Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 373 (741077)
11-09-2014 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by zaius137
11-09-2014 1:01 PM


Re: The hand of God
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 1:01 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 227 of 373 (741085)
11-09-2014 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by NoNukes
11-09-2014 10:55 AM


sun cycles and 14C
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by NoNukes, posted 11-09-2014 10:55 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 228 of 373 (741093)
11-09-2014 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by zaius137
11-09-2014 12:28 AM


Re: The hand of God
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 12:28 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Astrophile
Member (Idle past 128 days)
Posts: 92
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 229 of 373 (741101)
11-09-2014 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by zaius137
11-09-2014 1:01 PM


Re: The hand of God
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 1:01 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by NoNukes, posted 11-09-2014 4:35 PM Astrophile has not replied
 Message 232 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 8:31 PM Astrophile has not replied
 Message 233 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 8:36 PM Astrophile has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 373 (741106)
11-09-2014 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Astrophile
11-09-2014 3:43 PM


Re: The hand of God
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Astrophile, posted 11-09-2014 3:43 PM Astrophile has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 231 of 373 (741112)
11-09-2014 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by zaius137
11-08-2014 6:37 PM


sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
The facts related to SN1987A do what is required; namely, establish that the age of the universe is greater than 6000 years with a high degree of certainty. Your task is to show that you have a cosmological explanation that is more plausible than the currently accepted explanation and further that SN1987a does not actually show that the universe is older than 6000 years.
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:
When supernova SN1987A exploded, its light soon struck a ring of gas some distance from the star and illuminated it. As viewed from Earth, the ring appeared around the supernova about a year after it exploded. Its angular size combined with the time it took for the ring to be illuminated after SN1987A was first observed allows a direct, trigonometric calculation of the distance to that supernova with an error of less than 5%.
Oddly enough, if we use the older Newtonian physics (which most creationists love because it allows them to play around with the speed of light) we find that a change in the speed of light does not affect our calculations of the distance to SN1987A! Gordon Davisson pointed out that interesting tidbit.
The distance is based on triangulation. The line from Earth to the supernova is one side of the triangle and the line from Earth to the edge of the ring is another leg. The third leg of this right triangle is the relatively short distance from the supernova to the edge of its ring. Since the ring lit up about a year after the supernova exploded, that means that a beam of light coming directly from the supernova reached us a year before the beam of light which was detoured via the ring. Let us assume that the distance of the ring from the supernova is really 1 unit and that light presently travels 1 unit per year.
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:
SN 1987A, one of the brightest
stellar explosions detected since
the invention of the telescope
more than 400 years ago[8]
The three bright rings around SN 1987A are material from the stellar wind of the progenitor. These rings were ionized by the ultraviolet flash from the supernova explosion, and consequently began emitting in various emission lines. These rings did not "turn on" until several months after the supernova; the turn-on process can be very accurately studied through spectroscopy. The rings are large enough that their angular size can be measured accurately: the inner ring is 0.808 arcseconds in radius. Using the distance light must have traveled to light up the inner ring as the base of a right angle triangle and the angular size as seen from the Earth for the local angle, one can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years.[20] ...
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by zaius137, posted 11-08-2014 6:37 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 9:15 PM RAZD has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 232 of 373 (741121)
11-09-2014 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Astrophile
11-09-2014 3:43 PM


Re: The hand of God
quote:
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.
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.
See
Star found, older than Abe Vigoda
HD 140283 - Wikipedia
quote:
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.
We are just getting started.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Astrophile, posted 11-09-2014 3:43 PM Astrophile has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-09-2014 9:45 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 241 by NoNukes, posted 11-10-2014 5:22 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 233 of 373 (741123)
11-09-2014 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Astrophile
11-09-2014 3:43 PM


Re: The hand of God
quote:
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.
The problem is not mass it is Jeans’s radius or length.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Astrophile, posted 11-09-2014 3:43 PM Astrophile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Astrophile, posted 11-10-2014 4:33 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 234 of 373 (741124)
11-09-2014 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by RAZD
11-09-2014 6:48 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
Sadly I see that nobody has explained to you how the distance to SN1987A was determined. It is really quite simple ... and fun
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2014 6:48 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by NoNukes, posted 11-10-2014 5:04 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 247 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2014 12:15 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 235 of 373 (741125)
11-09-2014 9:23 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Coyote, posted 11-09-2014 9:36 PM zaius137 has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 236 of 373 (741127)
11-09-2014 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by zaius137
11-09-2014 9:23 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 9:23 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 1:15 AM Coyote has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 237 of 373 (741129)
11-09-2014 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by zaius137
11-09-2014 8:31 PM


Re: The hand of God
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 8:31 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 1:06 AM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 238 of 373 (741137)
11-10-2014 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Tanypteryx
11-09-2014 9:45 PM


Re: The hand of God
quote:
You might want to check your numbers. 400 billion years seems to undermine your argument.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-09-2014 9:45 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 239 of 373 (741138)
11-10-2014 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Coyote
11-09-2014 9:36 PM


quote:
Does any of this suggest a 6000 year old Earth/universe?
Why are you so enamored with 6000 years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Coyote, posted 11-09-2014 9:36 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Coyote, posted 11-10-2014 10:11 AM zaius137 has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 240 of 373 (741142)
11-10-2014 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by zaius137
11-09-2014 9:15 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 9:15 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024