Ia our sun groing old before its time

[Rojan Katar]

With the biggest solar flares in years one could ask himself if our sun is
groing older than it should be.

We all know that it will become a giant red but some sat in 4.5 billion
years and some say in only a few thousand.

If I only rely on my astronomy courses it shoud be 4.5 billion years.

Has someone got some more insight?

Thanks

Pete!

[Abdul Ahad]

"Rojan Katar" > wrote in message >...
> With the biggest solar flares in years one could ask himself if our sun is
> groing older than it should be.
>
>

.....and some say in only a few thousand....

Sounds like old wives tales to me. The Sun taking 4.5 billion years to
reach the red gaint stage agrees with my memory checks on the topic.
The solar flaring of recent times is an erratic phenomena which in
reality no one can properly explain. The Sun is a main sequence star
of extremely good stability in light and heat output, when majority of
stars we see out there have some degree of fluctuations. Whilst the
current flaring is somewhat over and above what we expect in the 11
year solar 'cycle', I would not get too alarmed as historically the
Sun has behaved in similar ways before. There is no *trend* to suggest
the Sun is about to go super nova!

Abdul Ahad
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/astronomy.html

[Abdul Ahad]

"Rojan Katar" > wrote in message >...
> With the biggest solar flares in years one could ask himself if our sun is
> groing older than it should be.
>
>

.....and some say in only a few thousand....

Sounds like old wives tales to me. The Sun taking 4.5 billion years to
reach the red gaint stage agrees with my memory checks on the topic.
The solar flaring of recent times is an erratic phenomena which in
reality no one can properly explain. The Sun is a main sequence star
of extremely good stability in light and heat output, when majority of
stars we see out there have some degree of fluctuations. Whilst the
current flaring is somewhat over and above what we expect in the 11
year solar 'cycle', I would not get too alarmed as historically the
Sun has behaved in similar ways before. There is no *trend* to suggest
the Sun is about to go super nova!

Abdul Ahad
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/astronomy.html

[David Knisely]

"Rojan Katar" > wrote in message >...
> With the biggest solar flares in years one could ask himself if our sun is
> groing older than it should be.
>
> We all know that it will become a giant red but some sat in 4.5 billion
> years and some say in only a few thousand.
>
> If I only rely on my astronomy courses it shoud be 4.5 billion years.
>
> Has someone got some more insight?
>
> Thanks
>
> Pete!

These solar flares are small compared to some which also occur on
sun-like stars. These "superflares" are many times more violent,
although one model may indicate that these stars have very close
companions which alter their behavior. The sun is behaving pretty
much in a normal manner. Solar flares tend to be the most violent in
the period after sunspot maximum (which we are now in). The fact that
we have recorded the largest X-ray class flare in history isn't really
all that sigificant, as we have only been observing the sun's X-ray
output since the late 1970's.
As for the sun, in a few *billion* years, it will become a red
giant, although its energy output is very slowly increasing over time,
and that may make life on our planet difficult to impossible in only
about a billion years time. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

[David Knisely]

"Rojan Katar" > wrote in message >...
> With the biggest solar flares in years one could ask himself if our sun is
> groing older than it should be.
>
> We all know that it will become a giant red but some sat in 4.5 billion
> years and some say in only a few thousand.
>
> If I only rely on my astronomy courses it shoud be 4.5 billion years.
>
> Has someone got some more insight?
>
> Thanks
>
> Pete!

