of one second (1/3600 of a degree) of arc is approximately 206,264.81. No parallax angle for any star will be larger than one second. Therefore astronomers initially defined a unit of stellar distance, the ''parsec'' (symbol pc), from this relationship. One parsec is the distance corresponding to a parallax angle of one second of arc. Hence:

<math>1 pc \approx 206,264.81 AU</math>

However, the error of measurement of parallax angle is 0.005 arc seconds, and beyond a distance of 100 parsecs, this error becomes significant. 700 stars are near enough to measure their distances directly by using parallax.<ref name=Britannica3/> To measure distances further out than this, astronomers typically use absolute and relative magnitudes, or they apply [[Hubble Law|Hubble's Law]] to the star's estimated [[redshift]].

=== Positions in sky ===
The most common system for describing the position of a star in the sky is the equatorial system. This system uses two coordinates:
# Right ascension on the sky, or the number of hours required for the earth to rotate before an observer can see the star at its highest point in the sky. The zero for right ascension is midnight on the day of the vernal equinox.<ref name=WeissteinRA>Weisstein, Eric W. "[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/RightAscension.html Right Ascension]." ''Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy'', 2007. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>
# Declination, or the north-south angle between the star and the celestial equator.<ref name=WeissteinD>Weisstein, Eric W. "[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Declination.html Declination]." ''Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy'', 2007. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

===Proper motion===
All stars move, but the most distant stars are considered "fixed" because their motion would be undetectable. The ''proper motion'' (symbol m) of any star is the angular velocity of its position across the sky. This describes the motion at right angles to the line of sight of the observer. To convert this to actual ''tangential velocity'', multiply the tangent of this angular velocity by the star's distance.

The motion ''in'' line of sight, or ''radial velocity'', is currently determined from spectral shift.

== Measuring stellar magnitudes ==
The visual magnitude system is defined as follows: a star of any given magnitude is about 2.512 times as bright as is a star of the next magnitude. [[Hipparchus]] devised the magnitude system, and [[Ptolemy]] refined it further. By convention, an arbitrary sample of the twenty brightest stars that they could observe were assigned to the first magnitude, and the stars that they could barely observe were assigned to the sixth. Sixth-magnitude stars are actually 100 times less bright than first-magnitude stars. Magnitude levels between these extremes are assigned on a logarithmic scale. Thus, given two stars of brightness l1 and l2, their magnitude difference (V2 - V1) relates to their respective brightnesses in this way:<ref name=Haworth>Haworth, David. "[http://www.stargazing.net/david/constel/magnitude.html Star Magnitudes]." ''[http://www.stargazing.net/david/index.html Observational Astronomy]'', 2003. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

<math>\,\!V_2 - V_1 = 2.5 \times \log \frac{l_1}{l_2}</math>

The ''absolute'' magnitude of any star is the visual magnitude that it would have if it were ten parsecs distant. To convert apparent magnitude V to actual magnitude M, use this formula:

<math>\,\!M = V + 5 \times \log \frac{s_0}{s}</math>

where s0 is the standard distance. This distance is ten parsecs, or about 2,062,650 AU.

Brightness declines with the square of distance, and squares correspond to doubling of logarithms. One must then multiply that result by 2.5 to stay within the magnitude scale.

== Stellar colors and spectra ==
The ''color'' of a star is objectively quantifiable. To determine color, astronomers view the star through a variety of colored filters and compute ''color indices'' as the differences in apparent magnitudes through the various filters. Stellar colors vary, in order from the coolest to the hottest, from red to yellow to white to blue-white to blue or violet. This is the same gamut of colors that a black body shows as its temperature rises.

In addition, each star has a unique ''spectrum'', which depends on the gases and other elements that it contains, and their distribution. A spectrum can serve two purposes:
# It can serve as a unique signature for the star, to distinguish it from other stars.
# It can provide information on the star's radial velocity vis-à-vis the earth.

To accomplish the latter, astronomers note the placement of various lines in the spectrum and then determine the star's likely constituent elements from the spacing of those lines. Lines that are out of ''place'' are shifted, either toward the blue or toward the red. Nearly all stellar spectra are shifted toward the red; this [[redshift]] indicates a recession, either of the star or of the part of space where the star resides.<ref>Some [[cosmology|cosmological]] models call for an expansion of space itself, not merely the matter in it. According to these models, a redshifted star is in a part of space that was still expanding as the incident light was generated.</ref>

=== Spectral Type ===
[[Image:Hertzsprung-Russell.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram]]
In the late nineteenth century, astronomers at the [[Harvard University]] observatory developed the first classification scheme for stellar spectra that would become known as the '''Harvard spectral classification'''. In 1924, Annie Jump Cannon<ref name=Cannon>"[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lifecycles/LC_main_p8.html Life Cycles of Stars]." ''Goddard Space Flight Center'', November 21, 2002. Accessed April 22, 2008.</ref> refined the classification from the original A-Q gamut to the familiar "OBAFGKM" gamut. Astronomers have since added classes to this range at the high end and the low.<ref name=Swinburne>"[http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/H/Harvard+Spectral+Classification Harvard Spectral Classification]." ''Study Astronomy Online at Swinburne University''. Accessed April 22, 2008.</ref><ref name=Seattle>Irizarry, David. "[http://www.seattleastro.org/webfoot/feb00/pg2.htm The Secrets of the Harvard Classification Revealed]." ''The Webfooted Astronomer'', Seattle Astronomical Society, February 2000. Accessed April 22, 2008.</ref>

