KerrMetric
Well-Known Member
- Oct 2, 2005
- 5,171
- 226
- 64
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
shinbits said:
But no one is saying this. You are arguing against something that isn't being said.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
shinbits said:I agree completely that light is a good way to tell how far an object is. But it is not a good tool to measure how old an object is.
Hydra009 said:Exactly. And that's the key truth most people are missing - facts are relative. Scientists say the Earth is billions of years old, that's their belief. I prefer to say that the Earth is about 10,000 years old, and that's my belief. I also like to think that gravity is really 5 m/s^2 at sea level and 2 plus 2 equals 3. The "experts" don't agree, but that's because they don't undertand how facts work.
Well, that was what was said in the OP:KerrMetric said:But no one is saying this. You are arguing against something that isn't being said.
shinbits said:Well, that was what was said in the OP:
"light from the most distant objects currently visible in telescopes may take several billion years to reach us...therefore give us an image of what the universe looked like billions of years ago"
shinbits said:And as far as telling the age of the star, there's no way to tell that a star has been around for billions of years. What we can tell, is how much longer a star will be around for.
Or the empirical observations and conclusions outlined in this thread. But if you're more comfortable with faith, then by all means take it on that.Merlin said:> How can I be confident that the distance travelled "is" several billion light years?
You take it on faith.
Again, they can't know for certain how old a star is. They assume that they do know, because stars have enough energy to burn for billions of years. So when they see a red giant, they assume it's been burning for billions of years, because of a red giant is at the end of it's life.Lucretius said:Again, science says otherwise.
If a star is in the black dwarf stage of it's life, we can conclude it has been around for several billion years, seeing as it was once in the other listed stages.
shinbits said:Again, they can't know for certain how old a star is. They assume that they do know, because stars have enough energy to burn for billions of years. So when they see a red giant, they assume it's been burning for billions of years, because of a red giant is at the end of it's life.
Makes sense, right?
But that's assuming the universe is millions of years old. It would basically be like estimating a candle's age based on how much of the wick is left---but without knowing how long it was to begin with.
What if the universe was created? If was created, say, 10,000 years ago, there's no reason why stars of differing sizes couldn't have been made, as well as differing levels of fuel in order to add color variation in the stars.
I honestly have no guess whatsoever as to the age of the universe. For all I know, it could be millions, it could be thousands. But we still can't know for certain how long a star's been in existence. We can know how much longer, but not how long it's already been there.
shinbits, you are half correct in your assumptions. We won't be able to tell exactly how old a star is based on light-years away. That's fine. Science isn't big on certainty anyway. But what we can be certain of is that the objects we view, based on their distance, must be at least a certain age. We don't know how old they are, but we know how the minimum amount of time they could have been around for.shinbits said:Again, they can't know for certain how old a star is. They assume that they do know, because stars have enough energy to burn for billions of years. So when they see a red giant, they assume it's been burning for billions of years, because of a red giant is at the end of it's life.
Makes sense, right?
But that's assuming the universe is millions of years old. It would basically be like estimating a candle's age based on how much of the wick is left---but without knowing how long it was to begin with.
What if the universe was created? If was created, say, 10,000 years ago, there's no reason why stars of differing sizes couldn't have been made, as well as differing levels of fuel in order to add color variation in the stars.
I honestly have no guess whatsoever as to the age of the universe. For all I know, it could be millions, it could be thousands. But we still can't know for certain how long a star's been in existence. We can know how much longer, but not how long it's already been there.
Then explain it, please?KerrMetric said:Nope, you have it wrong.
why?KerrMetric said:Nope. If you magically made them this way they wouldn't appear as they do.
That's why I used the example of a flashlight powerful enough to be seen from billions of miles away. Let's say I shined such a flashlight from the ground; the light just got there, right? But if I kept moving backwards away from the ground and kept shining the light on it, and was able to say within two weeks move millions of light years away, the distance I'm at would not mean that I am millions of years old.KerrMetric said:But the fact we see things a great distance puts a lower limit on the age of the universe. This has nothing to do with a single object but it does put a lower bound on the age of the universe.
shinbits said:Then explain it, please?
why?
That's why I used the example of a flashlight powerful enough to be seen from billions of miles away. Let's say I shined such a flashlight from the ground; the light just got there, right? But if I kept moving backwards away from the ground and kept shining the light on it, and was able to say within two weeks move millions of light years away, the distance I'm at would not mean that I am millions of years old.
See, the universe is expanding; this means that the light from the stars could very well have started hitting us much earlier, and moved "backward" from us, or away from us. So just like with the flashlight example, judging a stars age by this method is unreliable.
shinbits said:See, the universe is expanding; this means that the light from the stars could very well have started hitting us much earlier, and moved "backward" from us, or away from us. So just like with the flashlight example, judging a stars age by this method is unreliable.
"Now, if we remember two things; Firstly, that globular clusters are coeval systems, formed during a relatively short time period, and secondly that we already know how long we expect stars to live given their various observable properties, then it should be obvious that we can get an estimate for the age of a globular cluster by examining the most massive stars within it. The cluster must be approximately the same age as the average lifespan for its most massive members."KerrMetric said:....
You would have to explain why stars in tightly bound clusters are not randomly "aged" but exhibit a clear pattern we expect from their masses and evolutionary states.
That's only if the light is just reaching us. But like in the example of the "flashlight", the light could have always been hitting us, starting from when it was first created, and continued moving back.notto said:The light that is hitting us now could only have originated from the star millions of years ago unless the star is moving away from us at faster than the speed of light.
shinbits said:That's only if the light is just reaching us. But like in the example of the "flashlight", the light could have always been hitting us, starting from when it was first created, and continued moving back.
dad said:http://www.frayn.net/evolution/claim3.html
Now if this article is right, we assume
--it was formed in a certain timeframe.
-- that old ages are involved, apparently, and we assume we are looking at something that we know is in a certain age of decay, no?
-- that other stars near this are close to this age derived from these assumptions
Sounds like a stretch to me.
I know. You must've must've missunderstood me then, I thought there was something I wasn't getting.KerrMetric said:A stars lifetime is dependent on its mass.
Why? (I'm not trying to be difficult, but the answer to this question would prove your point, that's all.)=KerrMetric said:But if you want them 10,000 years old but naturally so and for them to appear the way they do today then you have problems. Just varying their fuel content isn't enough
There may be "evidence" to "imply" age, but there still have to be some assumptions made, and one of those is the age of the universe. Those assumptions make the evidence that implies the age of stars unreliable.KerrMetric said:You would also have to explain why trends of rotation rates appear as they do which implies age.
Wouldn't the fact that clusters are not randomly aged imply some sort of order? And doesn't order imply design?KerrMetric said:You would have to explain why stars in tightly bound clusters are not randomly "aged" but exhibit a clear pattern we expect from their masses
That was just to illustrate a point. The point being, that if the light started shining while it was close and moved away that fast, then then assuming that the light is just hitting us would be incorrect---it could have always been there and moved away, still shining.KerrMetric said:Er... how are you moving at millions of times the speed of light?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?