These solar flares are small compared to some which also occur on
sun-like stars. These "superflares" are many times more violent,
although one model may indicate that these stars have very close
companions which alter their behavior. The sun is behaving pretty
much in a normal manner. Solar flares tend to be the most violent in
the period after sunspot maximum (which we are now in). The fact that
we have recorded the largest X-ray class flare in history isn't really
all that sigificant, as we have only been observing the sun's X-ray
output since the late 1970's.
As for the sun, in a few *billion* years, it will become a red
giant, although its energy output is very slowly increasing over time,
and that may make life on our planet difficult to impossible in only
about a billion years time. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

[unk]

In article >,
(Abdul Ahad) wrote:

> "Rojan Katar" > wrote in message
> >...
> > With the biggest solar flares in years one could ask himself if our sun is
> > groing older than it should be.
> >
> >
>
> ....and some say in only a few thousand....
>
> Sounds like old wives tales to me. The Sun taking 4.5 billion years to
> reach the red gaint stage agrees with my memory checks on the topic.
> The solar flaring of recent times is an erratic phenomena which in
> reality no one can properly explain. The Sun is a main sequence star
> of extremely good stability in light and heat output, when majority of
> stars we see out there have some degree of fluctuations. Whilst the
> current flaring is somewhat over and above what we expect in the 11
> year solar 'cycle', I would not get too alarmed as historically the
> Sun has behaved in similar ways before. There is no *trend* to suggest
> the Sun is about to go super nova!
>
> Abdul Ahad
> http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/astronomy.html

Abdul...it is doubtful that you have a memory that goes back 45 years
let alone 4.5 billion years. When you consider that we've been in the
scientific age with respect to the sun for less than 400 years and
compare that to the textbook 'beliefs' about the age of the sun which is
supposed to be on the order of 4.5 b.y. then we see that we have this
fractional observational window of 400/4.5e9 which is 1 part in eleven
and a quarter million. Surely you have the uniformitarianist mindset to
think that this 1 part in eleven and a quarter million is absolutely
representative of the entire spectrum of its supposedly 4.5 billion year
history.

I fantasize about newgroups not being occupied by people like you who
are only able to regurgitate what the so-called (but never proven to be)
experts have declared.
--
--
BlueJay >
for email replace the 'i' in ccrider w/a 'y'

[unk]

In article >,
(Abdul Ahad) wrote:

> "Rojan Katar" > wrote in message
> >...
> > With the biggest solar flares in years one could ask himself if our sun is
> > groing older than it should be.
> >
> >
>
> ....and some say in only a few thousand....
>
> Sounds like old wives tales to me. The Sun taking 4.5 billion years to
> reach the red gaint stage agrees with my memory checks on the topic.
> The solar flaring of recent times is an erratic phenomena which in
> reality no one can properly explain. The Sun is a main sequence star
> of extremely good stability in light and heat output, when majority of
> stars we see out there have some degree of fluctuations. Whilst the
> current flaring is somewhat over and above what we expect in the 11
> year solar 'cycle', I would not get too alarmed as historically the
> Sun has behaved in similar ways before. There is no *trend* to suggest
> the Sun is about to go super nova!
>
> Abdul Ahad
> http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/astronomy.html

Abdul...it is doubtful that you have a memory that goes back 45 years
let alone 4.5 billion years. When you consider that we've been in the
scientific age with respect to the sun for less than 400 years and
compare that to the textbook 'beliefs' about the age of the sun which is
supposed to be on the order of 4.5 b.y. then we see that we have this
fractional observational window of 400/4.5e9 which is 1 part in eleven
and a quarter million. Surely you have the uniformitarianist mindset to
think that this 1 part in eleven and a quarter million is absolutely
representative of the entire spectrum of its supposedly 4.5 billion year
history.

I fantasize about newgroups not being occupied by people like you who
are only able to regurgitate what the so-called (but never proven to be)
experts have declared.
--
--
BlueJay >
for email replace the 'i' in ccrider w/a 'y'

[Abdul Ahad]

>
> I fantasize about newgroups not being occupied by people like you who
> are only able to regurgitate what the so-called (but never proven to be)
> experts have declared.

So you don't believe in going to school and learning about scientific
concepts from text books and teachers then? No, I haven't personally
been around for 4.5 billion years, but I have a mind that can look at
the universe, make logical deductions about other stars in similar and
dis-similar leagues as our own Sun, look at stars at different stages
of their evolution and life cycles, then *project* these observations
and thoughts into the past, present and future. My statements are
reasoned within limits of human capability.