The classic Harvard spectral classes are O, B, A, F, G, K, and M. Each of these has ten subclasses, varying from 0 to 9 in order of decreasing stellar temperature. Thus, for example, the next class after an F9 star is a G0 star. Recently astronomers recognized one class of stars hotter than the O stars (the very hot Wolf-Rayet stars) and three classes of stars (the N, R, and S stars) cooler than the M stars. (Some astronomers include the N and R stars in one class, the C stars, for the carbon compounds that their spectra exhibit). There is an additional spectral class for the smallest and dimmest stars (Class L), that still fuse hydrogen, although warmer [[brown dwarf|brown dwarfs]] also fall into this class (but referred to as L dwarfs instead of L stars). Cooler still methane dwarfs are classified as [[Brown_dwarf#Spectral_class_T|T dwarfs]].<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007arXiv0704.1522K</ref> A proposed spectral class Y has been suggested for the coolest brown dwarfs, which also have a different spectra from T class dwarfs.<ref>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0607305</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Class
! [[Temperature]]
! Color
! [[Element]]s
! Notes
|-
| W
| 106,000 K
| Violet
| Ionized [[helium]], [[carbon]], [[oxygen]], [[nitrogen]]
| Wolf-Rayet stars. Additional subclasses include WC (overabundant carbon and oxygen) and WN (overabundant nitrogen)
|-
| O
| 30,000 K
| Blue
| Ionized [[Helium]], [[nitrogen]], [[oxygen]]
| Weak Balmer lines ([[hydrogen]]) at higher subclasses.
|-
| B
| 13,000 K to 20,000 K
| Blue
| Neutral helium; ionized [[silicon]], oxygen and [[magnesium]].
| [[Hydrogen]] (Balmer lines) appear in strength
|-
| A
| 75,00 to 10,000 K
| Blue-white
| [[Hydrogen]], [[calcium]], [[helium]]
| Balmer lines dominant. K lines (calcium) now appearing.
|-
| F
| 7,000K to 9,000K
| White-yellow
| [[Hydrogen]], [[calcium]], [[iron]], [[manganese]], [[sodium]]
| Balmer lines weakening. K lines stronger.
|-
| G
| 5,200 to 6,000K
| Yellow
| [[Calcium]], [[hydrogen]], other [[metal]]s
| Balmer lines weaker still. K lines dominant. Metals now appearing.
|-
| K
| 4000K to 5100K
| Orange
| [[Calcium]], neutral metals, [[titanium oxide]]
|
|-
| M
| 3000K
| Red
| [[Titanium oxide]], [[iron iodide]]
| Strong molecular bands
|-
| N,R
| 2300K to 2600K
| Red
| [[Carbon]] compounds
|
|-
| S
| 2300K to 2600K
| Red
| [[Hydrogen]], [[zirconium oxide]]
|
|}

In the early twentieth century, astronomers Ejnar Hertzsprung and Henry Norris Russell prepared the first plot of stellar temperature as a function of luminosity, or brightness. Other astronomers have since prepared versions of the diagram showing absolute magnitude as a function of color. This diagram shows a "main sequence" of stars for which brightness declines as temperature increases, but also shows a "white dwarf" population of very hot but dim stars, and the population of giants and supergiants that are far brighter than their temperatures would indicate.<ref name=HR>"[http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/H/Hertzsprung-Russell+Diagram Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram]." ''Study Astronomy Online at Swinburne University''. Accessed April 22, 2008.</ref>

===Luminosity Class===

In addition to the spectral type, astronomers today add a ''luminosity class'', which varies from 0 to VII in order of decreasing brightness. This is known as the '''Yerkes spectral classification'''. This classification was first developed by astronomers William Wilson Morgan, Phillip C. Keenan and Edith Kellman at the [[Yerkes Observatory]] in 1943.<ref>Morgan, William Wilson; Keenan, Philip Childs; Kellman, Edith (1943), "An atlas of stellar spectra, with an outline of spectral classification", Chicago, Ill., The University of Chicago press</ref> Adding a luminosity classification added a second dimension to the single dimensional [[Harvard University|Harvard]] spectral sequence. Today the two classifications of temperature and luminosity is used to give the spectral sequence for a star.<ref>http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1973ARA%26A..11...29M&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=449aa1cc7c02014</ref> For example, the [[sun]]'s spectral type is G2 and its luminosity class is V (five).

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Luminosity Class
! Star Type
|-
| 0 - 0Ia - Ia0
| hypergiants
|-
| Ia - Iab - Ib
| [[Supergiant|supergiants]]
|-
| IIa - IIab - IIb
| bright giants
|-
| IIIa - IIIab - IIIb
| giants
|-
| IVa - IVab - IVb
| subgiants
|-
| Va - Vab - Vb
| main sequence stars (dwarfs)
|-
| VI
| subdwarfs
|-
| VII
| [[white dwarf|white dwarfs]]
|}

==Variable stars==

Some stars vary in brightness and are known as variable stars. The star [[Algol]] in the constellation of Perseus can drop from its normal magnitude of 2.3 to magnitude 3.5. This is now known to be caused by a dim companion star orbiting Algol, which occasionally passes between Algol and the Earth, blocking some of the light. Other variable stars vary in brightness due to actual variations in the luminosity of the star itself. The time taken from one maximum brightness to the next one is called the '''period'''. The most famous of the variable stars is delta Cepheus, the first-found member of the [[Cepheid]] group of variable stars. In 1908 [[Henrietta Swan Leavitt]] noticed that the variable stars in the [[Magellenic Clouds]] (two nearby galaxies in the [[Local Group]]) had a relationship between their period and their apparent brightness. At that time galaxies outside our own (the [[Milky Way]]) had been discovered, but it was not possible to measure the distances to them. It was soon realized that the variable stars in the Magellenic Cloud were of the Cepheid type. Since Cepheid variables also occur in our [[galaxy]] it was possible measure their distances and thus convert (using the inverse square law) Leavitt's relationship between apparent brightness and period to one of actual brightness and period. Once this formula was discovered, it became possible to apply to Cepheids of unknown distance. By observing their periods, their actual brightness can be calculated and, by the inverse square law, their distance. Through observations of Cepheids in [[globular cluster]]s (compact bunches of stars) in our galaxy it was shown that our galaxy is about 300,000 light-years in diameter.

== Energy production ==
[[Image:CNO_Cycle.png|300px|thumb|CNO cycle]]The [[Sun]], and stars as massive as the Sun or less massive, commonly use a [[nuclear fusion]] process called the '''proton-proton chain reaction''' to produce [[energy]]. A full description of that process appears [[Sun#Energy production and transport|here]].

