How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

aeroz19 said:

False. It is most certainly not. From my College 100-level Chemistry textbook, 1/2 a page out of about 1,000 pages:

"Although scientists no longer believe molecules necesary for life were formed this way, it is nonetheless a starting point for new experiments in this direction." Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity, Kotz & Treichel, 5th ed.

This statement is self-explanatory.

Click to expand...

This is the way I have seen it presented in every textbook I've read mentioning the Miller-Urey experiment. Although it's been found to be inconsistent with other observations, it's still valuable in terms of our learning process. It certainly isn't used to support evolution as caddy said, and has nothing to do with evolution in the first place.

I think the only reason people say that is because they haven't read any relevant textbooks themselves. They're just repeating what other creationists tell them on websites without checking up on their claims. I highly doubt that the statement was brought about in this forum because the OPer had read such a textbook or been in such a class that used Miller-Urey as "valid proof" for evolution. It was brought about because it was on a website. In reality, it was a statement of hearsay rather than fact.

In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and so, therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out.

Click to expand...

I can't believe nobody has pointed out yet the utter nonsense of this statement. An infinite universe with an isotropic distribution of galaxies will collapse (Edited to add unless they are moving away from each other with some relative velocitie(s).

If memory from my reading serves, Newton's original attempt to tackle the problem was wrong, because of the way he handled infinities (the correct approach is to take a sphere of stars, of finite radius, and then increase it toward infinity, adding one extremely thin 'layer' of stars at a time).

Battie said:

What does the speed of the expansion have to do with the theory's validity? What does gravity have to do with an explosion?

Click to expand...

It immediately begins to slow the outward thrust. Our (soccer ball) would remain the origin of the only gravitational pull anywhere----theoretically of course...

LittleNipper said:

It immediately begins to slow the outward thrust. Our (soccer ball) would remain the origin of the only gravitational pull anywhere----theoretically of course...

Click to expand...

You have been asked to back up your assertion here by Corvus Corax.

CC said:

How fast was the event that caused the expansion (NOT explosion) of space? And how, specifically, does this violate gravitational theory?
By the way, which gravitational theory are you speaking of?
1- Newtonian
2- Gravity according to Relativity (curved space)
or
3- Gravitons
?
Now, you must keep in mind that expanding space can travel faster than the speed of light when taken out of "normal" velocities (ie motion through space)...recession velocity (two objects receding from each other) based on the expansion of a given space can make those two objects travel away from each other faster than the speed of light relative to each other. However, neither object (in their regional space) will ever overtake a beam of light.
So how does this (expansion of space) violate gravity and it's effect on space?
Before I can answer your questions, I'll need an answer to all of the above.
And please, no one-liners, but an actual explanation.

Click to expand...

Put up or shut up.

corvus_corax said:

The statement in <> was added by me based on post 53.
I was just beginning to think that I understood post 47. Then you added "according to gravity".
According to gravity, space cannot "travel" faster than the event that caused it.
Okay.....
How fast was the event that caused the expansion (NOT explosion) of space? And how, specifically, does this violate gravitational theory?
By the way, which gravitational theory are you speaking of?
1- Newtonian
2- Gravity according to Relativity (curved space)
or
3- Gravitons
?
Now, you must keep in mind that expanding space can travel faster than the speed of light when taken out of "normal" velocities (ie motion through space)...recession velocity (two objects receding from each other) based on the expansion of a given space can make those two objects travel away from each other faster than the speed of light relative to each other. However, neither object (in their regional space) will ever overtake a beam of light.
So how does this (expansion of space) violate gravity and it's effect on space?
Before I can answer your questions, I'll need an answer to all of the above.
And please, no one-liners, but an actual explanation.

Thanks in advance

Edit- to fix the <>

Click to expand...

It is all theory to me. There seems no logical reason that our (soccer ball) would reach a (critical mass). And if the (soccer ball) contained light and our (soccer ball) suddenly simply expanded----the light within it would simply expand too... The outside of our (soccer ball) might move faster then the speed of light; however, the inside of the (soccer ball) would be like the inside of a spaceship traveling faster then the speed of light. Everything would remain in present time only larger... We are talking of expansion? The miniture universe of the (soccer ball) would become the larger version of itself only bigger---because it expanded...

