Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
31 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, Tanypteryx (4 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,715 Year: 18,751/19,786 Month: 1,171/1,705 Week: 423/518 Day: 41/58 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Doesn't the distance of stars disprove the young earth theory?
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 698 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 76 of 138 (573713)
08-12-2010 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by hooah212002
08-11-2010 10:15 PM


Hooah writes:

Nuimshaan writes:

Because all stars alive right now are visible from some location in space, whether it's closer or farther away from them....does not age them in any respect.

So....you think you see stars as they are right now? The speed of light, in your opinion, is instantaneous?

I may be completely off base in my thinking here, but Nuimshaan may have a point.

Imagine that a star became visible to eyes on earth by *insert star formation method here * back in, say, 150,000 BCE, and that that visible star wasn't catalogued until say, 600 CE. In, say, 1975, this star was found by parallax, red shift, etc... to be 300000 light years away. I think he's saying that since we don't know exactly when that light became visible to us here on earth, the age of that star is impossible to know. If we'd have been on earth to make a measurement of 300000 light years away at the moment the star became visible, we'd know that it was born about 300000 years ago...

However...

That's not to say that star is still around. The star could have been blown apart by evil spacefarers 3000 years after it was formed (work with me here), and thus we'd be viewing it not as it is, which is a bunch of space debris and heat, but as it was, which is a nice, pretty star.

But again, I may be talking way out of my arse. Anyone?


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by hooah212002, posted 08-11-2010 10:15 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by hooah212002, posted 08-12-2010 2:45 PM Apothecus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 78 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 3:20 PM Apothecus has responded
 Message 84 by bluescat48, posted 08-13-2010 1:17 AM Apothecus has responded
 Message 99 by driewerf, posted 08-14-2010 12:18 PM Apothecus has responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 77 of 138 (573718)
08-12-2010 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Apothecus
08-12-2010 2:35 PM


Forgive me, I was drunk when I wrote that. Looking back, I have no idea why the hell I said what I said.


"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Apothecus, posted 08-12-2010 2:35 PM Apothecus has acknowledged this reply

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 78 of 138 (573730)
08-12-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Apothecus
08-12-2010 2:35 PM


Well, I think there are ways to deduce a stars age, which will probably have to do with the ratio of helium versus hydrogen it contains.

I think astronomers have a pretty good idea of the age of most stars, and this has nothing to do with when they were first recorded.

Then again, it's completely irrelevant, if we see the star now, and it is 300,000 light years away, then it means the universe still has to be at least 300,000 years old, or else, we wouldn't see the star.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Apothecus, posted 08-12-2010 2:35 PM Apothecus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Apothecus, posted 08-12-2010 11:26 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 8097
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 79 of 138 (573736)
08-12-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Nuimshaan
08-11-2010 7:51 PM


Location in this system does not constitue time topagraphy. Just because we are here, have some technology, and are seeing things far away...does not mean the age of those things. Distances between objects in space does not conclude their age.
IF you say that I am measuring light from a distant star that took twelve million years to travel here...your not saying how old the earth is or the star....in fact...your calculations of how long it took the light to reach you are incorrect and incorrect in intention for dtermining time.

We are not determining the age of the STAR by its distance from the Earth. We are determining the minimum age of the Universe, the spacetime in which we exist. Light travels at 3x10^8 m/s. No faster, no slower. When we are hit by photons from a star that is 3 million light years away that means that those photons left that star 3 million years ago. We can see galaxies of stars that more than 3 million light years away. This falsifies a young earth.

Because all stars alive right now are visible from some location in space, whether it's closer or farther away from them....does not age them in any respect.

But it does give us the age of the universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Nuimshaan, posted 08-11-2010 7:51 PM Nuimshaan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 3:50 PM Taq has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 80 of 138 (573739)
08-12-2010 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Taq
08-12-2010 3:46 PM


Taq writes:

This falsifies a young earth.


Well, not really, now does it. I mean, the age of the earth is of course independent from the age of the universe. Even if the Earth was only made yesterday, the universe would still be at least 3 billion years old from your example star.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 3:46 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 4:00 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 81 of 138 (573742)
08-12-2010 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Nuimshaan
08-11-2010 7:51 PM


The speed at which an object moves from one location to another does not effect the time continuom, in fact, speed will only determine the how fast the object moved from one location to another.

There is no "time" continuum. Passage of time is unique to each individual object that travels. And the speed that an object travels has a direct impact on the time experienced by that object. This is the most basic most obvious (4-dimensional) geometry - time experienced is the length of the 4-dimensional path through space-time - and to argue against it is the very essence of stupidity. Every particle accelerator in the world is built taking into account the very fact of time dilation. Guess what? They work.

If time dilation is defined as moving faster equals less time of travel then it is true.

No, it is not defined as this. And it is very much true. And is demonstrated 100% true every second of every day that particle accelerators are in operation.

If you're saying I moved so fast in that direction...that I saw the prehistoric Earth...you are wrong...Time did not dilate for you...but the distance for which you have traveled has increased greatly...