In 1938 and 1989, two physicists, Carl F. von Weizsäcker<ref name=Weiz>Von Weizsäcker, Carl F. ''Physik. Zeitsch.'' 39:633, 1938.</ref> and Hans Bethe<ref name=Bethe>Bethe, Hans A. "[http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v55/i5/p434_1 Energy Production in Stars]." ''Physics Review'' 55(5):434-456, 1939. {{doi|10.1103/PhysRev.55.434}} Accessed June 27, 2008.</ref> independently proposed a [[nuclear fusion]] process, the '''Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen cycle''', by which stars more massive than the [[sun]] produce energy. In this process, stars convert [[hydrogen]] to [[helium]] using [[carbon]], [[nitrogen]], and [[oxygen]] as catalysts. The reaction also produces two [[positron]]s and two [[electron neutrino]]s.<ref name=Krane>Krane, Kenneth S. ''Introductory Nuclear Physics''. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1988, p. 537. ISBN 9780471805533</ref>

The equations for the cycle are as follows:

<math>{}^{12}_6\!\mbox{C} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^{13}_7\!\mbox{N} + \gamma + \mbox{1.95 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{13}_7\!\mbox{N} \to {}^{13}_6\!\mbox{C} + {}^0_1\!e^+ + {}^0_0\!\nu_e + \mbox{2.22 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{13}_6\!\mbox{C} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^{14}_7\!\mbox{N} + \gamma + \mbox{7.54 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{14}_7\!\mbox{N} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^{15}_8\!\mbox{O} + \gamma + \mbox{7.35 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{15}_8\!\mbox{O} \to {}^{15}_7\!\mbox{N} + {}^0_1\!e^+ + {}^0_0\!\nu_e + \mbox{2.75 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^{15}_7\!\mbox{N} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^{12}_6\!\mbox{C} + {}^4_2\!\mbox{He} + \mbox{4.96 MeV}</math>

The last reaction reproduces the <math>{}^{12}_6\!\mbox{C}</math> nucleus that the first reaction consumes. The end result of this process is:

<math>\mbox{4} {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^4_2\!\mbox{He} + \mbox{2} {}^0_1\!e^+ + \mbox{2} {}^0_0\!\nu_e + \mbox{3} \gamma + \mbox{26.8 MeV}</math>

Rarely, this cycle branches into a somewhat different cycle involving [[fluorine]], and that second cycle is thought to branch again in some of the most massive stars.

==Origins==
Christian scientists assert that [[materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the origin of stars are errant and contra-evidence and reports of stars forming are invalid. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/403/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/stars.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences21.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#55</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/feedback.asp</ref> In addition, creationists cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of star formation are inadequate:

“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5665/1750</ref>

“Nobody really understands how star formation proceeds. It’s really remarkable.” Rogier A. Windhorst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell, “A Matter of Timing,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, October 1992, p. 30. <ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992SciAm.267Q..26P</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Other References==
The ''Observer's Book of Astronomy'', by Patrick Moore. Published by Frederick Warne and Co. 1967.

The ''Cosmological Distance Ladder'', by Michael Rowan-Robinson. Published by Freeman. 1985.

[[category:astronomy]]

Talk:Astronomy

2012-12-20T03:45:00Z

CastorPollox: /* Proposed Rewrite Part II */

==Theory of Evolution==

How does this relate to astronomy? Astronomy was a science hundreds of years before Darwin. "evolution of the universe" Is being used way out of context to place it in the same reference as Theory of Evolution. Conservative, why the need for YEC views? Do we have to start adding OEC views as well as the views from all the different sects of Christianity?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::There is a need for conservative views at '''Conserv'''apedia. YEC is very conservative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::So what about OEC? Or other Christian sects? YEC is conservative to YECs but not to everyone.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:You did not answer the question about TOE. I do not understand the grounds of your statement other than trying to find another platform to try to slander the theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I wrote: "For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".[1]" I proved the previous statement. Case closed.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Case close? Your cite has nothing to do with the relationship between TOE and the evolution of the universe statement.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Tim, if you would stop using inflammatory terms like ''slander'' perhaps your points would be easier to follow.
*Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.
The theory of evolution is not a person. Even if someone is called the "father of evolution", that does not give the idea personhood. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed the definition of Slander –noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: You can slander an idea. That is besides the point the issue is that conservative goes out of his way to slander TOE in any scientific article he can. This is just getting ridiculous. The article is about astronomy for goodness sakes, where would TOE fit in? The cite that he used showed no relationship but he had the time, and nerve, to create a false impression. This is the issue, personaly I see this as vandalism (Unrelated content being place just for one's POV).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==excluding earth?==

I'm deleting "excluding earth". Astronomers work with the earth, too, as a body in space. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:OK, it's back in. Why? Without factoring in the earth's motion and gravity, it would have been much harder to know where to look for Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto. But at least the article itself has become real again. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Nice quote mining, by the way. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Now that is just sad==

You know Conservative if I were to do the same thing you just did to astronomy, but using an evolutionary POV it would be vandlism. Colin was in the right changing your edits since they were unjustified for this page.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:EDIT WAR!!! Ended by sysop protection with no discussion. Why can't all of Colin's text be used, followed by the YEC stuff? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Opinion stated as fact ==

We don't state liberal opinion as fact here. ColinR inserted, "The fact that radiotelescopes can detect the light of stars billions of light years away proves that the universe is billions of years old, as the light must have left those stars that long ago to reach us now travelling at the speed of light."

No credible, unbiased scientist would claim that "proves" billions of years old, and no citation was given for it. That's a liberal opinion and should be stated as such, if stated at all. There are many reasons why that falls short of a "proof".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a liberal opinion that velocity = distance divided by time? News to me, Aschlafly. To figure out the time light has traveled, simple take the distance divided by the speed of light. ColinR is correct. --[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 23:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The line about 'proving' the universe to be billions of years old can be left out without omitting the section on recent research, which is well supported by evidence. To remove this while only leaving in the Young Earth Creationist stuff and then locking the article to prevent editing is risible. Here is the excised material, from which I have removed the disputed last sentence. Please unlock the article so that this can be reinserted. It does your project no favors at all to ignore scientific research in favor of YEC theories. At least you can present both and let the reader decide.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Recent research==

Astronomers have searched for ways to find out accurately how old a [[star]] is. A new technique called gyrochronology, which works this out based on the star’s rate of rotation, has just been announced and will be published in the Astrophysical Journal. <ref> http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=5479</ref> Knowing the age of the host star of a [[planetary system]] helps astronomers understand how planetary systems change over time.

