Diverse > Critici ale paradigmei curente in stiinta

Paradoxul Soarelui tanar

(1/2) > >>

Unul dintre cele cinci paradoxuri legate de Soare (faint young sun paradox, sun neutrino paradox, coronal heating paradox, cold sun paradox si solid sun surface paradox) este paradoxul soarelui timpuriu.

In continuare, cele mai bune informatii si prezentare despre acest subiect:

The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system by D. Faulkner


The nuclear fuel theory, as an energy source for the Sun/Stars, was invented by a rosicrucian, Hans Bethe, with no evidence or scientific proof whatsoever.

In theory, as its nuclear fuel ‘burns’ up, the sun’s core should shrink, and this would make the reactions occur more readily. Therefore, the sun should shine more brightly as it ages.

But this means that if billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth’s history.

Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of –3ºC. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.

The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.

A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.

Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.

As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 °C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary—laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.

This apparent contradiction—between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water—has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'

A supersite which shows the errors in radiodating with uranium/iron carbonates made by S. Mojzsis in investigating the faint young sun paradox:


Evolutionists first tried to solve this “faint young Sun” problem by assuming that Earth’s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it. Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age.”
A second approach assumes that Earth’s atmosphere had a thousand times more ammonia and methane, other heat-trapping gases. Unfortunately, sunlight quickly destroys both gases. Besides, ammonia would readily dissolve in water, making oceans toxic.
A third approach assumes that Earth had no continents, had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and rotated once every 14 hours, so most clouds were concentrated at the equator. With liquid water covering the entire Earth, more of the Sun’s radiation would be absorbed, raising Earth’s temperature slightly. All three assumptions are questionable.

The theory of evolution was cooked up by none other than Erasmus Darwin (1796), the grandfather of C. Darwin, both rosicrucian members of the London Royal Society.

As I have mentioned already, the best book which completely destroys Darwin's theory is The Cosmic Serpent by Jeremy Narby (it includes very interesting flat earth maps drawn by the shamans of the Amazon).

Furthermore, suppose there really were some basic organic compounds formed from the 'primordial soup.' If there was any free oxygen in the atmosphere, it would oxidize those compounds -- in other words, it would destroy them. To resolve this dilemma, evolutionists have long hypothesized that there was no free oxygen in the Earth's ancient atmosphere.

However, geologists have now examined the Earth's oldest rocks and have concluded that the early Earth was probably rich in oxygen. Still, let's say the evolutionists are right -- there was no free oxygen in the early Earth. Without oxygen, there would be no ozone layer, and without the ozone layer, we would receive a lethal dose of the sun's radiation in just 0.3 seconds. How could the fragile beginnings of life have survived in such an environment?

 ai venit sa spurci si forumul asta ???

 nu sta nimeni sa citeasca nuvelele pe care le postezi cu copy-paste.

 daca ai ceva de spun, atunci spune-o cu, cuvintele tale si nu mai copia pe altii.

 in cazul in care continui in stilul asta o sa cer administratorilor sa-ti blocheze contul.

Harap Alb, ne-ai spart pe toti cu chestiile astea...e urat cum procedezi mai ales dat fiind faptul ca nu stiai mai nimic din aceste lucruri...intai citeste ce am scris si dupa aceea vino cu pareri sau postari...tot ce am scris este adevarat...vino sa dialogam daca esti de alta parere...pe astronomy.ro te comportai altfel...

Sandokhan, te rog sa citesti atent cu regulile de scriere pe acest forum despre criticarea conceptelor fundamentale ale stiintei si sa te conformezi.


--- Citat din: sandokhan din Martie 11, 2008, 09:49:02 p.m. ---...intai citeste ce am scris si dupa aceea vino cu pareri sau postari...tot ce am scris este adevarat...
--- Terminare citat ---
Eu am o intrebare: din ce ai postat in acest topic, ce ai scris tu, si ce ai copiat de la altcineva? Din cate stiu eu, operatiunea copy/paste nu confera celui care copiaza drepturile asupra scrierilor in cauza. Adica, ceea ce copiezi nu ai scris tu.

Tu ce de spus despre acest subiect ? Scrie aici si eu voi citi cu mare interes. :)



[0] Indexul de Mesaje

[#] Pagina următoare

Du-te la versiunea completă