Are you capable of any of these things I wonder? If you are able to
add comments that would be *useful* in some way to this group, then
please do so.

AA

[Abdul Ahad]

>
> I fantasize about newgroups not being occupied by people like you who
> are only able to regurgitate what the so-called (but never proven to be)
> experts have declared.

So you don't believe in going to school and learning about scientific
concepts from text books and teachers then? No, I haven't personally
been around for 4.5 billion years, but I have a mind that can look at
the universe, make logical deductions about other stars in similar and
dis-similar leagues as our own Sun, look at stars at different stages
of their evolution and life cycles, then *project* these observations
and thoughts into the past, present and future. My statements are
reasoned within limits of human capability.

Are you capable of any of these things I wonder? If you are able to
add comments that would be *useful* in some way to this group, then
please do so.

AA

[george]

Well, it was a rather dumb question to begin with really. Sol seems fine--it
predates you and will likely continue after you are gone.



"Abdul Ahad" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> > I fantasize about newgroups not being occupied by people like you who
> > are only able to regurgitate what the so-called (but never proven to be)
> > experts have declared.
>
> So you don't believe in going to school and learning about scientific
> concepts from text books and teachers then? No, I haven't personally
> been around for 4.5 billion years, but I have a mind that can look at
> the universe, make logical deductions about other stars in similar and
> dis-similar leagues as our own Sun, look at stars at different stages
> of their evolution and life cycles, then *project* these observations
> and thoughts into the past, present and future. My statements are
> reasoned within limits of human capability.
>
> Are you capable of any of these things I wonder? If you are able to
> add comments that would be *useful* in some way to this group, then
> please do so.
>
> AA

[george]

Well, it was a rather dumb question to begin with really. Sol seems fine--it
predates you and will likely continue after you are gone.



"Abdul Ahad" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> > I fantasize about newgroups not being occupied by people like you who
> > are only able to regurgitate what the so-called (but never proven to be)
> > experts have declared.
>
> So you don't believe in going to school and learning about scientific
> concepts from text books and teachers then? No, I haven't personally
> been around for 4.5 billion years, but I have a mind that can look at
> the universe, make logical deductions about other stars in similar and
> dis-similar leagues as our own Sun, look at stars at different stages
> of their evolution and life cycles, then *project* these observations
> and thoughts into the past, present and future. My statements are
> reasoned within limits of human capability.
>
> Are you capable of any of these things I wonder? If you are able to
> add comments that would be *useful* in some way to this group, then
> please do so.
>
> AA

[unk]

In article >,
(Abdul Ahad) wrote:

> >
> > I fantasize about newgroups not being occupied by people like you who
> > are only able to regurgitate what the so-called (but never proven to be)
> > experts have declared.
>
> So you don't believe in going to school and learning about scientific
> concepts from text books and teachers then? No, I haven't personally
> been around for 4.5 billion years, but I have a mind that can look at
> the universe, make logical deductions about other stars in similar and
> dis-similar leagues as our own Sun, look at stars at different stages
> of their evolution and life cycles, then *project* these observations
> and thoughts into the past, present and future. My statements are
> reasoned within limits of human capability.
>
> Are you capable of any of these things I wonder? If you are able to
> add comments that would be *useful* in some way to this group, then
> please do so.
>
> AA

I believe in going to school to learn to differentiate between concepts
which are labeled 'scientific' but are not and those which really are
'scientific' or at least reasonable and logical. You believe that some
stars are in different stages of their 'evolution' when, in fact, you
have merely bought into the idea that stars that appear different from
each other are in a 'different stage' of 'their evolution' without
really knowing the origin or nature of stars themselves. In other
words, you are able to regurgitate the thoughts of other people and to
use such thoughts as the basis of your logic without questioning the
validity of their assessment of the data in the first place.