The research shows that the rotation period of a star changes steadily and predictably in line with its age and color. Thus, by measuring two of these attributes you can determine the third. The star’s color is a visible sign of its [[mass]] or surface temperature. The age of the [[[Sun]] is believed by astronomers to be 4.6 billion years <ref> http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~zirbel/ast21/handouts/Energy-of-Sun-better.PDF </ref> and can be used to calibrate the gyrochronology of most other stars.

There are other methods of working out a star’s age, but they have much larger uncertainties than gyrochronology. Unlike some other methods, gyrochronology also works well for stars not found in star clusters (‘field’ stars). It is used to calculate the age of stars that burn their hydrogen fuel at a predictable and steady rate; it does not work so well for younger stars, although the researchers hope to do future work to extend the method to these.

The forthcoming [[NASA]] Kepler Mission will yield more information about the rotation period of other stars, as this is information gleaned while searching for the transit of new planets orbiting across their disks. Once researchers have more precise ages for stars, other problems of chronometry can be solved and a better study made of the way astronomical phenomena change through time, using the stars themselves as clocks. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:"believed by astronomers"; what does this mean? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem revising the version I was using, I'll agree it needs a lot of work. But this entry is on '''astronomy''' not evolution, not YEC, not OEC, etc. Astronomy has little, if not nothing, to do with evolution. Cosmology, yes. Astronomy, no. Moreover, Conservative's overused misquotes are simply that. Overused misquotes. They have nothing to do with the actual field of astronomy, that is the study of space. The revision I used didn't repeat the same junk that Conservative posts on any article that doesn't fit his ideology. NOWHERE in this site has YEC been officially endorsed. Even so, Conservative is bent on advancing that view anywhere he can. The current revision discusses geology and the Big Bang '''theory''', with Big Bang being the only thing that actually is somewhat relevant to an entry on astronomy, though it has no place other than a brief mention. The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption." Given this, it is a discredit to ignore their hard work because it doesn't fit in with your "facts." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 23:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::Ok, so it is a fact they beleive it, the question is, what facts do they beleive? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary astronomy is "the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties." [1] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Facts==
I'm confused here, and as an hostotian, not without good reason. It is a scientific fact there are 8 planets. One year ago it was a scientific fact there were 9 planets. Now, in historical reporting which "fact" do I use? And one reason I got into history is because I don't follow the fads of the moment, which the 8 planet fact theory currently dominates. How do I know science, or what it calls facts, won't change again tomorrow? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's like the word "alive". It has a colloquial meaning, and science has worked with and suffered the consequences. The planets used to be the "wanderers" - the "stars" that moved about the firmament. There used to be 5 known to man (Hg, V, M, J, S) As we got to know our system better, we readily found U & N, and the tiny P. Then we found tens of thousands more and the distinctions blurred. Especially with the identification of a couple of rocks that, were Pluto to be a plant, they would be to. So the a definition was created that pretty much limits the word "planet" to the first eight. By the way, "history" is constantly undergoing revision and deeper understanding, too. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::So facts today may not be facts tomorrow. I thought facts existed in nature, independent and observable; I didn't know facts were established by concensus, only to be revised later. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:52, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::You're confusing actual facts with terminology and jargon. It is a fact that Pluto exists. It is no longer considered a planet under the current definition, but the definition was never a "fact." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Forgive me ==

Please forgive my ignorance, but I have studied a little astonomy and a lot of theology and I'm not sure why the astronomy page has only a short paragraph on astronomy, then a bunch of stuff that is important to state, but is really kind of fringe among even devout Christians. Explain? Or am I overstepping my bounds? The above comment, for example, is sort of irrelevant. Just because some discoveries have been made and definitions changed doesn't change physics.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 23:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the bottom line is facts, according to accepted "science", are voted upon, they are not something that exist in nature? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know where to jump in here, but I've seen two objectionable liberal edits:

* claiming that something "proves" the universe is billion of years old, which is a liberal opinion that did not even have a citation. No objective, credible scientist would claim "proof" of that view.

* deleting actual quotes by scientists, apparently under the view explained in [[quote mining]] that it is improper to quote someone for a statement critical of his own beliefs. Those quotes are factual and informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, I never asserted the universe is billions of years old, I simply reverted to a version that said this. If you want to change it, please, feel free to. Second, if they are actual quotes by scientists, it should be no problem to cite the original article. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, ColinR's argument does prove that the Universe is billions of years old. The equation is time = distance divided by velocity. Plug in the distance to a distant galaxy, divide by the speed of light, and you get an answer that is billions of years. Billions of years is greater than 6000 years. There's no opinion here at all. --[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 00:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Interesting premise, the problem is ColinR does not even make the arguement you claim. He says,
:*'' The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption."''
:All ColinR claims is '''''it is a fact''''' that scientists beleive something or other, and it is hazy and imprecise what they beleive.
:I beleive it is a fact I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday. Does the fact I beleive it make it real? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Is your fact supported by many years of research and the combined efforts of thousands of other astrophysicists? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:34, 4 May 2007 (EDT)\

