|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,818 Year: 4,075/9,624 Month: 946/974 Week: 273/286 Day: 34/46 Hour: 6/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question About the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
My opinion is that star formation can not be assumed to have a specific time value if we do not know the mechanism. The time value for formation of stars is inconsequential. The stars themselves have significant ages dating from after their formation. We do have quite extensive models for how stars age.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Varves plus tree rings plus C-14 dating plus other radiometric dating are rightly discussed together because of the consilience in their points of over lap. Plus periodic cycles in the sun that affect 14C production ... which is recorded in the tree rings and lake varves 14C amounts. This is a solar clock mechanism. Plus just the raw levels of 14C in the layers can be used rather than calculated dates -- layers from the same year will have the same 14C level from the atmosphere. The earth is old. Very very old. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Let us slow down by attacking one problem at a time, ...
We've seen this argment before. All it means is that YECs get to ignore some of the evidence when it is unpleasant.
... an ad-hoc monster like BB must be examined a piece at a time in the light of logic and fact.
But what you suggest by necessarily results in ad hoc explanations.
Patients is required, ...
I've often felt that YECs should be patients at some institution or another.
this forum has some very good minds, let us consider all the points of view.
And dispose of the absurd ones. Wait, that's been done. Several times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 155 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined: |
I can appreciate your opinion, but the fact still remains that a actual model in physics is nonexistent, concerning even a single star formation in the early universe. The parameters under which star formation could occur involve more than undetermined apparatus , but defy physical phenomena (gas action in a vacuum). My opinion is that star formation can not be assumed to have a specific time value if we do not know the mechanism. I don't know what sort of evidence you want, and, if I may say so, your post is so ungrammatical that I can barely make out its meaning. The facts are that giant interstellar molecular clouds, with diameters of about 100 light-years and masses up to a million solar masses, exist as observable entities, both in our own Galaxy and in external galaxies; that we observe massive OB stars, with lifetimes of at most a few million years, in these interstellar clouds; that we observe infrared sources (protostars) in Bok globules; that we observe young stars, still surrounded by their accretion discs, associated with interstellar clouds and OB stars; and that the Jeans formula provides a criterion for the mass of a cloud that will collapse under its own gravitation. For example, for a Bok globule consisting of molecular hydrogen with T = 10 K and a number density of 50 billion molecules per cubic metre, a condensation with a mass of 10 to the 30 kg (0.5 solar masses) will contract under its own weight. As I have already said, massive OB stars have lifetimes of only a few million years before they explode as supernovae; the fact that we see protostars and pre-main-sequence stars associated with these OB stars implies that they also are a few million years old. Theoretical calculations yield similar times for the contraction of stars of a few solar masses. The conclusion is that we have observations of stars forming in giant molecular clouds and in active galaxies, and that we have empirical and theoretical evidence for the time-scale of star formation. I have not said anything about star formation in the early universe; the first stars may have been more massive than modern stars, and so would have formed more quickly. However, the redshifts (and therefore the look-back times) of the most distant galaxies suggest that they began to form about 500 million years after the Big Bang. Can you either explain your reasons for rejecting this evidence, or give your own explanation for the detailed facts that I have adduced? Simply saying 'an actual model in physics is non-existent' isn't enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Astrophile writes: I may say so, your post is so ungrammatical that I can barely make out its meaning. I don't think the primary problem is grammar.