For example, I would guess that you believe that the age of the Sun is
related to the age of the Earth and you believe that the age of the
Earth is related to the ratio of various isotopes in rocks. But the
belief that isotopic ratios is an indicator of age is based upon a
specific notion of the origin of heavy elements. You probably suppose
that certain heavy elements are produced in supernovae by thermonuclear
fusion events, that is, in energetic collisional events between the
nuclei of lighter elements. See, you have a whole set of beliefs that
are not 'scientifically' substantiated but rather are so universally
accepted as true that they are considered to be so beyond any reasonable
doubt.

Now comes onto the stage the idea that there is some sort of very
'heavy' dark matter which resides in the cores of galaxies (and other
places). Do you suppose that this heavy dark matter was formed by the
collision and fusion of lighter elements? Perhaps you never considered
the origin of this 'heavy, dark matter'?

We have experimental data that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt
that heavy elements can decay into lighter daughter products. Did it
ever occur to you that almost all elements are decay products of heavier
elements? Or that heavy elements are not fusion products but fission
products? If so, then, what could you say about the age of a star or of
the Earth that was accurate?
--
--
BlueJay >
for email replace the 'i' in ccrider w/a 'y'

[unk]

In article >,
(Abdul Ahad) wrote:

> >
> > I fantasize about newgroups not being occupied by people like you who
> > are only able to regurgitate what the so-called (but never proven to be)
> > experts have declared.
>
> So you don't believe in going to school and learning about scientific
> concepts from text books and teachers then? No, I haven't personally
> been around for 4.5 billion years, but I have a mind that can look at
> the universe, make logical deductions about other stars in similar and
> dis-similar leagues as our own Sun, look at stars at different stages
> of their evolution and life cycles, then *project* these observations
> and thoughts into the past, present and future. My statements are
> reasoned within limits of human capability.
>
> Are you capable of any of these things I wonder? If you are able to
> add comments that would be *useful* in some way to this group, then
> please do so.
>
> AA

I believe in going to school to learn to differentiate between concepts
which are labeled 'scientific' but are not and those which really are
'scientific' or at least reasonable and logical. You believe that some
stars are in different stages of their 'evolution' when, in fact, you
have merely bought into the idea that stars that appear different from
each other are in a 'different stage' of 'their evolution' without
really knowing the origin or nature of stars themselves. In other
words, you are able to regurgitate the thoughts of other people and to
use such thoughts as the basis of your logic without questioning the
validity of their assessment of the data in the first place.

For example, I would guess that you believe that the age of the Sun is
related to the age of the Earth and you believe that the age of the
Earth is related to the ratio of various isotopes in rocks. But the
belief that isotopic ratios is an indicator of age is based upon a
specific notion of the origin of heavy elements. You probably suppose
that certain heavy elements are produced in supernovae by thermonuclear
fusion events, that is, in energetic collisional events between the
nuclei of lighter elements. See, you have a whole set of beliefs that
are not 'scientifically' substantiated but rather are so universally
accepted as true that they are considered to be so beyond any reasonable
doubt.

Now comes onto the stage the idea that there is some sort of very
'heavy' dark matter which resides in the cores of galaxies (and other
places). Do you suppose that this heavy dark matter was formed by the
collision and fusion of lighter elements? Perhaps you never considered
the origin of this 'heavy, dark matter'?

We have experimental data that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt
that heavy elements can decay into lighter daughter products. Did it
ever occur to you that almost all elements are decay products of heavier
elements? Or that heavy elements are not fusion products but fission
products? If so, then, what could you say about the age of a star or of
the Earth that was accurate?
--
--
BlueJay >
for email replace the 'i' in ccrider w/a 'y'

[Abdul Ahad]

> Now comes onto the stage the idea that there is some sort of very
> 'heavy' dark matter which resides in the cores of galaxies (and other
> places). Do you suppose that this heavy dark matter was formed by the
> collision and fusion of lighter elements? Perhaps you never considered
> the origin of this 'heavy, dark matter'?
>
> We have experimental data that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt
> that heavy elements can decay into lighter daughter products. Did it
> ever occur to you that almost all elements are decay products of heavier
> elements? Or that heavy elements are not fusion products but fission
> products? If so, then, what could you say about the age of a star or of
> the Earth that was accurate?

