TSonofvulcan 0 Posted March 13, 2004 hehe, actually that was to get you all's attention, didn't that worry you? Well did you know that every second the sun gets closer to Nova? well, that is a givin. Does anyone know how long scientists give the sun to live? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrWho42 13 Posted March 13, 2004 From what I've heard, the sun will go white dwarf in about 5 billion years.... Right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Bolivar 0 Posted March 13, 2004 Yeah I think is about correct. So we will have to get our behinds outta here in less than 5 billion years. If we manage that we might have a good 25 billion years left in the universe. I say 25 billion years because there is some evidence that the universe could theoretically end in that time... Universe has at least 25 billion years left Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nemesis 0 Posted March 13, 2004 In 5 days if you do not meet my demands MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TSonofvulcan 0 Posted March 13, 2004 That is the main problem with the theory of evolution, well since this is on off topic discussion I'll tell you the laws going against it if you want. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TSonofvulcan 0 Posted March 13, 2004 Anyway, the main problem with the theory of evolution is that it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ensign_ro 0 Posted March 13, 2004 did you knwo htat when hte sun goes nova we wont know it on earth till like 8 mins after it started then we all die. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TSonofvulcan 0 Posted March 13, 2004 well, scientists could tell that it would be going soon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ensign_ro 0 Posted March 13, 2004 well ya but looking upinto the sky from the park or somehting.. we wouldnt know till 8 min Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TSonofvulcan 0 Posted March 13, 2004 hehe, quite true Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1 Posted March 13, 2004 I don't think God intends to let the sun go supernova before Revelations, but if and when it happens, I intend to have front seats in Heaven, or if I'm lucky... on my heavenly space ship. :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TSonofvulcan 0 Posted March 13, 2004 I think heaven will have turbolifts.....and red alert lights :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TSonofvulcan 0 Posted March 13, 2004 (edited) Oh, and I agree Captain John-Luc Picard, it is indeed possible that after the 7 years of the rapture the fire that will consume earth will be a supernova. Hmmm, intresting. I never thought about that. Edited March 13, 2004 by TSonofvulcan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stoned_vulcan 0 Posted March 13, 2004 5 bil and that joke wasnt funny btw Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DixonHill1989 0 Posted March 13, 2004 "man knows not the time nor the hour" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nik 0 Posted March 14, 2004 The Sun will not go nova or supernova of any type. The sun is what we call a "main sequence" star, and is not massive enough to go supernova (at the bare minimum, it must have 44% more mass to do that, and even then, it's not likely). Instead, as the sun exhausts its supply of hydrogen, its core will begin burning helium at a higher temperature. The resulting pressure increase will cause the sun to expand into a red giant - red due to the resultant decrease in luminosity. (Not clear whether humans will see a "helium flash" or not.) As the sun grows to engulf the inner planets, helium will burn into carbon and oxygen. At this point, the outer hydrogen atmosphere will be not much more than a remnant of the original star, and the inner core will not be massive enough to support fusion beyond oxygen. It will collapse into what we call a white drawf, and later fizzle out of existence - some call this stage a black dwarf. Total time: 5-10Gyr Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Bolivar 0 Posted March 15, 2004 Anyway, the main problem with the theory of evolution is that it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases (things become more disorderly). Yes, as organisms, we are quite organized, and over time, evolution continues to create more organization. But that does not mean that entropy in the universe OVERALL is not increasing. It is increasing. By your logic there are many things that violate the second law. One example would be the construction of a computer. Many chemicals and materials and involved in the process. The final result is a complex machine (we are complex machines) that has been formed from various matierials such as metals (we are formed from various materials such as protiens). Since it is obvious that computers exist we can say that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xeroc 0 Posted March 15, 2004 The Sun will not go nova or supernova of any type. The sun is what we call a "main sequence" star, and is not massive enough to go supernova (at the bare minimum, itmust have 44% more mass to do that, and even then, it's not likely). Instead, as the sun exhausts its supply of hydrogen, its core will begin burning helium at a higher temperature. The resulting pressure increase will cause the sun to expand into a red giant - red due to the resultant decrease in luminosity. (Not clear whether humans will see a "helium flash" or not.) As the sun grows to engulf the inner planets, helium will burn into carbon and oxygen. At this point, the outer hydrogen atmosphere will be not much more than a remnant of the original star, and the inner core will not be massive enough to support fusion beyond oxygen. It will collapse into what we call a white drawf, and later fizzle