:::Ok, why don't you rephrase this statement,
:::*'' The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption."''
:::and '''show us what the factual conclusions are''', other than the fact that "many years of research and the combined efforts of thousands of other astrophysicists" beleive something or other. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Do you really want me to explain how our current understanding of astronomy was derived? I can, but I'll admit, I can't do it justice, unlike several astro professors I've had who could. If you're asking me to outline every "fact," then you're asking the impossible and refusing to accept the basic nature of science. New information leads to changes. Case in point, discovery of other trans-Neptunian objects, leading to the reclassification of Pluto. So, please, clarify what you want, Rob. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think you may be seeing this is really a discussion about logic. I only asked for conclusions. They can't give factual conclusions, and they will tell you so. All they can say is "most people (in the field) beleive...". And it would ''in fact'' be bad science to represent what they beleive as facts, because ''they'' don't, and they ''can't''. Even a scientist who, in his heart and soul, beleives in proposition X, would ''still'' have to add the disclaimer, "this is my judgement on the matter". That ''still'' does not qualify it as an idependent and observable phenomenea of nature. And the legions of researchers and astrophysicists can only produce a concensus of what the community beleives, they cannot establish the facts of this particular matter. And their concensus is always subject to revision. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: How about the cosmic microwave background? There is a theory as to what the observed data should be, and the curve it predicted, and the observations by COBE and other satellites?[http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s5.htm] --01:23, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No, they wouldn't say "this is my judgement." They'd say, "all the evidence gathered points to this conclusion, and the conclusion reached accurately predicts other things." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be possible to link to and cite the papers instead so that any individuals who want to read the rest of the article can follow the link? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Another aspect to consider - there are theories about planetary formation, star formation, and galaxy formation. While it is reasonable to say that we do not know with certainty about these things, once can at least present information about them. If one is to present educational information, presenting information is much more useful than presenting someone saying "don't know." One could link to and explain http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955PASP...67..154H for star formation for example. This would be much more useful to a student or teacher who wants to actually learn about or teach about star formation. With what is here, one would be tempted to go to another site that has the information instead. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Quotes of scientists that are critical of theories should be included. They should not be concealed here, or merely linked to. As long as the quotes were said, and particularly if they go against the interest of the speaker, they should be here.

: Claims about the age of the universe rely on assumptions and are often not even scientific, as there is no way to falsify such speculation. See [[Karl Popper]]. I don't have a problem with a section at the end that reviews speculation by some scientists, as long as it is not overstated and does not attempt to convert a liberal opinion into a statement of proven fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::No. They aren't speculation and they are falsifiable. If you'd like, I'll be glad to show you how all evidence gathered points to a 14.6 billion year old universe and even explain how they're falsifiable. As far as I see it, rejecting the current accepted cosmological views because you view them as speculation would necessitate rejecting almost every current scientific view since they're based on "speculation." After all, who's seen an electron? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::We are dealing with an issue of method. What do we mean by "scientific fact"? Are "scientific facts" phenomenoa independently observable in naure, the "fact" there are nine planets for example, or are "facts" determined by a concensus evalution, the "fact" there are eight planets? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: First, define planet. Then we can talk about the question of how many have been discovered orbiting the sun. The definition of a planet is much more difficult than nailing down the distance light travels in a year. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::We are dealing with an issue of method. A planet we shall define as '''fact A'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I don't quite understand what you are referring to. We can talk about definitions of planets, and we can talk about how many planets are discovered. The number of planets around a star is not a 'fact' as such. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::For purposes of this discussion, a planet is defined as fact A, it is observable in nature and undisputed. How do we determine what constitutes fact A? Is it done be obesrving nature, or is done by a consensus of professionals? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: The definition of a planet isn't a fact, it is a definition. Thus the question of if Ceres (previously classified as an asteroid because it was part of the asteroid belt) is a planet, or if Charon is a planet (the center of rotation in the Pluto-Charon system isn't inside of Pluto - potentially an issue with the Earth-Moon system in a few million years too), or if bodies larger than Pluto beyond Pluto's orbit are to be classified as planets too. If you want to talk about planets, you need to define that word. The definition of the word is by a consensus of professionals. It is the same way one divides up the types of stars - O B A F G K M and all the various subtypes. These are not ''facts'' written in nature, but rather human classifications of objects in an attempt to understand them better. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::ok so we're getting closer to the method. For example, what ColinR and others wish to insert is '''the fact''' that '''most beleive''' "'''X'''", (X being undefined as either theory or fact). But the the fact is, the fact they wish to insert is, the fact that most beleive undefined "'''X'''". This is the factual basis of their "facts", the fact that most people beleive it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
(outdent)
: Lets take another approach to this. The Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away. This is not a definition, but the conclusion of theories and observations. Cepheid variable stars have a property that their absolute magnitude is a function of the variable period. This is backed up by theory and observation and is still being refined. Now, knowing the apparent magnitude and the period one can compute how far something is away (just as you can guess how far a 100 watt light bulb is away by how dim it is). There are other approaches that have lead to further refinements (eclipsing binary stars that let astronomers get the mass of the star which in turn is leads to how bright it should be which again, can give you the distance). This distance is not something that "most astronomers believe that the Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away" but rather it is an observable fact that continues to be refined to more precise values. The [[starlight problem]] is one that YEC have to deal with when talking about astronomy, but it does not alter the distance to the Andromeda galaxy. Nor does it alter that the most distant objects observable in the universe are about 14.7 billion light years away.
: One approach to saying "the universe is about 14.7 billion years old" is "Currently, the most distant observable objects in the universe are 14.7 billion light years away. The implications from this for those who believe in an old universe is that the universe itself is 14.7 billion years old. For Young Earth Creationists, this is addressed by the [[starlight problem]] which suggests that while the objects are 14.7 billion light years away, with creation light on its way to Earth was also created." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:*''The implications from this for those who believe in an old universe is that the universe itself is 14.7 billion years old. ''
::I don't think we can say this; last I heard, "those who believe in an old universe" don't believe in an old universe. Latest theory says there is more than one universe, perhaps an infinte number of universes. Of course this is a contradiction, because the term "uni" limits it to only one. See, these brilliant geniuses painted themselves into a box with this endless speculation which isn't anything more than trying to say there is no God. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::: My apologies, but ''what?!'' None of this has any implication on the existence of God. Nor does trying to argue from a word coined in ancient Latin suggest that there is only one (this time confusing definitions and theories). Science itself is about speculation, making hypothesis, and then trying to prove or disprove those. I believe that it is perfectly fair to say that the the implications for those who believe in an old universe. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Mtur, forget it. RobS is bent on using psuedo-logic and twisting people's words. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The issue with the quotes as they are included in this article is that they are just the single line quotes. I would be curious to see the full text of the quote in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 rather than just the "... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." The citations as they are and the links they go to is just a page of quotes. Nothing of the article in there itself. I also question the use of the quote "“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. -- That is 20 years ago. There has been much progress since then. If one is to provide a quote, it should be linked to the full text of the article.
:: And so, I bought a copy of the article...
<blockquote>Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries. As some monitoring records approach the requisite 12 years, Doppler detection of extrasolar Jupiters may not be far off. And searches are in the works for terrestrial-sized planets by looking for planets passing in front of their stars. But Tremaine remains cautious about what these searches will turn up. Speaking as a theorist, he notes that "most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong."</blockquote>
:: This in turn is refering to an earlier passage in the text:
<blockquote>Extrapolating from trends in mass and orbital distance within this more representative subset, the Australian physicists find that "Jupiters are probably very typical" of the as-yet-unobserved exoplanets, says Lineweaver. They predict that 22 new Jupiter-like exoplanets--as big as Jupiter or larger, orbiting from just beyond the distance of Mars to a bit beyond the distance of Jupiter--will be found orbiting around the 1000 or so stars that have been monitored for more than 3 years. The prospect of familiar-looking planetary systems is more encouraging than earlier extrapolations had suggested, says Lineweaver, because by focusing only on well-studied stars they reduced observational bias and they also included the latest discoveries. (Extrapolation to the abundance of exoplanets as small and distant as Saturn is not yet advisable, the pair says.)</blockquote>
:: That theories are still being made and disproven and more evidence is coming in every year means that this area remains a rich area for research. If you are going to cite something, cite a paper not a page of out of context quotes.
:: Going to Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep and another $10 to Sciencemag.org... this article is talking about how deep field telescopes of galaxies formed about 10 billion years ago matured quicker than some theories suggested. Why waves of star birth swept through some early galaxies and not others. And so, the critique of the model:
<blockquote>As findings from these surveys cascade into the literature, they are shaking up notions about the evolution of star birth in the young cosmos. Observers have found that some galaxies matured quickly after the big bang and then flamed out, forming giant blobs of stars that may have barely changed in at least 10 billion years. Another population of galaxies kept evolving, churning out new stars for eons and gradually settling into mature but mildly fertile galaxies such as our Milky Way.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Current theories of galaxy formation can't explain why concussive waves of star birth swept through some early galaxies but not others--and why some of those fierce stellar fires got snuffed after a few billion years. Startled by their own data, a few observers have implied that modelers of the cosmos need new ideas to describe our universe's combustive childhood (Science, 23 January, p. 460).</blockquote>
<blockquote>Theorists aren't yet ready to revise equations on their cluttered whiteboards, but they agree that the surveys illuminate serious flaws. "We're starting from a shaky foundation," says cosmologist Carlos Frenk of the University of Durham, U.K. "We don't understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form." Fellow theorist Simon White of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany, concurs: "The simple recipes in published models do not reproduce the star formation we see. Theorists are now having to grow up."</blockquote>
:: These are paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of an article that goes on for a few pages. The article is about the observational data of the sky surveys, how previous ones have been lacking in one way or another (too wide and shallow or narrow and deep) and how the observations of several space telescopes at different wavelengths and the improvement of adaptive optics for ground based telescopes are improving the picture of the early universe that will in turn give large amounts of data for theorists to check against. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 02:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: If you want to quote Carlos Frenk about cosmology, go to an article about cosmology[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&sim_query=YES&aut_xct=NO&aut_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR&author=Frenk%2Cc.&object=&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=100&start_nr=1&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&min_score=&jou_pick=NO&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&sort=SCORE&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1] - not from an article about sky surveys that is being used to disprove existing theories and models. In paticular, he's being critical of himself[http://star-www.dur.ac.uk/~csf/homepage/ResearchInterests.html] - his research is "large-scale structure, galaxy formation and supercomputer simulations of the formation of cosmic structures." I am fairly sure that he is working on some new theories and models of star formation that will produce more accurate models (the article above is 3 years old, last month he published "Modelling shock heating in cluster mergers - I. Moving beyond the spherical accretion model" which is exactly what he is talking about the shaky foundation, and back in November 2005 he published "The first generation of star-forming haloes", a bit earlier he published "Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars"). I do not believe it is fair to categorize him as 'critical of the materialistic science.' but rather he is working to extend it. Scott Tremaine was not critical of the work that he was commenting on and though it to be encouraging. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 02:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not a scientist, but I was my dad and I shared a hobby of astronomy when I was a kid. It is some of my best memories. I went to college, I studied science, although I majored in business. I am a practicing Christian. This whole argument is really weird. There is actually no debate among scientists about the fact of the universe being billions of years old. Why can't God have created this incredible universe back then? Why would anyone of faith try to make up arguments? If you ''believe'' it to be wrong, then it is a matter of faith, but don't try to make science match your faith. I can't ''prove'' God exists, but so what? I know He is there, and I don't need a scientist to tell me he is or isn't. [[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 09:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::There's not so much an argument about the age of the stars as about the implications this has for [[Young Earth creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Very good point, however if we are going to give a major edit space for the YEC POV should we not do this for all?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I want to address an earlier comment:

::All ColinR claims is it is a fact that scientists believe something or other, and it is hazy and imprecise what they believe. I believe it is a fact I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday. Does the fact I believe it make it real?

This statement is confusing facts about nature with facts about stated opinions.
*There are such things as facts about stated opinions.
*For example, it is a fact that someone stated "I believe it I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday." It is not a fact that he will hit the power ball. It is not necessarily a fact that he really does believe this. But it '''is''' a fact that he '''stated''' that he '''believes''' this.
*How important a fact about a stated opinion is depends on '''whose''' statement it is.
*A fact about a stated opinion is meaningless to me unless I have a personal judgement about the individual making that statement.
*My judgement may be different than someone elses.
*A fact about a stated opinion is interesting to many readers if there are many readers who have personal judgements about the individual making the statement. It is interesting to few readers if there are few readers to have such judgements.
*Facts about stated opinions are worth putting into an encyclopedia if there are many readers who have such judgements.
*'''My''' own stated opinions are only interesting to the few people who know whether or not they respect my opinions. They do ''not'' belong in an encyclopedia article even when attributed to me. They belong in an article ''even less'' when no source is given but are simply stated ''ex cathedra:"
:::"Conservapedia editor "dpbsmith" believes the Mac OS is better than Windows." Honest, but boring. Nobody cares.
:::"The Mac OS is better than Windows." Highly dishonest. It's just my opinion and I'm not even saying so.
:::"The Mac OS is generally regarded as better than Windows." Even worse, because it's ''concealing'' the fact that it's just my opinion.
:::"The late science-fiction author Douglas Adams was a Macintosh fan." Now we're getting ''somewhere,'' because there ''are'' people who care about his opinion. ''And'' by identifying him as a science-fiction author, everyone can judge whether they care to pay attention to such a person's opinions about computer operating systems.

