Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
 75 online now: AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Stile, Tangle (7 members, 68 visitors) Newest Member: FossilDiscovery Post Volume: Total: 893,181 Year: 4,293/6,534 Month: 507/900 Week: 31/182 Day: 3/16 Hour: 1/1

EvC Forum Science Forums Big Bang and Cosmology

# Hubble's Law Disproves Young Earth Creationism

Author Topic:   Hubble's Law Disproves Young Earth Creationism
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1339 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

 Message 8 of 36 (832971) 05-15-2018 2:05 PM Reply to: Message 3 by Stile05-15-2018 9:50 AM

 Are you just taking the calculation back to when "all the galaxies were in 1 spot together?"And assuming that "when all galaxies were in 1 spot together" is the same as "the beginning of the universe?"Or is it other logical connections you're making that I'm not understanding?

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l10_p5.html

quote:
You can actually calculate an estimate for the age of the Universe from Hubble's Law. The distance between two galaxies is D. The apparent velocity with which they are separating from each other is v. At some point, the galaxies were touching, and we can consider that time the moment of the Big Bang. If you take the separation between the two galaxies (D) and divide that by the apparent velocity (v), that will leave you with how long it took for the galaxies to reach their current separation.

 This message is a reply to: Message 3 by Stile, posted 05-15-2018 9:50 AM Stile has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 9 by Stile, posted 05-15-2018 2:48 PM Modulous has replied Message 11 by 14174dm, posted 05-15-2018 4:26 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1339 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

 (2)
 Message 12 of 36 (832979) 05-15-2018 5:06 PM Reply to: Message 11 by 14174dm05-15-2018 4:26 PM

Re: Probably stupid question
 Does the Hubble constant only apply to the current motions?

Yes.

 Would it change with time?

Yes. And no. Hubble's Parameter changes through time. Hubble's Constant is what it is at the moment - so it will always be what it is, given what time it is. Which does make 'constant' a bit of an odd term, but physics nomenclature is bit of a slave to tradition

 How would you prove either constant constant or variable with age?

It's derived from General Relativity via the Friedmann equations. So that's the mathematical derivation / proof. Empirical proof comes from more and more precise measurements and clever inferences.

 Why does velocity vary with distance? Is this where dark force/matter come in?

Good question and I'm not sure there is a definitive answer but the general gist goes:

There is something intrinsic to space that causes it to expand. So think of a unit sphere of space - it expands to twice the diameter. Now there is more space. And thus more 'expansion stuff'. From the centre of the sphere to edge there is twice as much stuff expanding as there was before so the edge is now being 'pushed' away at a greater rate than stuff only one unit away from the centre. The rate 'per unit' of space stays the same, but the more units of space there between point A and point B, the more space is expanding so it accumulates over distance.

That's why more distance = faster expansion between those two points.

The fact that the equation comes out the way it does, and the observations leads us to the conclusion that there is something intrinsic to space that causes the expansion. What that intrinsic something is is not completely understood I believe, but yes - a constant energy density to space - ala a cosmological constant with Dark Energy being the culprit of this is a commonly accepted understanding, though there are some weird quantum field ideas that I don't understand that have been proposed too.

 This message is a reply to: Message 11 by 14174dm, posted 05-15-2018 4:26 PM 14174dm has taken no action

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1339 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

 (2)
 Message 13 of 36 (832980) 05-15-2018 5:08 PM Reply to: Message 9 by Stile05-15-2018 2:48 PM

 Yeah.That's the assumption.(And rightly so, if you ask me).But, a YEC's response, if I were to guess... would be that the Big Bang never happened. So they simply would not accept such an assumption.

Agreed - as far as disproving YEC it could even be viewed as begging the question: 'Given the Big Bang - the universe isn't young'.

 This message is a reply to: Message 9 by Stile, posted 05-15-2018 2:48 PM Stile has seen this message

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Newer Topic | Older Topic Jump to:Board Administration     The Public Record     Announcements     Proposed New Topics     Suggestions and Questions Science Forums     The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy     Big Bang and Cosmology     Dates and Dating     Education and Creation/Evolution     Biological Evolution     Geology and the Great Flood     Human Origins and Evolution     Intelligent Design     Is It Science?     Creation/Evolution Miscellany     Origin of Life Social and Religious Issues     Bible Study     Comparative Religions     Social Issues and Creation/Evolution     Faith and Belief     Theological Creationism and ID Side Orders     Coffee House     The Great Debate     Free For All     Post of the Month     Links and Information     Creation/Evolution In The News     The Book Nook     Columnist     In Memoriam     Practice Makes Perfect Archives     Topic Proposals Archive     Showcase Retired Forums     Short Subjects (No new topics or messages)     Welcome visitors