Time-dilation has nothing to do with seeing the prehistoric Earth - you seem very confused by all of this. Observations of the Moon show the Moon as it was about 1 second ago. The radio delay when the Apollo missions transmitted their communications demonstrates this without question. We see the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago. If it explodes, we won't know until 8 minutes later. With Jupiter, the situation si even more pronounced - and radio signals from our probes can take an hour or more to arrive. When we observe a star at 8000 light years distance, then we are seeing it as it was 8000 years ago. This is the most basic physics, and has nothing to do with time dilation.

You will be seen as the village idiot when you argue these facts in a scientific setting...

I'm fairly sure that most of the members of EvC are safe from such accusations. You on the other hand may want to avoid such an environment...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Nuimshaan, posted 08-11-2010 7:51 PM Nuimshaan has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8097
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 82 of 138 (573745)
08-12-2010 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Huntard
08-12-2010 3:50 PM


Well, not really, now does it. I mean, the age of the earth is of course independent from the age of the universe. Even if the Earth was only made yesterday, the universe would still be at least 3 billion years old from your example star.

True enough. But I wasn't born yesterday . . .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 3:50 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 698 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 83 of 138 (573886)
08-12-2010 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Huntard
08-12-2010 3:20 PM


Well, I think there are ways to deduce a stars age, which will probably have to do with the ratio of helium versus hydrogen it contains.

No doubt. Though convincing some folk of this is likened to herding cats.

Then again, it's completely irrelevant, if we see the star now, and it is 300,000 light years away, then it means the universe still has to be at least 300,000 years old, or else, we wouldn't see the star.

No arguments here, Huntard.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 3:20 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 84 of 138 (573897)
08-13-2010 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Apothecus
08-12-2010 2:35 PM


That's not to say that star is still around. The star could have been blown apart by evil spacefarers 3000 years after it was formed (work with me here), and thus we'd be viewing it not as it is, which is a bunch of space debris and heat, but as it was, which is a nice, pretty star.

for the next 3000 years.

That is true in the same way as the sun could have blown up 2 minutes ago but we would still see it as it was for the next 6 minutes.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Apothecus, posted 08-12-2010 2:35 PM Apothecus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Apothecus, posted 08-13-2010 9:36 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 85 of 138 (573903)
08-13-2010 2:00 AM


Hubble
Can anyone put Hubble's Law into simple terms for me? How does it account for all the time that it took those distant stars to form and start shining?

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2010 2:57 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 86 of 138 (573905)
08-13-2010 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by ProtoTypical
08-13-2010 2:00 AM


Re: Hubble
Dogmafood writes:

Can anyone put Hubble's Law into simple terms for me? How does it account for all the time that it took those distant stars to form and start shining?


I don't see what Hubble's law has to do with the formation of stars. It simply states that the distance of a galaxy to our own is proportional to the velocity with which it is receding from us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-13-2010 2:00 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-13-2010 9:24 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 87 of 138 (573954)
08-13-2010 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Huntard
08-13-2010 2:57 AM


Re: Hubble
So Hubbles law and redshift and parallax show us that the farthest stars (that we can see) are at least 13.5 billion light years away. Is it suspected that the universe is actually much older but we just cant prove it yet?

Also, is that 6.75 billion light years in any direction? Is it a radius or a diameter measurement?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2010 2:57 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 11:20 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 698 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 88 of 138 (573958)
08-13-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by bluescat48
08-13-2010 1:17 AM


for the next 3000 years.

Yes, exactly what I was getting at. Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by bluescat48, posted 08-13-2010 1:17 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2010 9:53 AM Apothecus has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 89 of 138 (573962)
08-13-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Apothecus
08-13-2010 9:36 AM


Apothecus writes:

Yes, exactly what I was getting at. Thanks.


Well, actually (please bear with me here, I just thought of this ), if the star was first visible 150,000 years ago, and was destroyed 3,000 years after it's "birth", we wouldn't actually be able to see it these days, would we? It would stopped being visible at 147,000 years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Apothecus, posted 08-13-2010 9:36 AM Apothecus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Apothecus, posted 08-14-2010 8:26 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 8097
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 90 of 138 (573979)
08-13-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ProtoTypical
08-13-2010 9:24 AM


Re: Hubble
So Hubbles law and redshift and parallax show us that the farthest stars (that we can see) are at least 13.5 billion light years away. Is it suspected that the universe is actually much older but we just cant prove it yet?

This is where we run into a problem of definition. The Universe is defined by what we can observe, and the observable universe is 13.5 billion years old by the travel of light. Could our observable universe be part of a larger spacetime that is much older? Many theoretical physicists believe so, some don't. It's a mixed bag.

If you want to do some more reading you should check out the wiki page on De Sitter Universe. In this type of universe there is an event horizon which is defined by the expansion of space where the expansion adds up to the speed of light.

Also, is that 6.75 billion light years in any direction? Is it a radius or a diameter measurement?

Radius. It is 13.5 billion light years in all directions.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-13-2010 9:24 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 08-13-2010 11:39 AM Taq has responded
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 08-13-2010 6:10 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019