How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

[aeroz19]

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?

Yes that is exactly what I was saying. Thank you.

 

[gluadys]

Yes that is exactly what I was saying. Thank you.

How could that be done without changing X as well?

 

[Edx]

The point of science is to find the actual TRUTH and not simply maintain rigid formality and a set of rules at the exclusion of all other possibilities or input.

Science is about truth. You are describing Creationism.

Science for science sake is pointless if what you establish is a lie...

This doesnt make sence. Science is the only reliable way of knowing if something is true. So you myst know of a better one, to make that statement.

Ed

 

[noly]

i'm a creavolutionist.
the bible is full of metaphors.
nowhere in the bible does it state that the universe is 10,000 years old.
the universe is actually billions of years old (imho)
i reckon between 8 and 9 billion.
physics is not flexible over time.
for far too long we have divided creation and evolution but with the correct understanding of the bible and other sources of information we can now start to see them both as the same thing.
adam and eve were metaphors for single-cell organisms (algae)
imho of course!

 

[noly]

imho-
anybody that states a supposed scientific fact is guilty of being closed-minded to the possibility of learning more.
we knew how internal combustion worked over a century ago but cars keep getting more efficient.
would you fly with orville wright?

 

[Physics_guy]

the universe is actually billions of years old (imho)
i reckon between 8 and 9 billion.

Just wondering, but where did you get your numbers?

The latest cosmological surveys point rather strongly towards a 12.5 billion year age (or there abouts) and the young earth creationists are at about 6,000 years old, so where did the 8 to 9 billion come from?

 

[aeroz19]

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?

Yes that is exactly what I was saying. Thank you.

How could that be done without changing X as well?

Because God wrote the universal laws that govern how x and y interact, so He could change how they interact as well. He would not be bound by the universal laws.

For example, the more mass something has, the greater force of attraction. God could reverse that so that the more mass something has, the less the force of attraction. X = mass. Y = other mass. Relationship between them = force of attraction. The relationship could change without affecting X or Y; they still have mass. Only the relationship would change.

 

[gluadys]

Because God wrote the universal laws that govern how x and y interact, so He could change how they interact as well. He would not be bound by the universal laws.

For example, the more mass something has, the greater force of attraction. God could reverse that so that the more mass something has, the less the force of attraction. X = mass. Y = other mass. Relationship between them = force of attraction. The relationship could change without affecting X or Y; they still have mass. Only the relationship would change.

Ah, you are misunderstanding what I mean by X and Y. X and Y are not the two bodies affected by gravitation. Rather X = the principle of gravitation and Y = the effect of X on the two bodies. In our universe, if you increase the total mass of the two bodies you increase the effect of X on Y. To reverse the effect (Y) you have to change the principle of gravitation (X). So Y cannot be changed without changing X.

 

[Matthew777]

His white-hole cosmology relies upon some truly nonsensical and in likely fraudulent mathematics (he knows that his time coordinate is not acceptable given GR, but he uses it anyway to make his "model" work).

As does string theory, if I am not mistaken.

 

[noly]

to pysics guy.
i will tell you where i got my numbers but you will struggle to believe me.
i asked God.
8.45 billion approx i'm told is the current age of the universe.
(which in itself is the blink of an eye to the presence of God).
i can't prove it any more than some religious groups can prove it's 6-10,000 or any more than some scientists can prove it's 12.5 billion.

 

[Sanguine]

i can't prove it any more than some religious groups can prove it's 6-10,000 or any more than some scientists can prove it's 12.5 billion.

It's not quite like that. Scientists have evidence, the religious groups have none.

 

[TheMagi]

This doesnt make sence. Science is the only reliable way of knowing if something is true. So you myst know of a better one, to make that statement.

I think plenty scientists and philosophers of science would take you up on that statement. Science is a conceptual tool that has been very useful in the past, will (I assume) continue to be useful in the future, but nonetheless depends on an epistemology which is not in itself scientifically verifiable.
Not saying it is unreliable - just that it cannot help us with certain things it may be fairly important to know.

Magi

 

[Edx]

I think plenty scientists and philosophers of science would take you up on that statement.

No they wouldnt. They are scientists because they know the scientific method is the only reliable way to know what is true.

Science is a conceptual tool that has been very useful in the past, will (I assume) continue to be useful in the future, but nonetheless depends on an epistemology which is not in itself scientifically verifiable.