LittleNipper said:

It is all theory to me. There seems no logical reason that our (soccer ball) would reach a (critical mass). And if the (soccer ball) contained light and our (soccer ball) suddenly simply expanded----the light within it would simply expand too... The outside of our (soccer ball) might move faster then the speed of light; however, the inside of the (soccer ball) would be like the inside of a spaceship traveling faster then the speed of light. Everything would remain in present time only larger... We are talking of expansion? The miniture universe of the (soccer ball) would become the larger version of itself only bigger---because it expanded...

Click to expand...

In summary, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

caddy said:

A VERY general Statement for a VERY specific Experiment! You start with the Wrong "STUFF" your Theories based on the STUFF will NOT be anywhere close to Valid.

You believe EVERYTHING you read in a College textbook ?

I don't, or didn't....College is LONG gone for me

Click to expand...

I'm really having a lot of trouble understanding this post.

If I'm reading your post here correctly, it seems that you don't understand what the textbooks are saying. What they are saying is that current models are not 'based on' the experiments of Urey-Miller and that the starting conditions used by them have been rejected. They just state that the Urey-Miller experiments are an important starting point. If we create the right starting conditions now, and use for that some of the basic methods provided by Urey-Miller, how would the results be invalid as a simulation?

I'm also a little lost on you question whether Aeroz (or me, for instance) believe everything we read in a college textbook. I'm having trouble placing that statement in context of the post from Aeroz. If the college textbooks state that scientists no longer believe that amino acids were formed as in the Urey-Miller experiments, why should I believe that scientists currently do think they were formed that way? And why should I disbelieve the college textbooks if they state that the experiments were an important first step in research on the formation of molecules necessary for life? It is good to read a college book critically, but the things quoted by Aeroz are, as they say, history.

Tomk80 said:

If I'm reading your post here correctly, it seems that you don't understand what the textbooks are saying. What they are saying is that current models are not 'based on' the experiments of Urey-Miller and that the starting conditions used by them have been rejected. They just state that the Urey-Miller experiments are an important starting point. If we create the right starting conditions now, and use for that some of the basic methods provided by Urey-Miller, how would the results be invalid as a simulation?

Click to expand...

Indeed. And quite a lot of decent scientific, peer-reviewed journals say it too. So why disagree with that textbook?

Magi

Dragar said:

I can't believe nobody has pointed out yet the utter nonsense of this statement. An infinite universe with an isotropic distribution of galaxies will collapse (Edited to add unless they are moving away from each other with some relative velocitie(s).

Click to expand...

There are a few respectable physicists still holding out for new explanations of how it would work, though, aren't there?
Although it does sound like twaddle.
Magi

ARilWarriorOvGod said:

We may not ever figure out why this is possible, but look at it this way. God can not be explained because if he could be explained then that would mean we could understand him. God is beyond our understanding and therefore he is God. Well, with that being said if God can create the whole universe, what makes us think he couldn't speed the light up or just put the light there himself? He can do what he wants when ever he wants how ever he wants. I am just left in "aw" at the magnificence of God's work. He created such a beautiful universe. Thank You God!!!!

Click to expand...

Did God create the universe? Did God create the laws by which the universe operates?

Yes, God can do whatever God wants. But there are consequences. If God suspends the laws by which the universe operates, the universe disappears. So, maybe God does not want the universe to disappear. Then if God speeds up light without making the universe disappear, the universe still disappears because of the destructive force of high-speed light.

God can do whatever God wants, but having put in place cause and effect, God has to consider what the effect will be of doing whatever he wants. If God does not want certain effects, God has to avoid doing things that would bring unwanted effects into being. The mind of God is not as simple as that of a 2-year-old that only knows "I want". It is a complex mind that knows the end from the beginning and can see "If I do X, the consequence will be Y, and I do not want Y, so I will not do X." This does not mean that God cannot do X. It means that God chooses not to do X because it would entail the consequence Y, which God does not want.

caddy said:

A VERY general Statement for a VERY specific Experiment! You start with the Wrong "STUFF" your Theories based on the STUFF will NOT be anywhere close to Valid.

You believe EVERYTHING you read in a College textbook ?

I don't, or didn't....College is LONG gone for me

Click to expand...

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

caddy said:

Kind of like what Miller-Urey did years ago working with elements they thought existed in the early atmosphere, of which today has been (actually since the 60s) has all but been proved False, but yet, it is STILL taught in our Science books as though it were valid proofs for evolution.

Click to expand...

aeroz19 said:

False. It is most certainly not. From my College 100-level Chemistry textbook, 1/2 a page out of about 1,000 pages:

"Although scientists no longer believe molecules necesary for life were formed this way, it is nonetheless a starting point for new experiments in this direction." Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity, Kotz & Treichel, 5th ed.

