Discovery of 3 suns test theories

[-Cp]

WASHINGTON — “Star Wars” fans know all about Tatooine, Luke Skywalker’s home planet, where two suns glare down on a vast desert.

Now comes a more extraordinary, real-life sight: a newly discovered giant planet with three suns.

The Jupiter-sized world is 149 light-years (about 876 trillion miles — just next door for astronomers) away from Earth in a triple-star system in the northern constellation Cygnus, or the Swan.

Maciej Konacki, a planetary scientist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, reported the sighting in this week’s edition of the British scientific journal Nature.

“With three suns, the sky view must be out of this world, literally and figuratively,” Konacki said.

About 150 extrasolar planets have been discovered in the past 10 years. About 20 of them were found in binary star systems, consisting of two suns, but this is the first time a planet has been found in a cluster of three.

The main star of the trio, named HD 188753, is slightly larger than our sun. But it would look enormous to an observer on the planet, which whirls around its host star every three and a half days at a distance of only about 4 million miles. Our sun, 93 million miles away, looks much smaller.

Life would be impossible on the new planet, because its temperature is estimated to be 1,340 degrees Fahrenheit, Konacki said in an e-mail.

The two other stars, each somewhat smaller than our sun, spin around each other at a distance of about 850 million miles, the distance from the sun to Saturn in our solar system.

The biggest star would appear yellow, the next largest would be orange and the smallest one red.

The discovery of the planet challenges current theories about the formation of giant planets around other stars.

Most astronomers think that such planets form in huge disks of gas and dust around young stars. But a gang of three stars would destroy most of the disk before the planet could form, Konacki said.

HD 188753 is “a conundrum” for theorists, German astronomers Artie Hatzes and Gunther Wuchterl wrote in a commentary in Nature. “This planet should not exist.”



http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/12135808.htm

 

[-Cp]

Fyi - to you non God-believin' types..

This reason this find is so significant is because it pours water on Science who think they have it "all figured out" - if Science is wrong about this, why do you trust them to knowing how Man was made or how old the Earth is?

Please just get a grip...

 

[Abbey Normal]

Yes. Scientists must relate to the words of Don Henley:

"The more I know, the less I understand".

 

[Isaac Brock]

Save the few arrogant scientists out there, I don't think there's a professional in the field that would suggest science know's all. If they did, there would be no need for science, now would there?

 

[USViking]

Save the few arrogant scientists out there, I don't think there's a professional in the field that would suggest science know's all. If they did, there would be no need for science, now would there?

Correct: there is no scientist in any field who thinks his field is all figured out.

As for us non-God believin' types, I should speak for myself, you believers can't even begin to think of answering your own questions. At least science knows it has questions to answer.

 

[MissileMan]

Correct: there is no scientist in any field who thinks his field is all figured out.

As for us non-God believin' types, I should speak for myself, you believers can't even begin to think of answering your own questions. At least science knows it has questions to answer.

Touche'

 

[Avatar4321]

Correct: there is no scientist in any field who thinks his field is all figured out.

As for us non-God believin' types, I should speak for myself, you believers can't even begin to think of answering your own questions. At least science knows it has questions to answer.

And what questions do we have that aren't answered in the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

 

[-Cp]

Touche'

Touche' what?

 

[USViking]

And what questions do we have that aren't answered in the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

You do not have one single question which is answered.

An example would be the structure of DNA.

Another would be the structure of the atom.

Science has the power to see far enough beneath these structures to know there are still questions. The Gospel is blind to the structures themselves.

 

[-Cp]

You do not have one single question which is answered.

An example would be the structure of DNA.

Another would be the structure of the atom.

Science has the power to see far enough beneath these structures to know there are still questions. The Gospel is blind to the structures themselves.

Once again, we have a non-believer trying to tell Christians what their beliefs can and can't be....

*sigh*....

 

[USViking]

Once again, we have a non-believer trying to tell Christians what their beliefs can and can't be....

*sigh*....

Once again we have a believer dodging the question.

 

[xandy123]

Fyi - to you non God-believin' types..

This reason this find is so significant is because it pours water on Science who think they have it "all figured out" - if Science is wrong about this, why do you trust them to knowing how Man was made or how old the Earth is?

Please just get a grip...

