|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Stars and a 6000 year old universe. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Recently quite a few of the star catalogues have been updated. IIRC, USNO-B 1.0 contains over a billion individual objects.
What would be the implications of all of those objects residing within a sphere with a radius of 6000 light years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBrian Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dsv Member (Idle past 4755 days) Posts: 220 From: Secret Underground Hideout Joined: |
Interesting.
They would certainly have to be a lot smaller than what we currently assume we are observing. That's a lot of mass that would be relatively close together.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, to be stars there does seem to be a minimal size. How big would that be?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dsv Member (Idle past 4755 days) Posts: 220 From: Secret Underground Hideout Joined: |
Well, the mass contained in the Milky Way -- the visible disk -- is 2x1011 M(Sun), the mass contained in the Milky Way galaxy -- out to as far as we can see HI gas -- is 6x1011 M(Sun). Our galaxy alone expands to over 100,000 light years in diameter, so we're doing a lot of compression since we can see much further than that and you'd have to take into account all the other distant galaxies.
If we assume (as a lot of people do) that 90% of the universe consists of dark matter with gravitational affects, in a 6000 light year universe, we would most likely be facing implosion already. fixed typo This message has been edited by dsv, Monday, June 27, 2005 05:19 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Since there are a very large number of stars that are binaries with known orbits, there are already masses accurately calculated for many hundreds of stars by using the rules Kepler and Newton (both Creationists! ) set forth. And lots of 'em weigh more than our sun does.
I like the analogy of sitting on a high point at the end of a long, flat, straight stretch of road, watching the semi-trailers go off into the night. The taillights get dimmer and smaller-looking as they get further away. There is very, very little evidence for a YEC-style scenario where the big trucks turn into Tonkas and then into Matchbox trucks so that they can fade and shrink like that. Distance really is the more parsimonious explanation. Just like it is for spectral class G dwarf stars looking bright when they're 150,000,000 km away, and dim when they're 500 light years away, and really dim at 10,000 LY.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Julien Barbour as well as a number of other leading physicists suggest that time and maybe even space are illusionary. When you use the term lightyear it involves time. But if time isn't what we think it is, all of our measurements of time and distance become meaningless. (I think ). From what I read it often seems that the more that is learned, the more we learn how much we don't know.
I'm not trying to argue here for YEC I'm just saying that it seems to me that there aren't easy clear cut answers. This is Julien Barbour's web site with is hypothesis on time. Julian Barbour This message has been edited by GDR, 06-27-2005 09:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So if time is the issue, measure the radius of the sphere in cubits.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
That may be part of why astronomers don't use "light year" much, but prefer parsec. That unit is based on plain ol' trigonometry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Coragyps writes: That may be part of why astronomers don't use "light year" much, but prefer parsec. That unit is based on plain ol' trigonometry. We had a discussion about this on another thread, and as near as I can tell there are problems with triangulation as well because we can't measure with certainty how much light is being bent by gravity in 4 dimensional space. How can you measure distances with trigonometry when you don't have straight lines and you can't be certain of just how curved the sides of the triangle are? I only have the vaguest of ideas what I'm talking about here, so please be gentle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The closer stars, Sirius for example, don't have any real opportunity for much of anything massive to be between them and us. And they also move over time relative to background stars (and us): only if some unseen mass moved along with them would the parallax - the triangle - stay warped the same way. And then we have thousands of parallaxes on stars out to 100 parsecs or so, and 1) members of clusters have very similar "triangles" and 2) stars whose spectra show them to be very similar are appropriately bright for their trigonometric distances. It would take a very devious gravitational field to make that happen all over the sky.
And then we have a different sort of trigonometric measurement, one of 25,000,000 light years=eight million parsecs, to the galaxy Messier 106. (not English "more messy, but a Frenchman's name....) One side of a central disc is approaching us, and the other side receding, and we know how fast by the Doppler effect, exactly like that cop knows how fast you're driving. Then they used a radiotelescope to see how far, angularly, across the front of the disc several radio-emitting clouds moved over a few years. Those data and high-school trig gave the distance. It's a big place out there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Coragyps writes: The closer stars, Sirius for example, don't have any real opportunity for much of anything massive to be between them and us. And they also move over time relative to background stars (and us): only if some unseen mass moved along with them would the parallax - the triangle - stay warped the same way. And then we have thousands of parallaxes on stars out to 100 parsecs or so, and 1) members of clusters have very similar "triangles" and 2) stars whose spectra show them to be very similar are appropriately bright for their trigonometric distances. It would take a very devious gravitational field to make that happen all over the sky. Is it possible that dark matter could form this devious gravitational field? I guess my thinking goes something like this. I started reading various books. Hawking, Geeene, Schroeder and a couple of others. Basically I found that virtually nothing that I assumed about matter and the universe were what I had thought. Time isn't a constant, matter is really all about energy, everything is not only atoms but all atoms are particles, particles behave incredibly strangely, this whole universe is maybe a brane or a matrix or a hologram, and so on. With all these various observations and theories, including again the theory that space and time are illusionary, it just seems to me that maybe all of these measurements that we make in space aren't what they seem either. I realize that there are no answers to this but I get the feeling that for those who really do understand astro physics that it is likely even more confusing because it appears to me that there aren't any absolutes anymore. Sorry I got off on a tangent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
GDR
How can you measure distances with trigonometry when you don't have straight lines and you can't be certain of just how curved the sides of the triangle are? If there were a curvature of spacetime it would affect the displacement of the star against the background not the lines we use to intercept the stars apparent position and,therefore,the trigonometry would still be applicable and valid. This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2005-06-28 12:17 AM In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Douglas Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Slim Jim Junior Member (Idle past 6274 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
I'm a little confused as to why you chose a radius of 6000 light years. Doesn't the YEC viewpoint not necessarily preclude the possibility of stars being created in situ at arbitrarily large distances from Earth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I'm a little confused as to why you chose a radius of 6000 light years. Doesn't the YEC viewpoint not necessarily preclude the possibility of stars being created in situ at arbitrarily large distances from Earth? Certainly it does not preclude that. Each YEC has some level of God's lying that they are able to bear, and almost all of them can't accept that particular lie. So they try for arbitray changes in the speed of light or white holes and time dilation or some other scenario that also involves God lying to us ... but lying in a way that the particular YEC finds acceptable.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024