Finally, I'd add that what is most important is that all widely-held opinions ''be mentioned.'' Relatively little harm is done to (say) creationism if a teacher spends ten minutes telling a class what creationism is, who believes it and why... even if he or she goes on with ten hours or days of evolution. The harm is when a class never hears ''anything'' about creationism, or, worse yet, when a creationist in the classroom is left thinking "Nobody believes this but me." And, of course, this works the other way around as well. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

P. S. '''I''' before '''E,''' 
except after '''C,''' 
or when sounded like '''A''' 
(as in ''neighbor'' and ''weigh'') 
And ''seize/inveigle/either,'' 
''Weird/leisure/neither.'' 

(You don't have to be an Einstein to be aware of other exceptions, but that jingle does cover most of the usual cases...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:04, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for that well deserved criticism. What this seems to say is scientific facts are determined by the ''credibility'' of the concensus. Is that correct? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:22, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well what do ''you'' think an acceptable definition of "Facts" is? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== On protection and revert of my edits ==

I believe I have previously pointed that the quotes are not in support of the stated position that was given with the above references in this page. Furthermore, the quotes themselves link to a page of quotes and not to the articles which is of no educational value. Could someone please remove the quotes or provide less misleading context for the quotes. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't believe you did or can demonstrate your contention. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Could you please address these as an item by item failure instead of the general case? I am also having difficulty finding the full text to “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186 which is a 24 year old publication. If you could provide the full text so that it would be possible to look at the rest of it and see if what is being mentioned has been updated? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Conservative, so you lock the page once again and revert to the stuff about evolution which has no place in this article other than to push your POV. Seems like vandalism to me...--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:11, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:This is article about _astronomy_, not about Young earth creationism. Please, do not copy other theories here, link only to them and unlock this. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

To further elaborate and make it easier to track... --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
=== Scott Tremaine ===
The quote "...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." is warning about being too enthusiastic about the predictions made earlier in the article about planet formation. The paragraph that this starts out with is "Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries."

=== Carlos Frenk ===
"We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form." is about the models that are being used to simulate the formation of a galaxy which are having difficulty with recent sky surveys of galaxies with a redshift of about 2.3. Carlos Frenk is an astrophysicist who's work is supercomputer modeling of star formation and has published papers such as "Modeling shock heating in cluster mergers - I. Moving beyond the spherical accretion model", "The first generation of star-forming halos", "Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars". In this quote he is being critical of himself and saying that he needs more data (which the article is about - better sky surveys) to work from.

=== Michael Rowan-Robinson ===
The quote "We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe." is from 1983, years before the Hubble Telescope was launched and supercomputers were very limited. Astronomy has progressed significantly since then. This quote is out of date. The referenced article has yet to be found to show the complete text of the material and the context of it.

=== Commentary ===
:::I guess we will agree to disagree. Mr. Tremaine made a candid admission and given the track record of previous models one should certain be cautious about accepting Mr. Tremaine's materialistic explanation. I believe the star quote is very explicit and irrefutable. I guess we will also disagree about the third quote. I am skeptical that old universe astronomy has really progressed as seen by the 2002 and 2004 quotes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I thought the Hubble was another example of scientists scamming the public purse for more money; we spent $30 billion to launch it, and when it got there it didn't work, so we had to spend a couple billion more to fix it (guess who got paid twice for not doing their job right the first time). You are right, tho. Facts in 1983 probably aren't facts anymore today, so we should be cautious about what we allege to be scientific facts today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Can you please provide a citation for the 'couple billion more to fix it'? I can't seem to find any numbers mentioned for SM1. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: In case you are still hunting, I found it for you http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/missions/sts-103/hubble/archive/910702.html - it was about $20 million. Thats a bit less than a couple billion more. Additionaly, you have the $30 billion wrong http://hubble.nasa.gov/overview/faq.php it cost $1.5 billion to build and put into orbit, and $230-250 million to keep running for a year (collecting data and analyzing it) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: You are willing to accept the "past theories have been wrong" but not "sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries?" You cannot pick and choose quotes. Take it all, with context or none at all. Carlos Frenk's research is about star formation, he is trying to further it. The quote in the context of the article is about the need for more and better sky surveys - not saying that the theories are wrong. Could you provide the full context of the third quote so that one can look at what is stated in the paper and what is stated in current research? The 2002 and 2004 quotes are about different things than the 1983 quote. In 1983, there wasn't any hope of looking at extra solar planets. Now they are being found at a reasonable rate. In 1983, one didn't have the power to model star formation - we do today. In 1983, scientists were not able to do Xray astronomy or see objects at the distance that the Hubble can today. Gamma ray flashes were still in their infancy http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/short_burst_oct5.html (you couldn't see the companion galaxy). Go to the astronomy department of the local university and ask a professor there what has been discovered since 1983. Alternatively, look at a astronomy text book from the early 80's and compare it with one today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:53, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: I've been asked to come over here and say something. The quotes are informative but I do think the entry could benefit from some direct discussion of astronomy, like solar system or Milky Way-type stuff. Maybe it could be developed here first and then inserted into the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:55, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I am glad you think the quotes are informative in the YEC section. I agree with you that the article has to be developed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

That is great Andy, tell conservative to stop locking the article when ever someone edits something that is against his personal beliefs.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:I double-checked the quote contexts discovered by Mtur. Finding them accurate, I noted the quotes' context so they don't mislead.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==What is this trying to accomplish?==

Because velocity = distance/time, a young earth creationists wishing to postulate a universe of approximately 6000 years old faces a number of problems if one uses an ''a priori methodological naturalism'' approach to the issue:

If I am reading this right you are trying to discredit the first paragraph of "Problems for Young Earth Creationism" by saying that the approach of using v=d/t is not based on prior study or examination of science (derived by natural processes instead of supernatural processes)? I have to admit you are subtle in your assertions.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 18:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly where is the astronomy in this article? All I see is a big chunk of YEC stuff. How about some..oh I don't know...information about astronomy? I think I should point out once again '''NOT ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN YOUNG EARTH CREATIONSISM''' so why are you guys ramming it down everybody's throat?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 21:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Simplified Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition and distinction between astronomy and astrophysics ==