out of existence - some call this stage a black dwarf. Total time: 5-10Gyr Nik here explained it pretty well. Bascially, the SUN won't go NOVA, it will either expand and engulf us, or if it doesn't get quite large enough to actually engulf earth, the increased radiation due to our proximity will burn the earth to a crisp. Additonally, we don't really know how long the universe is going to last - dark energy is still a theory, and according to some calculations if it does exist, it might change direction and cause the universe to collapse! Negative dark energy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Valeris 2 Posted March 15, 2004 I once had a dream that the sun imploded. I believe that dark energy exists. Someone should write a book on what would happen if the universe collapsed. I might do that. Do any of you remember that TNG episode what a bunch of Enterprises from other universes started appearing because Worf was accidentally travelling between universes? There would have to be some universes where the dark energy never reversed itself and so when that happens, we could find a way into one of those universes. I for one believe that could happen even if everyone else thinks I am living in my own little fantasy world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpocksBrain 0 Posted March 15, 2004 Anyway, the main problem with the theory of evolution is that it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases (things become more disorderly). Yes, as organisms, we are quite organized, and over time, evolution continues to create more organization. But that does not mean that entropy in the universe OVERALL is not increasing. It is increasing. By your logic there are many things that violate the second law. One example would be the construction of a computer. Many chemicals and materials and involved in the process. The final result is a complex machine (we are complex machines) that has been formed from various matierials such as metals (we are formed from various materials such as protiens). Since it is obvious that computers exist we can say that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. An intelligence had to create those computers, just as an intelligence needed to create the universe, just because humans have learned how to build neat stuff doesn't mean we can keep up with the collapse of the universe. Show me a computer, which is far, far less complex than a living organism, that made itself by accident. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeanway 0 Posted March 15, 2004 That is the main problem with the theory of evolution, well since this is on off topic discussion I'll tell you the laws going against it if you want. :P Well, this is certainly good news, WHEW!! :P Go ahead tell us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WEAREBORG4102 0 Posted March 15, 2004 I think it is about 5 billion till it turns into a white dwarf.... It has a very low chance of black holing on us.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TSonofvulcan 0 Posted March 15, 2004 But it would violate the second law since the law states that, in time, ALL energy will be "used up" but evolutions states that we will keep evolving forever. Also, most scientists have wither minipulated the evidence to support evolution or have left out many supports for creation. I don't mean to turn this in to a thological debate but hey, starfleet made this an off topic forum :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xeroc 0 Posted March 16, 2004 But it would violate the second law since the law states that, in time, ALL energy will be "used up" but evolutions states that we will keep evolving forever. Also, most scientists have wither minipulated the evidence to support evolution or have left out many supports for creation. I don't mean to turn this in to a thological debate but hey, starfleet made this an off topic forum I'm sorry but this isn't the Off-Topic Forum and an Evolution-Creation debate should definitiely NOT be in this thread, perhaps even belongs in Risa. Additionally, the second "law" is often regarded by some as a "tendency" of the universe because it started out orderly. If it started out in maximum disorder, then even the slightest chance movement would create some order violating this "law". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpocksBrain 0 Posted March 16, 2004 But it would violate the second law since the law states that, in time, ALL energy will be "used up" but evolutions states that we will keep evolving forever. Also, most scientists have wither minipulated the evidence to support evolution or have left out many supports for creation. I don't mean to turn this in to a thological debate but hey, starfleet made this an off topic forum I'm sorry but this isn't the Off-Topic Forum and an Evolution-Creation debate should definitiely NOT be in this thread, perhaps even belongs in Risa. Additionally, the second "law" is often regarded by some as a "tendency" of the universe because it started out orderly. If it started out in maximum disorder, then even the slightest chance movement would create some order violating this "law". You are rewriting the laws of thermodynamics? Lol, I would like to read your book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nemesis 0 Posted March 16, 2004 Anyway, the main problem with the theory of evolution is that it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases (things become more disorderly). Yes, as organisms, we are quite organized, and over time, evolution continues to create more organization. But that does not mean that entropy in the universe OVERALL is not increasing. It is increasing. By your logic there are many things that violate the second law. One example would be the construction of a computer. Many