Wow so what your saying is that we should reject science because there are somethings science cant explain, so the advancements in health and technology that have made our lives better including, knowledge about the human body leading to cures for polio, smallpox and measels, illness that caused millions of deaths, what about The fact that people who used to die of aids after a few years are now living ten times that long or the fact that the average lifespan without all our scientific breakthroughs would be around 50 years. How about cars or trains or airplanes or the computer you used to make this post, does advanced technology mean nothing if you cant explain three suns? Do you even realize how far science has advanced in the last 40 years. But no science is worthless cause it cant explain three suns, Do you know how many things there are that scientists cant explain!

oh and fyi - I do belive in god, I just dont belive you have to reject science in order to do so. If you think that science somehow contradicts god you are wrong, it simply contradicts the idea that the earth appeared fullyformed 6,000 years ago with all living things on it all as they are today.

 

[xandy123]

Once again, we have a non-believer trying to tell Christians what their beliefs can and can't be....

*sigh*....

Why do we have to demonize atheists by calling them "non belivers" it's just as easy to belive in god as it is to not belive in him it's just a choice you make. And as for the rest of the post, if you read what he said he wasnt telling christinas what to belive he was answering the question of what questions do we have that the gospel hasnt answered. He gave a reply that indicated things that he belived were questions the gospel did not address, he didnt say anything to the extent of telling you what to belive, way to turn a mole hill into a mountain

 

[theim]

You do not have one single question which is answered.

An example would be the structure of DNA.

Another would be the structure of the atom.

Science has the power to see far enough beneath these structures to know there are still questions. The Gospel is blind to the structures themselves.

What about the structures of DNA and atoms?

Obviosly there has to be a "smallest" particle, be it quarks or whatever. God created all things, so I fail to catch your point.

 

[USViking]

What about the structures of DNA and atoms?

Obviosly there has to be a "smallest" particle, be it quarks or whatever. God created all things, so I fail to catch your point.

Where does it say in the scriptures that there must obviously be a smallest particle? Can't God keep going smaller? Are you trying to tell God something?

To my point, though, where does it say in the scriptures that there are the intermediately-sized particles known through science as atoms?

If God created them, He failed to mention them in His scriptures. I suppose He and His prophets didn't have enough time to cover everything. They also missed RNA, as I mentioned earlier, not to mention the microbes, such as smallpox, now eradicated by human beings, alone, without the aid of the scriptures, too late to save the lives of millions.

We have a disconnect, and will never agree. And I will never leave the floor for God's misguided to posture on all by themselves.

 

[theim]

Where does it say in the scriptures that there must obviously be a smallest particle? Can't God keep going smaller? Are you trying to tell God something?

To my point, though, where does it say in the scriptures that there are the intermediately-sized particles known through science as atoms?

If God created them, He failed to mention them in His scriptures. I suppose He and His prophets didn't have enough time to cover everything. They also missed RNA, as I mentioned earlier, not to mention the microbes, such as smallpox, now eradicated by human beings, alone, without the aid of the scriptures, too late to save the lives of millions.

Wow. He also failed to mention the grain of sand I just brushed off my swimming trunks. Ever stop to think that in compiling the Bible, some of God's infinite knowledge, namely the history of each of the billions of grains of sand, etc., would have to be left out?

We have a disconnect, and will never agree. And I will never leave the floor for God's misguided to posture on all by themselves.

You are the misguided one here. You hear, but do not listen. And you will know doubt take that peice of advice as just some mindless platitude. Unfortunate.

 

[-Cp]

Why do we have to demonize atheists by calling them "non belivers" it's just as easy to belive in god as it is to not belive in him it's just a choice you make. And as for the rest of the post, if you read what he said he wasnt telling christinas what to belive he was answering the question of what questions do we have that the gospel hasnt answered. He gave a reply that indicated things that he belived were questions the gospel did not address, he didnt say anything to the extent of telling you what to belive, way to turn a mole hill into a mountain

Do you word for the BBC who are afraid to call terrorists a terrorist? How is calling them non believers somehow "demonizing" them? GOOD LORD - you need to get a grip...

 

[USViking]

Wow. He also failed to mention the grain of sand I just brushed off my swimming trunks. Ever stop to think that in compiling the Bible, some of God's infinite knowledge, namely the history of each of the billions of grains of sand, etc., would have to be left out?

Yes, but He does mention "sand", not that I am insisting He give the history of each grain. I did specify "atoms", didn't I? Those I do not believe He mentioned. Nor RNA, remember that?

You are the misguided one here. You hear, but do not listen. And you will know doubt take that peice of advice as just some mindless platitude. Unfortunate.

Oh, I listen- I can't help but listen: the faithful scream in my face every day!
Once in a while I feel the need to vent, and scream back. If you dish it out, you gotta choke it down.

 

[-Cp]

Where does it say in the scriptures that there must obviously be a smallest particle? Can't God keep going smaller? Are you trying to tell God something?

To my point, though, where does it say in the scriptures that there are the intermediately-sized particles known through science as atoms?