This statement is self-explanatory.

Click to expand...

caddy said:

A VERY general Statement for a VERY specific Experiment! You start with the Wrong "STUFF" your Theories based on the STUFF will NOT be anywhere close to Valid.

Click to expand...

They started with the rights stuff; it was the conditions that were not completely accurate.

By the way, the reason this experiment still has relevance is because life molecules were formed under a set of conditions which in some way, at least remotely resembled those during primive earth. In fact, even if the conditions were nothing like those of primitive earth, it would still be significant for other reasons.

The most notable difference I can think of right now is that the electrical current....doh what am I doing. You won't pay any attention to this part....this part is called science.

You believe EVERYTHING you read in a College textbook ?

Click to expand...

No, but I believe a lot of it, especially the stuff I read in Science texts (and especially since 99.99% of it is hardcore fact and math, and not Urey-Miller-type theory).

This is a Science textbook. Chemistry is a pure science. This stuff has been tested and used by many, many chemists. This stuff is not the independent idea of one or few scientists. This is the real deal here.

I don't, or didn't....College is LONG gone for me

Click to expand...

Ok. That's fine, if you don't even want to believe what you learn in Chemistry class. Gee wiz, amazing.

ARilWarriorOvGod said:

We may not ever figure out why this is possible

Click to expand...

Translation: We may never be able to reconcile science with literalism.

but look at it this way. God can not be explained

Click to expand...

But look at it this way: composition of matter can never be understood...oh wait, it is understood...

because if he could be explained then that would mean we could understand him.

Click to expand...

Because if the mysteries of the behavior of matter could be explained then we would understand God...oh wait we do understand the mysteries of the behavior of matter...

God is beyond our understanding and therefore he is God. Well, with that being said if God can create the whole universe, what makes us think he couldn't speed the light up or just put the light there himself? He can do what he wants when ever he wants how ever he wants. I am just left in "aw" at the magnificence of God's work. He created such a beautiful universe. Thank You God!!!!

Click to expand...

This is the easiest way to shrug off science so you don't have to face up to the reality of literalist claims being wrong.

Of course God can do what he wants, but we have the means and ability to collect data and knowledge about the universe, discover what has occured in the universe, and theorize about it. And from the data we have gathered and the knowledge we have built up and the theories built from that data and knowledge, we know that the universe is old, not young. You just don't trust that process, favoring literalism instead.

gluadys said:

Did God create the universe? Did God create the laws by which the universe operates?

Yes, God can do whatever God wants. But there are consequences. If God suspends the laws by which the universe operates, the universe disappears. So, maybe God does not want the universe to disappear. Then if God speeds up light without making the universe disappear, the universe still disappears because of the destructive force of high-speed light.

God can do whatever God wants, but having put in place cause and effect, God has to consider what the effect will be of doing whatever he wants. If God does not want certain effects, God has to avoid doing things that would bring unwanted effects into being. The mind of God is not as simple as that of a 2-year-old that only knows "I want". It is a complex mind that knows the end from the beginning and can see "If I do X, the consequence will be Y, and I do not want Y, so I will not do X." This does not mean that God cannot do X. It means that God chooses not to do X because it would entail the consequence Y, which God does not want.

Click to expand...

Well, gluadys, if God created the universe and the laws that the universe operates by, He could easily change those laws so that there would be no consequences if he did X or Y, or so that the consequences would be different from that which we would expect.

So, we could sit here and ask, "Well, what if God did X or Y and then made the consequences change so that we would never know that he did X or Y, or so that it looks like he did A and B instead?" But then we might as well be asking "What if I'm not really here? Maybe I'm an illusion and everything I know or think is actually a dream that God is having."

So there really is no point in pondering things like that which we cannot scientifically probe or prove. And objective science--not this "what if..." stuff--tells us that the "what if" stuff is wrong.

Tomk80 asked you to put up or shut up (based on my explanation and questions to you)
You failed.
Let us examine how you failed-

LittleNipper said:

It is all theory to me.

Click to expand...

