Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 244 posts

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#51

Post by litoE »

gerdesj wrote: post #36
YarickR2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, imagine video with the scientist narrating this new finding (Sun is 400m years old, and gives heat and light because of meteors falling on it) is being removed by youtube, because these views are so dissenting with prevailing opinion of the world being 6000 years old max, and could harm minds of a general population, turning people away from God .

[Please move away from the DV button - I like to encourage discussion around here] You forgot the conclusion. The prevailing opinion about the world's age is not 6000 years. I think some fundamentalist Christians might try for 4004 BC so 6000 years ... ish but I don't even know anyone who subscribes to that nonsense. I'm sure there are some who do but they are not my mates. They are certainly not general population.

I've heard the argument that God did create everything about 6,000 years ago in HIS reference frame but that due to relativistic time dilation/contraction its been 13+ billion years in OUR reference frame.

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#52

Post by pvg »

gerdesj wrote: post #15

I had absolutely no idea that SA is so old. New Scientist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist is a mere whippersnapper. It doesn't matter that the article is bollocks. It is reasoned bollocks. That is basically what science is all about! I would prefer if there was some more working shown to back up the article but it seems to imply that some might be available rather than just simple assertions. We live in…

My university library had these bound up and sitting on the regular shelves, going back to the mid 19th century. The early ones came out a couple of times a month and the format was broadsheet which is a weird way to read a popular science magazine but I suppose that's how people rolled back then. You could definitely fold a single issue into several sizable hats.

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#53

Post by gerdesj »

zamadatix wrote: post #44
gerdesj wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Please move away from the DV button - I like to encourage discussion around here] You forgot the conclusion. The prevailing opinion about the world's age is not 6000 years. I think some fundamentalist Christians might try for 4004 BC so 6000 years ... ish but I don't even know anyone who subscribes to that nonsense. I'm sure there are some who do but they are not my mates. They are certainly not general population.

I think you'd be surprised about how many really do believe the Earth is nearly that young https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creati... "People you know" is a very unreliable way to get an idea about various populations. Regardless I think the comment was about applying current "solutions" to prior times and seeing if agrees with what we'd call a good solution in retrospective, not what people beli…

No, I would not really.

I have some pretty odd ideas myself and I trained as a Civ Engr, run an IT company and have subscribed to New Scientist for about 30 years.

Sometimes I notice aspects of my own woolly thinking and sort them out but I've no doubt that many remain. The funny thing is that "woolly" is in the eye of the beholder or something.

I'm not daft enough to have misplaced 85% of the entire universe unlike the entirety of physicists and their "science" 8)

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#54

Post by Damorian »

mirimir wrote: post #41
Damorian wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this article predates young Earth creationism, which is fairly modern, by 50-100 years.

No, such Bible-based estimates are far older. I found a review that seems comprehensive, albeit reaching an incomprehensible (to me, anyway) conclusion.[0] 0) https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the...

To clarify, the modern young Earth creationism that formed as an alternative to scientific consensus. We've had strong evidence that the Earth is very, very old for hundreds of years, which was the scientific and religiously backed conclusion in the early 1800s. At the time this article was written, it would have been well understood and accepted, with no religiously driven explanation counter to scientific evidence. Any explanation put forth for an old or young Earth prior to scientific evidence for it is just blind guessing by philosophers.

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#55

Post by whymauri »

zamadatix wrote: post #44
gerdesj wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Please move away from the DV button - I like to encourage discussion around here] You forgot the conclusion. The prevailing opinion about the world's age is not 6000 years. I think some fundamentalist Christians might try for 4004 BC so 6000 years ... ish but I don't even know anyone who subscribes to that nonsense. I'm sure there are some who do but they are not my mates. They are certainly not general population.

I think you'd be surprised about how many really do believe the Earth is nearly that young https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creati... "People you know" is a very unreliable way to get an idea about various populations. Regardless I think the comment was about applying current "solutions" to prior times and seeing if agrees with what we'd call a good solution in retrospective, not what people beli…

My older brother has founded two separate isotope dating companies, one for C-14 dating and the other for rare isotopes. At this point, he has about 15 years of experience in the field and a decent clientele.

He believes the Earth is 6000 years old, though. He rationalizes the science he works on as (the biblical) God testing his faith. My father, who works at his C-14 company, also believes this. I will never understand.

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#56

Post by cft »

Apparently it was Darwin developing his theory of evolution, who first realized that the Earth and thus the Sun must be much older than a chemical burning process would support. That left him very puzzled since there was no physics theory that could support that.

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#57

Post by tempestn »

gerdesj wrote: post #15

I had absolutely no idea that SA is so old. New Scientist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist is a mere whippersnapper. It doesn't matter that the article is bollocks. It is reasoned bollocks. That is basically what science is all about! I would prefer if there was some more working shown to back up the article but it seems to imply that some might be available rather than just simple assertions. We live in…

I wouldn't even say it's nonsense. Edit: just realized the precise word you used was in fact 'bollocks'. I wouldn't say it's that either.

The logic behind the sun not burning a fuel like coal is entirely sound. From there an alternate theory is proposed based on the limits of understanding of the time. Not as fact, but as a best guess theory that fits the evidence at that point. The theory was wrong of course, but it was a step in the right direction.

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#58

Post by gerdesj »

irrational wrote: post #49
gerdesj wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Please move away from the DV button - I like to encourage discussion around here] You forgot the conclusion. The prevailing opinion about the world's age is not 6000 years. I think some fundamentalist Christians might try for 4004 BC so 6000 years ... ish but I don't even know anyone who subscribes to that nonsense. I'm sure there are some who do but they are not my mates. They are certainly not general population.

How do you know they are not the general population? I honestly have no idea what anyone else believes in that regard. Even if someone told me what they believe, I’ve learned that often people’s beliefs are different than the words they say when they think their beliefs might be unpopular. In other words, maybe they are the general populations beliefs and maybe they aren’t. I just don’t know how anyone can know for s…

Well, your username is irrational!

I'm going by anecdote to denote the general population's opinion, ie what people have said to me.

I do agree with you that people attenuate their espoused beliefs based on perceived popularity and that is why I put the comment in [] above. Sometimes I think we need to affirm our own beliefs sometimes and that is what I've done by asking for dialogue and not downvotes.

Re: Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)

#59

Post by tialaramex »

gerdesj wrote: post #15

I had absolutely no idea that SA is so old. New Scientist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist is a mere whippersnapper. It doesn't matter that the article is bollocks. It is reasoned bollocks. That is basically what science is all about! I would prefer if there was some more working shown to back up the article but it seems to imply that some might be available rather than just simple assertions. We live in…

I'm not sure it's helpful to describe this 1863 article as "reasoned bollocks"

In this same timeframe Kelvin supposes the Earth cannot possibly be billions of years old because it's warm underground. You can measure and verify that the Sun can't be keeping the Earth this warm, if it was just down to the Sun this place would be uninhabitable. Nothing could be this warm after cooling down for billions of years with just the Sun pointed at it. Kelvin supposes 100 million is an upper limit, and in later life committed to 20-40 million with 20 more likely. Biologists spluttered because Evolution can't explain cells to chimpanzees in 20 million years, it's not long enough. But they did not have a coherent explanation for why Kelvin might be wrong...

Radioactivity is the answer, something that would not be found until the end of the century, and it would take until the start of the 20th century for somebody to realise that this makes Kelvin's age-of-the-planet calculation hopeless, if you assume the planet is slightly radioactive (which it is) then it can easily be billions of years old and the biologists are right.

Post reply on HN