You don't say!!! You are clearly a man(?) of knowledge in this field
of cosmic processes and elemental make up of stars & galaxies.
Cosmology and Stellar Evolution are *not* areas of any specialism to
me, so I regret not being able to engage in this conversation further.
Not necessarily due to lack of knowledge or fascination, but because
of time!

I am sure there are other well versed people in this group, so you may
want to take this further with some of them in a separate post on this
news group. My original reply was merely stating that: the Solar
flares of recent weeks is NOT a hugely abnormal phenomena in the grand
scheme of how stars generally behave and that we should not overly
concern ourselves with that. Obviously there are millions of
additional bits of facts one could analyse, but the bottom line
conclusion will be what I just said.

cheers
AA

[Abdul Ahad]

> Now comes onto the stage the idea that there is some sort of very
> 'heavy' dark matter which resides in the cores of galaxies (and other
> places). Do you suppose that this heavy dark matter was formed by the
> collision and fusion of lighter elements? Perhaps you never considered
> the origin of this 'heavy, dark matter'?
>
> We have experimental data that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt
> that heavy elements can decay into lighter daughter products. Did it
> ever occur to you that almost all elements are decay products of heavier
> elements? Or that heavy elements are not fusion products but fission
> products? If so, then, what could you say about the age of a star or of
> the Earth that was accurate?

You don't say!!! You are clearly a man(?) of knowledge in this field
of cosmic processes and elemental make up of stars & galaxies.
Cosmology and Stellar Evolution are *not* areas of any specialism to
me, so I regret not being able to engage in this conversation further.
Not necessarily due to lack of knowledge or fascination, but because
of time!

I am sure there are other well versed people in this group, so you may
want to take this further with some of them in a separate post on this
news group. My original reply was merely stating that: the Solar
flares of recent weeks is NOT a hugely abnormal phenomena in the grand
scheme of how stars generally behave and that we should not overly
concern ourselves with that. Obviously there are millions of
additional bits of facts one could analyse, but the bottom line
conclusion will be what I just said.

cheers
AA

[CeeBee]

unk > wrote in alt.astronomy.solar:


> I fantasize about newgroups not being occupied by people like you who
> are only able to regurgitate what the so-called (but never proven to
> be) experts have declared.

You fantasize about non-experts.

Experts can deduce a lot from the total mass of a star, fule consumption
in the fusion process, observating other stars and using the scientific
method to come to a theory about the possible age and possible future
ahead of the Sun..

You don't have to follow a car for an hour to know something about its
speed, and how many kph it's doing if it's passing you at a constant
speed.
You don't have be around for 100 million years to have some knowledge
about the eating habits of dinosaurs.

You don't have to read another messages from you to know that you have
zilch understanding of the scientific method.

--
CeeBee


"I am not a crook"


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2

[CeeBee]

unk > wrote in alt.astronomy.solar:


> I fantasize about newgroups not being occupied by people like you who
> are only able to regurgitate what the so-called (but never proven to
> be) experts have declared.

You fantasize about non-experts.

Experts can deduce a lot from the total mass of a star, fule consumption
in the fusion process, observating other stars and using the scientific
method to come to a theory about the possible age and possible future
ahead of the Sun..

You don't have to follow a car for an hour to know something about its
speed, and how many kph it's doing if it's passing you at a constant
speed.
You don't have be around for 100 million years to have some knowledge
about the eating habits of dinosaurs.

You don't have to read another messages from you to know that you have
zilch understanding of the scientific method.

