Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stars and a 6000 year old universe.
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 28 (220037)
06-27-2005 1:26 PM


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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by dsv, posted 06-27-2005 5:02 PM jar has replied
 Message 7 by GDR, posted 06-27-2005 9:15 PM jar has replied
 Message 14 by Slim Jim, posted 06-28-2005 4:33 AM jar has replied

  
AdminBrian
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 28 (220156)
06-27-2005 4:58 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 3 of 28 (220163)
06-27-2005 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
06-27-2005 1:26 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 06-27-2005 1:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 06-27-2005 5:05 PM dsv has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 4 of 28 (220165)
06-27-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by dsv
06-27-2005 5:02 PM


Well, to be stars there does seem to be a minimal size. How big would that be?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by dsv, posted 06-27-2005 5:02 PM dsv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by dsv, posted 06-27-2005 5:18 PM jar has not replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 5 of 28 (220170)
06-27-2005 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
06-27-2005 5:05 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 06-27-2005 5:05 PM jar has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 6 of 28 (220179)
06-27-2005 5:45 PM


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: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 7 of 28 (220233)
06-27-2005 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
06-27-2005 1:26 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 06-27-2005 1:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 06-27-2005 9:28 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2005 9:35 PM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 28 (220239)
06-27-2005 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by GDR
06-27-2005 9:15 PM


So if time is the issue, measure the radius of the sphere in cubits.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by GDR, posted 06-27-2005 9:15 PM GDR has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 9 of 28 (220245)
06-27-2005 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by GDR
06-27-2005 9:15 PM


That may be part of why astronomers don't use "light year" much, but prefer parsec. That unit is based on plain ol' trigonometry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by GDR, posted 06-27-2005 9:15 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 06-27-2005 10:40 PM Coragyps has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 10 of 28 (220270)
06-27-2005 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
06-27-2005 9:35 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2005 9:35 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2005 11:09 PM GDR has replied
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 06-28-2005 2:17 AM GDR has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 11 of 28 (220274)
06-27-2005 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by GDR
06-27-2005 10:40 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 06-27-2005 10:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by GDR, posted 06-28-2005 12:38 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 12 of 28 (220298)
06-28-2005 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coragyps
06-27-2005 11:09 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2005 11:09 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 13 of 28 (220313)
06-28-2005 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by GDR
06-27-2005 10:40 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 06-27-2005 10:40 PM GDR has not replied

  
Slim Jim
Junior Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 05-06-2005


Message 14 of 28 (220327)
06-28-2005 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
06-27-2005 1:26 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 06-27-2005 1:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 06-28-2005 8:58 AM Slim Jim has not replied
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2005 9:16 AM Slim Jim has not replied
 Message 17 by jar, posted 06-28-2005 11:43 AM Slim Jim has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 15 of 28 (220383)
06-28-2005 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Slim Jim
06-28-2005 4:33 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Slim Jim, posted 06-28-2005 4:33 AM Slim Jim 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