If God created them, He failed to mention them in His scriptures. I suppose He and His prophets didn't have enough time to cover everything. They also missed RNA, as I mentioned earlier, not to mention the microbes, such as smallpox, now eradicated by human beings, alone, without the aid of the scriptures, too late to save the lives of millions.

We have a disconnect, and will never agree. And I will never leave the floor for God's misguided to posture on all by themselves.

You really should try investiging things before opening your trap..

The molecular sledgehammer
The amazing story of how scientists struggled for years to duplicate an important bit of chemistry.
by David Demick

Great human inventions are usually recognized, with due fame and honour given to those whose work they are. The awarding of the Nobel Prizes is a yearly reminder to us that great achievements are worthy of recognition and reward.

So it seems a great injustice that the remarkable wonders of biochemistry brought to light in the past hundred years have won much renown for their human discoverers, but little honour for the One who first created them. The names of Watson and Crick are well known for their discovery of the remarkable DNA molecule and the way it is precisely replicated, despite the fact that they certainly cannot claim to have invented it. Even the great achievements of antiquity are still remembered, for instance as the 'Seven Wonders of the Ancient World'. Perhaps there should be a recognition, by creationist biologists, of, say, 'Seven Wonders of the Living World' in honour of God's wonderful works in creating life. The DNA molecule would certainly have its place there. The light-harnessing ability of the chlorophylls (the chemicals that utilize the sun's energy in green plants) might also find a place of honour. Another tiny but marvellous bit of biochemistry which could be nominated to such a position is a mechanism which might be termed 'the molecular sledgehammer'.

To appreciate the work done by this 'sledgehammer', it is important to understand the role of the element nitrogen in the living world. The two main constituents of our atmosphere, oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%), both play important roles in the makeup of living things. Both are integral parts of the amino acids which join together in long chains to make all proteins, and of the nucleotides which do the same thing to form DNA and RNA. Getting elemental oxygen (O2) to split apart into atoms and take part in the reactions and structures of life is not hard; in fact, oxygen is so reactive that keeping it from getting into where it's not wanted becomes the more challenging job. However, elemental nitrogen poses the opposite problem. Like oxygen, it is diatomic (each molecule contains two N atoms) in its pure form (N2); but, unlike oxygen, each of its atoms is triple-bonded to the other. This is one of the hardest chemical bonds of all to break. So, how can nitrogen be brought out of its tremendous reserves in the atmosphere and into a state where it can be used by living things?

Perhaps this problem can be better appreciated by putting it into terms of human engineering. We need nitrogen for our bodies, to form amino acids and nucleic acids. We must get this nitrogen from our food, whether plant or animal. The animals we eat must rely on plant sources, and the plants must get it from the soil. Nitrogen forms the basis for most fertilizers used in agriculture, both natural and artificial. Natural animal wastes are rich in nitrogen, and it is largely this property that makes them enrich the soil for plant growth. In the late 1800s, a growing population created a great need for nitrogen compounds that could be used in agriculture. At the time, the search for more usable nitrogen was considered a race to stave off Malthusian1 predictions of mass starvation as population outgrew food supply. So chemists wrestled for years with the problem of how to convert the plentiful nitrogen in the air into a form suitable for use in agriculture.

Since naturally occurring, mineable deposits of nitrates were rare, and involved transportation over large distances, an industrial process was greatly needed. Finally, around 1910, a German, Fritz Haber, discovered a workable large-scale process whereby atmospheric nitrogen could be converted to ammonia (NH3). His process required drastic conditions, using an iron-based catalyst with around 1000oF (540oC) heat and about 300 atmospheres of pressure. Haber was given the 1918 Nobel Prize for chemistry because of the great usefulness of his nitrogen-splitting process to humanity.

One might ask, if elemental gaseous nitrogen is such a tough nut to crack, how do atoms of nitrogen ever get into the soil naturally? Some nitrogen is split and added to the soil by lightning strikes. Again, it is a reminder of the force necessary to split the NN bond that the intense heat and electricity of lightning are needed to do it. Still, only a relatively minor amount of nitrogen is added to the Earth's topsoil yearly by thunderstorms. How is the remainder produced?

The searching chemists of a century ago did not realize that an ingenious method for cracking nitrogen molecules was already in operation. This process did not require high temperatures or pressures, and was already working efficiently and quietly to supply the Earth's topsoil with an estimated 100 million tons of nitrogen every year. This process's inventor was not awarded a Nobel Prize, nor was it acclaimed with much fanfare as the work of genius that it is. This process is humbly carried on by a few species of the 'lowest' forms of life on Earth—bacteria and blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria).