Stop right there.
"It's all theory to me" implies "It's all guesswork and unfounded hypothesis to me".
Now if you had said "It's all scientific theory to me" we'd be going in a different direction with this thread.
You dont understand scientific theory.
No, you dont. Dont even pretend that you do.
Read THIS. It's a simple one page wikipedia explanation of scientific theory and what it is along with what it is not.
However, not trusting that anyone will actually read a link, I'll sumarize for you-
A scientific theory is (please read carefully, and attempt it without bias)-
A model that best explains the evidence at hand.
Period. End of story.
To say that BB theory is "all a theory to me" is to demonize all of scientific theory. Is Gravity "all a theory" to you? (If it is, good luck jumping off the earth using the power of your own legs). Is Germ Theory "all a theory" to you? (If it is, good luck without modern pharmaceutical knowledge based on Germ Theory)
Please, I implore you, read the link I provided. When you read it and (most importantly) understand it, you will no longer say (regarding scientific theory) "It's all theory to me".

LittleNipper said:

There seems no logical reason that our (soccer ball) would reach a (critical mass).

Click to expand...

Argument from incredulity. Start over. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
And "logic" doesnt really apply here, as far as you are understanding BB theory (read and understand what 'logic' is before you start bandying the word around like you understand it). Perhaps the word you are looking for is "reasonable" (in conjunction with biblical scripture).
But I doubt even that word would apply to your arguments.

LittleNipper said:

And if the (soccer ball) contained light and our (soccer ball) suddenly simply expanded----the light within it would simply expand too...

Click to expand...

Stop
I need an explanation here.
What do you mean by "light within it would simply expand"?

LittleNipper said:

The outside of our (soccer ball) might move faster then the speed of light

Click to expand...

You're good so far.

LittleNipper said:

however, the inside of the (soccer ball) would be like the inside of a spaceship traveling faster then the speed of light.

Click to expand...

Re-read my post regarding the speed of light at regional distances.
We are travelling faster than the speed of light (respective to other objects receding from us close to our event horizon). We are not travelling faster than c in our regional space.

LittleNipper said:

Everything would remain in present time only larger...

Click to expand...

Larger?
Again, I need to ask for an explanation regarding what you are actually talking about. What do you mean when you say "Everything would remain in present time only larger"?

LittleNipper said:

We are talking of expansion?

Click to expand...

Yes, as opposed to an explosion

LittleNipper said:

The miniture universe of the (soccer ball) would become the larger version of itself only bigger---because it expanded...

Click to expand...

Right
You're getting close. Just keep in mind it's our observable universe.

Now, examine my questions above. Answer them with actual models based on the evidence at hand.
I look forward to further discussion.

aeroz19 said:

Well, gluadys, if God created the universe and the laws that the universe operates by, He could easily change those laws so that there would be no consequences if he did X or Y, or so that the consequences would be different from that which we would expect.

Click to expand...

No, that is a logical self-contradiction. If you set up a system in which X causes Y and then remove X you necessarily remove Y as well. If you change (not remove) X then you change Y. In either case a scientist, noticing the change in or disappearance of Y will look for the change in or disappearance of X. Unless the scientist is Y, in which case the disappearance of Y means the disappearance of the scientist.

So, we could sit here and ask, "Well, what if God did X or Y and then made the consequences change so that we would never know that he did X or Y, or so that it looks like he did A and B instead?" But then we might as well be asking "What if I'm not really here? Maybe I'm an illusion and everything I know or think is actually a dream that God is having."

Click to expand...

Exactly. We would no longer have a universe based on natural laws that we can rely on. Or we would no longer have a universe at all---only the illusion of one. We would also not have the God of the bible.

There are a few respectable physicists still holding out for new explanations of how it would work, though, aren't there?

Click to expand...

Weeelll...

Sorta. I mean, you could have an infinite universe which just sits around neatly, by adjusting the so called 'cosmological constant', which is a term in the equations of GR. Einstein did this. He later called it his 'biggest blunder', having realised that had he set it to 0 (a number all physicists prefer, when possible, to set arbitrary constants to), he would have predicted the whole slew of findings that lead to the Big Bang theory.

It may be the Cosmological Constant is non-zero, by the way. We don't know yet. But it's pretty much certainly not the number required to perfectly balance an infinite universe.

No, that is a logical self-contradiction. If you set up a system in which X causes Y and then remove X you necessarily remove Y as well. If you change (not remove) X then you change Y. In either case a scientist, noticing the change in or disappearance of Y will look for the change in or disappearance of X. Unless the scientist is Y, in which case the disappearance of Y means the disappearance of the scientist.

Click to expand...

gluadys, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe aeroz was suggesting that God created a system where X caused Y, and then changed that relationship, so that X no longer caused Y.

Could he do that?