--
CeeBee


"I am not a crook"


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2

[unk]

In article >,
(Abdul Ahad) wrote:

> > Now comes onto the stage the idea that there is some sort of very
> > 'heavy' dark matter which resides in the cores of galaxies (and other
> > places). Do you suppose that this heavy dark matter was formed by the
> > collision and fusion of lighter elements? Perhaps you never considered
> > the origin of this 'heavy, dark matter'?
> >
> > We have experimental data that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt
> > that heavy elements can decay into lighter daughter products. Did it
> > ever occur to you that almost all elements are decay products of heavier
> > elements? Or that heavy elements are not fusion products but fission
> > products? If so, then, what could you say about the age of a star or of
> > the Earth that was accurate?
>
> You don't say!!! You are clearly a man(?) of knowledge in this field
> of cosmic processes and elemental make up of stars & galaxies.
> Cosmology and Stellar Evolution are *not* areas of any specialism to
> me, so I regret not being able to engage in this conversation further.
> Not necessarily due to lack of knowledge or fascination, but because
> of time!

You've never had the knowledge to contribute anything meaningful.
That's why you've been marked as a mere regurgitator.


> I am sure there are other well versed people in this group, so you may
> want to take this further with some of them in a separate post on this
> news group. My original reply was merely stating that: the Solar
> flares of recent weeks is NOT a hugely abnormal phenomena in the grand
> scheme of how stars generally behave

And I pointed out that you have not sufficient data to say anything
reasonable about the 'grand scheme' of 'how stars generally behave'.
--
--
BlueJay >
for email replace the 'i' in ccrider w/a 'y'

[unk]

In article >,
(Abdul Ahad) wrote:

> > Now comes onto the stage the idea that there is some sort of very
> > 'heavy' dark matter which resides in the cores of galaxies (and other
> > places). Do you suppose that this heavy dark matter was formed by the
> > collision and fusion of lighter elements? Perhaps you never considered
> > the origin of this 'heavy, dark matter'?
> >
> > We have experimental data that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt
> > that heavy elements can decay into lighter daughter products. Did it
> > ever occur to you that almost all elements are decay products of heavier
> > elements? Or that heavy elements are not fusion products but fission
> > products? If so, then, what could you say about the age of a star or of
> > the Earth that was accurate?
>
> You don't say!!! You are clearly a man(?) of knowledge in this field
> of cosmic processes and elemental make up of stars & galaxies.
> Cosmology and Stellar Evolution are *not* areas of any specialism to
> me, so I regret not being able to engage in this conversation further.
> Not necessarily due to lack of knowledge or fascination, but because
> of time!

You've never had the knowledge to contribute anything meaningful.
That's why you've been marked as a mere regurgitator.


> I am sure there are other well versed people in this group, so you may
> want to take this further with some of them in a separate post on this
> news group. My original reply was merely stating that: the Solar
> flares of recent weeks is NOT a hugely abnormal phenomena in the grand
> scheme of how stars generally behave

And I pointed out that you have not sufficient data to say anything
reasonable about the 'grand scheme' of 'how stars generally behave'.
--
--
BlueJay >
for email replace the 'i' in ccrider w/a 'y'

[Chuck Taylor]

"unk" > wrote in message
...
> Now comes onto the stage the idea that there is some sort of very
> 'heavy' dark matter which resides in the cores of galaxies (and other
> places). Do you suppose that this heavy dark matter was formed by the
> collision and fusion of lighter elements? Perhaps you never considered
> the origin of this 'heavy, dark matter'?

An interesting theory! So what you are saying is that it is possible that
the dense individuals who post to this group, but bring no light to the
discussion, were created by the fusion of individuals who were not dense,
and could bring some light to a conversation.

I think you are on track to discover your roots.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

[Chuck Taylor]

"unk" > wrote in message
...
> Now comes onto the stage the idea that there is some sort of very
> 'heavy' dark matter which resides in the cores of galaxies (and other
> places). Do you suppose that this heavy dark matter was formed by the
> collision and fusion of lighter elements? Perhaps you never considered
> the origin of this 'heavy, dark matter'?

An interesting theory! So what you are saying is that it is possible that
the dense individuals who post to this group, but bring no light to the
discussion, were created by the fusion of individuals who were not dense,
and could bring some light to a conversation.

I think you are on track to discover your roots.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/