Some of these tiny yet amazingly sophisticated organisms live in symbiosis (mutually beneficial 'living together') with certain 'higher' plants, known as legumes. The leguminous plants include peas, soybeans and alfalfa, long valued as crops because of their unique ability to enrich the soil. The microbes invade their roots, forming visible nodules in which the process of nitrogen cracking is carried on.

Modern biochemistry has given us a glimpse of the enzyme system used in this process. The chief enzyme is nitrogenase, which, like hemoglobin, is a large metalloprotein complex.2 Like Fritz Haber's process, and like catalytic converters in cars today, it uses the principle of metal catalysis. However, like all biological enzymatic processes, it works in a more exact and efficient way than the clumsy chemical processes of human invention. Several atoms of iron and molybdenum are held in an organic lattice to form the active chemical site. With assistance from an energy source (ATP) and a powerful and specific complementary reducing agent (ferredoxin), nitrogen molecules are bound and cleaved with surgical precision. In this way, a 'molecular sledgehammer' is applied to the NN bond, and a single nitrogen molecule yields two molecules of ammonia. The ammonia then ascends the 'food chain', and is used as amino groups in protein synthesis for plants and animals. This is a very tiny mechanism, but multiplied on a large scale it is of critical importance in allowing plant growth and food production on our planet to continue.

Currently, in another application of genetic engineering, chemists are trying to improve the efficiency of the Haber process by implanting the genetic instructions for this nitrogenase complex into coliform bacteria (which may yield significant results when a host of associated bioengineering problems have been solved).3 Thus, man tacitly acknowledges the pre-existence of a vastly superior technology for nitrogen breakdown, but fails to acknowledge or give thanks to God for it. And, once again, man does his imperfect best to copy the perfection of design that God achieved without effort in the first week of this world.

One author summed up the situation well by remarking, 'Nature is really good at it (nitrogen-splitting), so good in fact that we've had difficulty in copying chemically the essence of what bacteria do so well'.4 If one merely substitutes the name of God for the word 'nature', the real picture emerges.

Creationist Christians are often accused of having the same easy answer for any question about specific origin of things in nature: the 'God of the gaps' did it. But this criticism can be easily turned around. What answers do evolutionists give to explain the origin of microscopic marvels like the molecular sledgehammer? They can't explain them scientifically, so they resort to a standard liturgy, worshipping the power of blind chance and natural selection.

One thing is certain—that matter obeying existing laws of chemistry could not have created, on its own, such a masterpiece of chemical engineering. To believe that it was worked out by a wise and caring Creator, who provides all necessary things for the life of His creatures, is far more reasonable than the mystical evolutionary alternative. One grows tired of hearing the same monotonous mantra that 'we know evolution did it, we just don't know how.'

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/hammer.asp" target=_blank">:duh3:</a>

 

[-Cp]

oh and fyi - I do belive in god, I just dont belive you have to reject science in order to do so. If you think that science somehow contradicts god you are wrong, it simply contradicts the idea that the earth appeared fullyformed 6,000 years ago with all living things on it all as they are today.

Blowing old-earth belief away
Helium gives evidence that the earth is young
by Jonathan Sarfati

We’re all familiar with helium, the very light gas that makes balloons and airships float in the air. Helium has an important safety advantage—it cannot burn or explode like hydrogen. It is also a vital part of air mixtures for breathing by deep-sea divers—unlike nitrogen, it hardly dissolves in blood or lipids (fatty compounds) even at high pressures. This avoids nitrogen narcosis, where the nervous system (60% lipid) becomes saturated with nitrogen, which can make divers feel as if they had consumed one martini per 100 ft of depth. It also avoids the bends or decompression sickness, a painful and dangerous condition caused by nitrogen bubbles forming in the diver’s blood, nervous system, joints, and under the skin, if the pressure drops too fast as the diver re-surfaces. The helium/oxygen mixture (heliox) makes the voice very high-pitched, because sound travels much faster in helium than in air—a favourite party trick using helium-filled balloons.

Helium is the second lightest chemical element, with many unique properties. It is so named because it was first detected in light patterns in the sun (Greek helios) before it was detected on earth. All gases will condense into a liquid if cooled enough, but helium has the lowest condensation point of any substance (–269°C or –452°F). Unlike other elements, it will never freeze, no matter how cold it is, except under high pressure.1 Also, liquid helium cooled below –271°C (–456°F) forms a unique phase called a superfluid, which flows perfectly, without any resistance (viscosity).2

Helium in the sun is generally believed to be formed by nuclear fusion. This is where nuclei of hydrogen, the lightest element, combine to form helium with huge amounts of energy released.