Here's the problem to begin with: Astronomy is more about the topological order of celestial objects rather than the physical properties and processes of those objects, which are more related to astrophysics. The problem's that the definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is just schematic, for economic reasons, and maybe it's even imprecise. Remember that dictionaries are just supposed to give rough definitions of terms, but they don't give more precise explanations. Even though astronomy and astrophysics overlap, there is a clear distinction between the approaches of those two to the same objects of study. See, the second element of the compound "astronomy" is derived from "nomos", which means "order" or "rule", so astronomy is more about the topological order of objects on the celestial sphere or in three- or four-dimensional space, but astrophysics approaches the whole thing from another perspective, the physical perspective. So if you ask, for example, where the Sun is located, that's more about astronomy, but if you ask about its properties, like color, temperature, diameter or age, that's more about astrophysics. So you have to remember that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition is way too simplistic for the purposes of this page. --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 23:13, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== Removed cited material ==

In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Astronomy&diff=next&oldid=210224 this] edit, the full text of the material was cited - it was from the article http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 that was quoted above. It was not commentary - it was the full context of the quote. Feel free to purchase a copy of the article and verify it for yourself. Until then, removing it as uncited junk is misleading. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:40, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== The VVYE point of view has been left out ==

I think that this article isn't nearly conservative enough. All this rubbish about science and billions of years or 6000 years. What a bunch of rubbish!! Anyone with have a brain should be certain that the whole universe was created a few hours ago!! It all just came into being just as it is now. Prove it otherwise!! You can't can you. How do you know it wasn't? Stupid scientist and stupid Bible studiers! You should have more information here on the Very Very Young Earth POV. The rest is rubbish that you all can't prove!! [[User:Wismike|Wismike]] 17:53, 13 September 2007 (EDT)Wismike

== Proposed rewrite ==

I know people have been blocked for editing what you don't want to, so I wanted this okayed before I go at it. I propose a complete rewrite of this article. If you wish to have it in, I will still address the YEC point of view, and the starlight problem, but at the same time, I wish to cover such things as the history of astronomy, key names in the field, subsets of astronomy, major issues in the field, etc.. As it stands right now, this is now simply "Astronomy disagrees with YEC, therefore is invalid". [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 10:52, 20 December 2008 (EST)

== Proposed Rewrite Part II ==

This page needs to be completely rewritten. Only the first two paragraphs pertain to astronomy at all and that certainly isn't enough to adequate explain this field of science. The Starlight section should be removed as this is covered in a separate article and is really about a question or origins and cosmology. The Young Earth Creation section seems tacked on for no real reason and should be removed also. Instead an article on what astronomy is, the disciplines within it, and a history of the science is what should be here. I want ask here first if there is any objection before rewriting this article. I have noticed it has not been touched since June of 2008 and not significantly since September of 2007 making it inactive. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 14:49, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Agreed. Anybody coming to this article as a source of information on astronomy is going to go away disappointed and with a low opinion of Conservapedia. As it stands the article is rubbish and needs to be completely redone. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
====References====
<references/>

Talk:Astronomy

2012-12-20T03:43:55Z

CastorPollox: /* Proposed Rewrite Part II */

Astronomy

2012-12-20T03:40:51Z

CastorPollox: Remove redunacy

[[Image:Moooghj.jpg|right|300px]]
'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is "the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=astronomy</ref> It has been studied since ancient times, forming a major part of the [[religion]]s of many early [[civilization]]s such as the [[Egypt|Egyptians]] and the [[Aztecs]]. [[Stonehenge]] in [[England]] is also thought to be an astronomical observatory. The handing down of complex astronomical teachings shows these early [[civilization]]s must have had formalized systems of [[education]].

Astronomy was crucial to the development of [[safe]] and accurate [[navigation]] for ships, and observations of the movement of [[sky|heavenly bodies]] helped lead to the theories we now call [[physics]]. In fact, much of astronomy today relies on physics, thus many astronomers are considered astrophysicists. 

Current hot topics in astrophysics research are [[exoplanets]], [[black holes]], and the accelerating universe.

== Young Earth Creationism View ==
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] hold the [[earth]] and universe is approximately 6,000 years old. Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe [[paradigm]] has numerous [[anomaly|anomalies]] and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: [[Young earth creationism]]).

==Starlight As An Objection To The Big Bang Theory==
The [[starlight problem]] is an argument against the [[Big Bang theory|big bang theory]] which theorizes a universe of billions of years old. <ref name="aig">http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp</ref> The [[creation science]] organization [[Answers in Genesis]] has stated the following regarding the starlight problem for the Big Bang Theory and the work of [[Charles W. Misner]] is cited who published his work in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]'':
{{cquote|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current [cosmic microwave background] CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref name="aig" />}}

== Starlight As An Objection to Young Earth Creationism ==
Those who propose an old universe assert there is a [[starlight problem]] for the [[young earth creationism|young universe]] model. A key assumption for this objection to a young universe model is that the speed of light has been constant.

==Major Fields in Astronomy==
*Cosmology-The study of the Universe as a whole
*Astrophysics-The physics behind astronomical objects
*Archeoastronomy-The study of how the stars influenced ancient cultures
*Radio Astronomy-Using radio waves to study the universe
*Optical Astronomy-Study of astronomical objects in the visible light range
*Planetary Science-Study of planets and moons, both in our solar system and outside our solar system
*Exobiology-Theoretical study of extraterrestrial life
*Astronautical Engineering-The design and construction of space craft

==References==

<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.nasa.gov The NASA Homepage]
*[http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov The NASA Planetary Photojournal]
*[http://www.aas.org American Astronomical Society]
*[http://www.britastro.org/baa/ British Astronomical Association]
*[http://www.badastronomy.com Bad Astronomy] a website that deals with myths and misconceptions in astronomy.
*[http://www.astronomychitchat.co.uk/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1328194507 A guide on how to start]
*[http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080527.html Astronomy Picture of the Day] Each day a different image or photograph of our fascinating universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer.

[[Category:Science]]