Explain what it is you are talking about.,

Not saying it is unreliable - just that it cannot help us with certain things it may be fairly important to know.

Im not saying it will be able to answer everything eventually, but the scientific method is the only reliable way to know what is true. So I ask you again, do you know of a better way?

Ed

 

[raphael_aa]

No they wouldnt. They are scientists because they know the scientific method is the only reliable way to know what is true.
Ed

Reluctant as I am, I'm still going to have to call you on this. If you're using 'true' to mean factual, then you might have something here. But there are other kinds of truth in other spheres of human experience. Can we use science to read Hamlet to reveal the truth about human nature that we can find therein? Does science help us appreciate the truth that great artwork points to? Is it science that helps us find the truth in our love for our partners and children? I think factual truth and theoretical modelling are powerful tools. But they are only part of a broader approach to truth in human experience.

 

[Dragar]

To reverse the effect (Y) you have to change the principle of gravitation (X). So Y cannot be changed without changing X

Could the moon suddenly be repelled by the Earth by adding a new force?

X and Y may not be changed, but Z may still have an effect upon, say, how the two bodies behave? An effect we be entirely unaware of if Z was temporary.

 

[gluadys]

Could the moon suddenly be repelled by the Earth by adding a new force?

X and Y may not be changed, but Z may still have an effect upon, say, how the two bodies behave? An effect we be entirely unaware of if Z was temporary.

Well sure. But that is a different scenario altogether. It adds a new competing element instead of changing already established relationships.

My point was that if a deity creates a universe which operates according to certain laws, the effect of those laws cannot be suspended or reversed without, in effect uncreating the universe.

Adding a totally new, undetectable, temporary force would seem to be a way of getting around this, but you have to take into account that once Z is removed from the equation, the X->Y relationship takes over again. But it would have to take over in a new situation: the moon is now farther from the earth. That would have detectable effects. Moreover, if Z was a universal force, like gravity, those detectable effects would be apparent in a lot more than the distance of the moon from the earth. It would also move the earth and other planets away from the sun, for instance. What would be the consequences of that?

In short, assuming that God wishes to sustain the existence of what he has created, we can say that he is very unlikely to resort to miracles which would spell the end of that existence. Not that he couldn't do them, but that he probably wouldn't because their effects would be contradictory to his purpose in creating in the first place.

 

[MartinM]

As does string theory, if I am not mistaken.

You're very much mistaken. String theory is self-consistent and certainly doesn't contradict existing theories, which is more than can be said for Humphreys' model.

 

[Jet Black]

In 1995 Science magazine experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because the "early atmosphere" looked nothng like the Miller-Urey simulation.

not that it matters anyway. The experiment did what it set out to do - show that amino acids form abiotically.

What's the best hypothesis today? That there was very little hydrogen in the atmosphere because it would have escaped into space. They say that it probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. So why is Miller-Urey still presented since most since the 60s say NO! Good question.

there are a number of variations on that experiment now that use atmospheres that we are thought to have had that produce expected results, more interesting though is the interstellar production of smino acids. you might not know of this, but the clouds that form stars are often very rich with amino acids.

 

[TheMagi]

No they wouldnt. They are scientists because they know the scientific method is the only reliable way to know what is true.

Most of the scientists I know are scientists because they enjoy it.

Explain what it is you are talking about.

OK. Science depends
1) on the senses
2) on the idea that there exist laws of nature which are constant, and therefore useable in repeated experiments
3) on the assumption that humans are capable of fully logical reasoning.
4) on the assumption that humans are capable of meaningful communication with each other
5) etc.
Most of these are obviously sensible assumptions. It would seem only an idiot would challenge no.5, for example. But plenty philosophers (i.e. the entire post-modernist movement) do. Are no 2 & no. 3 testable? Not by us!

Im not saying it will be able to answer everything eventually, but the scientific method is the only reliable way to know what is true. So I ask you again, do you know of a better way?

Nope. It is a very good way. I like it. I trust it, at least as far as I can see what it is doing and a bit further. But do I think it is possible to say it is reliable? I haven't a clue.

Magi

 

[Randall McNally]

I think instead of, "Science is a way of knowing what is true," we should say, "Science is a way of determining what is consistent with a particular philosophical system." We might have good reason to think a philosophical system correct, but we cannot prove it.