On earth, it is produced mainly by radioactive alpha (a)-decay. The great New Zealand physicist Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937) discovered that a-particles were really the nuclei of helium atoms. Radioactive elements in rocks—like uranium and thorium—produce helium this way, and it leaks out into the air.

Scientists can work out how fast helium is forming, how fast it escapes from rocks, how much enters the air, and how much can escape from the air into space. They can also measure the amount of helium in rocks and in the air. From this, they can calculate the maximum age of rocks and of the air. The results are puzzling to those who believe in billions of years. Of course, all such calculations depend on assumptions about the past, like the starting conditions and constant rates of processes. They can never prove the age of something. For that, we need an eye-witness (cf. Job 38:4).

Helium in the atmosphere

Air is mainly nitrogen (78.1%) and oxygen (20.1%). There is much less helium (0.0005%). But this is still a lot of helium—3.71 billion tonnes. However, since 67 grams of helium escape from the earth’s crust into the atmosphere every second, it would have taken about two million years for the current amount of helium to build up, even if there had been none at the beginning. Evolutionists believe the earth is over 2,500 times older—4.5 billion years. Of course, the earth could have been created with most of the helium already there, so two million years is a maximum age. (It could easily be much younger, such as 6,000 years in age.)

Also, the rate of helium buildup would be slower now than in the past, because the radioactive sources have decayed. This would put an even lower upper limit on the age of the earth.

The only way around this problem is to assume that the helium is escaping into space. But for this to happen, the helium atoms must be moving fast enough to escape the earth’s gravity (i.e., above the escape velocity). Collisions between atoms slow them down, but above a critical height (the exobase) of about 500 kilometres (300 miles) above the earth, collisions are very rare. Atoms crossing this height have a chance of escaping if they are moving fast enough—at least 10.75 kilometres per second (24,200 miles per hour).3 Note that although helium in a balloon will float, helium when unenclosed will just mix evenly with all the other gases, as per normal gas behaviour.

The average speed of atoms can be calculated if we know the temperature, since this is related to the average energy of the atoms or molecules. The great physicist (and creationist) James Clerk Maxwell4 calculated how many gas atoms (or molecules) would have a given speed for any temperature and mass.5 Thus we can calculate how many atoms would cross the exobase fast enough to escape into space.

The exobase is very hot. But even if we assume a temperature of 1500 K (1227°C or 2241°F), higher than the average, the most common speed of helium atoms is only 2.5 kilometres per second (5625 mph), or less than a quarter of the escape velocity. A very few atoms travel much faster than the average, but still the amount of helium escaping into space is only about 1/40th the amount entering the atmosphere. Other escape mechanisms are also inadequate to account for the small amount of helium in the air, about 1/2000th the amount expected after the alleged billions of years.

This is an unsolved problem to the long-age atmospheric physicist C.G. Walker, who stated: ‘… there appears to be a problem with the helium budget of the atmosphere.’6 Another expert, J.W. Chamberlain, said that this helium accumulation problem ‘… will not go away, and it is unsolved.’7 The evolutionary community have been desperately looking for other explanations for the shortage, but none of them have proved adequate. A simple solution is that the earth is not nearly as old as the evolutionists think! The creationist atmospheric scientist Larry Vardiman has written a more in-depth study of this topic.8, 9

Helium in the rocks
As pointed out above, most helium on earth is produced by radioactive decay in rocks. The small atoms of helium gas have no trouble escaping from the rocks into the atmosphere.

The rate of entry into the atmosphere is known, as shown above. But we can also measure the rate at which helium escapes from the rocks. This process is faster in hotter rocks, and the deeper one goes into the earth, the hotter the rocks become.

The creationist physicist Robert Gentry was researching deep granite as a possible way of safely storing dangerous radioactive waste from nuclear power stations. Safe storage requires that the elements should not move too fast through the rock.

Granite contains mineral crystals called zircons (zirconium silicate, ZrSiO4), which often contain radioactive elements. Thus they should produce helium, which should be escaping.

But Gentry found that even the deep, hot zircons (197°C or 387°F) contained far too much helium—that is, if it had had billions of years to escape.

However, if there had really been only thousands of years for this helium to escape, then we shouldn't be surprised that there is so much left.10

[October 2002 update: see how this is good evidence for accelerated nuclear decay in Nuclear decay: evidence for a young world by creationist nuclear physicist Dr Russell Humphreys.]

Conclusion
The amount of helium in the air and in rocks is not consistent with the earth’s being billions of years old, as believed by evolutionists and progressive creationists. Rather it is good scientific evidence for a short age, as taught by a straightforward reading of Genesis.

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/old_earth.asp" target=_blank"></a>