zaius writes: but defy physical phenomena (gas action in a vacuum). If gas is present, then we clearly aren't talking about a vacuum. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
quote: When Hubble proposed that the redshift is proportional to distance, it was under the assumption of no inflation. In an arbitrary inflation period time is not distance related. Sadly I see that nobody has explained to you how the distance to SN1987A was determined. It is really quite simple ... and fun ... Dave Matson Young Earth Additional Topics Supernova » Internet Infidels
quote: Now you can make a little board game with the star at one corner of a right triangle (the 90° corner) and the ring diameter along the short leg with the distance to the earth on the other leg with the distance from the ring to the earth on the hypotenuse. Divide the paths up into as many equal length segments as you like, and throw a di to represent the speed of light: move one marker on the direct path from the star to earth and another from the star to the ring to the earth by the number of segments shown on the di. Each time you throw the di you have a time period with a different speed of light. The marker on the direct path arrives at earth (the third corner of the triangle) first and the marker on the indirect path arrives at earth ~1 year later. No matter how many times you play this game the distance from the earth to the second marker at the time when the first marker contact earth will be the same. We KNOW that the speed of light did not change in the last several years so the distance from the earth to the second marker at the time that the first marker reaches earth is ~the distance from the star to the ring ... within 5% error. We KNOW the angle between the star and the ring because we can measure it -- they are\were visible in telescopes: SN 1987A - Wikipedia
quote: As you can see, this calculation does not involve red shift in the slightest, nor does it matter what the speed of light was at any time in the past -- the distance is 168,000 light-years with 5% maximum error. This is simple math and observed fact. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3436 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Well I might bring up the fact that the oldest known star in the universe is HD 140283, which appears to be 14.3 billion years old, slightly older than the universe. Well if you consider the error of estimation to be .8 billion years, this star supposedly formed shortly after the big bang (although there is no evidence a star could form at all). It is interesting to note that it is a population II star, having low concentrations of metals. So you would have a population III star (mostly hydrogen) form, age and become a super nova in less than 400 million (corrected) years. Then HD 140283 formed from population III supernova in that same 400 million (corrected) years. This seems (Impossible) unlikely.By the way population III stars apparently don’t exist or have never been observed. Population III should be very plentiful at long distances as observed from earth. SeeStar found, older than Abe Vigoda HD 140283 - Wikipedia quote: We are just getting started. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3436 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: The problem is not mass it is Jeans’s radius or length.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3436 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: You miss the point completely, the problem is relating the age of the universe. We can see objects 45 billion years ago in time (but light could only have traveld 13.4 billion light years). It is not a matter of relating the speed of light to distances, it is a matter of the assumed inflation epoch. citation for the visible universe (size not age).
According to calculations, the comoving distance (current proper distance) to particles from the CMBR, which represent the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years), while the comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light years),[1] about 2% larger.
Observable universe - Wikipedia Here are the 3 ways you measure he age of the universe. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Ewright/age.html By the way good information anyway. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3436 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
I missed the cosmological estimation of age of the universe. Sorry, here is a brief description:
"Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[2] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time." wiki This related to more of my point than the other estimate methods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Does any of this suggest a 6000 year old Earth/universe?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4443 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
zaius137 writes: Well I might bring up the fact that the oldest known star in the universe is HD 140283, which appears to be 14.3 billion years old, slightly older than the universe. Well if you consider the error of estimation to be .8 billion years, this star supposedly formed shortly after the big bang (although there is no evidence a star could form at all). It is interesting to note that it is a population II star, having low concentrations of metals. So you would have a population III star (mostly hydrogen) form, age and become a super nova in less than 400 billion years. Then HD 140283 formed from population III supernova in that same 400 billion years. This seems very unlikely.By the way population III stars apparently don’t exist or have never been observed. Population III should be very plentiful at long distances as observed from earth. You might want to check your numbers. 400 billion years seems to undermine your argument.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3436 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: You are correct. Unsure about the exact accepted age of the universe at this time, I will correct it to 400 million years. Nobody is reading this except you.... thanks Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3436 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Why are you so enamored with 6000 years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
It is not a matter of relating the speed of light to distances, it is a matter of the assumed inflation epoch. Are you using inflation and expansion interchangeably? This is probably confusing.
You miss the point completely, the problem is relating the age of the universe. We can see objects 45 billion years ago in time No, we cannot see any such objects. You are confusing observable with visible. It is not possible to see past the horizon of last scattering. That point is just a bit past 13.8 billion light years. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024