chemicals and materials and involved in the process. The final result is a complex machine (we are complex machines) that has been formed from various matierials such as metals (we are formed from various materials such as protiens). Since it is obvious that computers exist we can say that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. An intelligence had to create those computers, just as an intelligence needed to create the universe, just because humans have learned how to build neat stuff doesn't mean we can keep up with the collapse of the universe. Show me a computer, which is far, far less complex than a living organism, that made itself by accident. Wouldn't you theory therefore disprove God altogether and everything else? If an intelligence had to create something to go in order then God himself could not exist for he is an intelligence of complexity so therefore he cannot exist, nor can we, or anything else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpocksBrain 0 Posted March 16, 2004 Unless you consider that God eternal, never beginning or ending. By your reasoning, if God can't be eternal, what makes you think that our universe can be also? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TSonofvulcan 0 Posted March 16, 2004 But it would violate the second law since the law states that, in time, ALL energy will be "used up" but evolutions states that we will keep evolving forever. Also, most scientists have wither minipulated the evidence to support evolution or have left out many supports for creation. I don't mean to turn this in to a thological debate but hey, starfleet made this an off topic forum I'm sorry but this isn't the Off-Topic Forum and an Evolution-Creation debate should definitiely NOT be in this thread, perhaps even belongs in Risa. Additionally, the second "law" is often regarded by some as a "tendency" of the universe because it started out orderly. If it started out in maximum disorder, then even the slightest chance movement would create some order violating this "law". 1st of all this topic was in the off-topic forum but it got beamed here. A scientific LAW is not a "tendency" it is a proven fact. Websters dictionary defines a scientific law as "A rule or principle stating something that ALWAYS works in the same way under the same conditions." A law is definately valued over a theoy in true science. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xeroc 0 Posted March 18, 2004 1st of all this topic was in the off-topic forum but it got beamed here. A scientific LAW is not a "tendency" it is a proven fact. Websters dictionary defines a scientific law as "A rule or principle stating something that ALWAYS works in the same way under the same conditions." A law is definately valued over a theoy in true science. Yes, which is exactly why many scientists say the second law of thermodynamics shouldn't really be called a law. Out of one physics book: "Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out." Notice the "tends" in that sentance. There have been many articles written about this in magazines such as Scientific American and Discover, among others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Bolivar 0 Posted March 18, 2004 Anyway, the main problem with the theory of evolution is that it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases (things become more disorderly). Yes, as organisms, we are quite organized, and over time, evolution continues to create more organization. But that does not mean that entropy in the universe OVERALL is not increasing. It is increasing. By your logic there are many things that violate the second law. One example would be the construction of a computer. Many chemicals and materials and involved in the process. The final result is a complex machine (we are complex machines) that has been formed from various matierials such as metals (we are formed from various materials such as protiens). Since it is obvious that computers exist we can say that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. An intelligence had to create those computers Yes, an intelliegence did create those computers. My point was that evolution does not disobey the second law of thermodynamics. I was not debating weather or not evolution as a theory is true or not. just as an intelligence needed to create the universe An intelligence was needed to create the universe? You say that as if it is fact that cannot be disreputed. It is not. And neither is evolution. They are both theories. just because humans have learned how to build neat stuff doesn't mean we can keep up with the collapse of the universe. I was not talking of the collapse of the universe in any way shape or form in my arguments. I was merely showing that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Show me a computer, which is far, far less complex than a living organism, that made itself by accident. No, I cannot. Computers and the first cells that spawned what we are (according to the theory of evolution) have a fundamental difference: Computers do not have internal mechanisms to reproduce. This is needed for evolution (unless the computer could build another one just as a person could constuct another person in a lab) But I must point out that I was not trying to show computers undergo evolution in the darwinian sense. All I was saying about computers is that, by being built, they become more complex which is analogous to a species becoming more complex. I was trying to show, that because the materials that make up a computer can form to create something complex, which does not break the second rule of thermodynamics, then we must agree that evolution (whether or not evolution occurs or not) does not break the second rule of evolution either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites