light years

[dad]

It's not just an assumption.

Not just an assumption.

Not just an assumption.

Repetition doesn't make it true, that would take some sort of evidence. You assume a lot, apparently, do you assume anyone should take your word for it?

 

[shinbits]

Come on, think.

Moving back??? Do you practice this gibberish?

Is the universe not expanding? If the space in the universe is expanding, then that means all the individual systems in the universe are being separated more and more by space.

It's like using a marker to put dots on a ballon, then blowing the ballon. As the universe expands, the spaces between the dots increase.

So in affect, the stars are "moving back" away from us.

 

[KerrMetric]

Why? (I'm not trying to be difficult, but the answer to this question would prove your point, that's all.)

Whe you form the star (naturally) the material even if varying in fuel content from star to star (and that is very difficult to conceive how that came to be) the star takes a long time to adjust itself to what we see because it is so big. You can't natually make it in the internal stratification we know exists. So it has to adjust to this. But adjustments take a long time

For example if you turned off the nuclear reactions in the core by magic it would take the Sun millions of years to exhibit this change at the surface. This is called the Kelvin - Helmholtz timescale and is equal to GM^2/RL which is about 10 million years for the Sun.

The only way to avoid this is to have a totally supernatural formation but then why not do that yesterday?

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.

NO. The ag of the universe has no bearing on this. Stellar ages are from the physics of ionised gases, nuclear physics, fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. This is tried and tested physics.

Wouldn't the fact that clusters are not randomly aged imply some sort of order? And doesn't order imply design?

No it implies the stars formed at approximately coevally and nothing more.

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.

"Yeah, but that many times the speed of light?"

Well, the Big Bang was said to scatter particles many times faster then speed of light, then things slowed down. I'm not saying that that is what happened, but if you could believe the Big Bang, then it's not that crazy.

Yes it is crazy. The expansion effects are INCLUDED in the calculation.

 

[KerrMetric]

Repetition doesn't make it true, that would take some sort of evidence. You assume a lot, apparently, do you assume anyone should take your word for it?

I'm afraid it does make it true in this case. The things you listed are not assumptions.

 

[KerrMetric]

Is the universe not expanding? If the space in the universe is expanding, then that means all the individual systems in the universe are being separated more and more by space.

It's like using a marker to put dots on a ballon, then blowing the ballon. As the universe expands, the spaces between the dots increase.

So in affect, the stars are "moving back" away from us.

But the light isn't - it is still coming towards us and being stretched in the process hence the cosmological redshift.

This is all handled in the calculations, it isn't forgotten about.

 

[dad]

I'm afraid it does make it true in this case. The things you listed are not assumptions.

Of course they are, and unsupportable ones at that. How fast they were created, how long they have been aging, and that all the stars in the sky, or at least a cluster of millions, or thousands of stars are the same. Just because you believe it firmly does not make it true. It makes you assumptive.

 

[KerrMetric]

Of course they are, and unsupportable ones at that. How fast they were created, how long they have been aging, and that all the stars in the sky, or at least a cluster of millions, or thousands of stars are the same. Just because you believe it firmly does not make it true. It makes you assumptive.

Nope, you are wrong, lying, or playing paroDADy boy as usual. I don't care which I just know, as usual, you are wrong.

You don't understand the material on this topic so please hush now.

 

[dad]

Nope, you are wrong, lying, or playing paroDADy boy as usual. I don't care which I just know, as usual, you are wrong.

You don't understand the material on this topic so please hush now.

You don't understand material on this topic. Guess you think you are clever being short with people, and not backing up your contentions. It matters not, what surprises me is a christian having such strong delusion.

 

[KerrMetric]

You don't understand material on this topic. Guess you think you are clever being short with people, and not backing up your contentions. It matters not, what surprises me is a christian having such strong delusion.

Sorry but a fact is a fact. You don't understand this material. Not to worry its not that important for everyday life. The fact you stated certain things are assumptions when they are not clearly tells me you are not understanding the material and concepts.

 

[dad]

Sorry but a fact is a fact. You don't understand this material. Not to worry its not that important for everyday life. The fact you stated certain things are assumptions when they are not clearly tells me you are not understanding the material and concepts.

I am not going to argue with you. You want to be ignorant, and boastful, and rude thats up to you. You make claims, and don't pony up when confronted, but pontificate. Fine. I have to consider you unable to address the points I raised.
To anyone else who may have felt bluffed by this guy, as you see, he is all bluster.

 

[shinbits]

mistake in posting.

 

[shinbits]

Whe you form the star (naturally) the material even if varying in fuel content from star to star (and that is very difficult to conceive how that came to be) the star takes a long time to adjust itself to what we see because it is so big.

Okay. But how do you know this? Has it been reserched and observed that stars need time to "adjust" after they are formed? If so, how much time do they need? And how do you know how much time they'd need?

For example if you turned off the nuclear reactions in the core by magic it would take the Sun millions of years to exhibit this change at the surface. This is called the Kelvin - Helmholtz timescale and is equal to GM^2/RL which is about 10 million years for the Sun.

The only way to avoid this is to have a totally supernatural formation but then why not do that yesterday?

Who knows why it isn't supernaturally formed yesterday. For all we know, the Designer just chose thousands of years ago instead of yesterday.

NO. The ag of the universe has no bearing on this. Stellar ages are from the physics of ionised gases, nuclear physics, fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. This is tried and tested physics.

Assumptions do have to be made. If you are going by how much fuel the star has burned to determine it's age, which is said to be indicated by it's brightness, then you must assume that the universe has been there long enough for the star to burn up all that fuel, right?

But again, for reasons already mentioned, you can't know for sure how old the universe is, especially not if you are using light.

No it implies the stars formed at approximately coevally and nothing more.

You don't believe ID could have possibly have something to do with star clusters?

But you've admitted that you don't find star clusters randomly aged anywhere. This all just a coincidence?

Yes it is crazy. The expansion effects are INCLUDED in the calculation.

But again, that's making another assumption. You have to assume that the rate of expansion was always the same.

How do you know how fast the stars were moving when the universe was first created? If the Big Bang really happened like some evolutionists believe, then the universe was moving many times the speed of light.

And there's no reason to believe if the universe was created, that the universe wasn't moving at many times the speed of light.

It's stuff to think about, that's all.

 

[KerrMetric]

I am not going to argue with you. You want to be ignorant, and boastful, and rude thats up to you. You make claims, and don't pony up when confronted, but pontificate. Fine. I have to consider you unable to address the points I raised.
To anyone else who may have felt bluffed by this guy, as you see, he is all bluster.

You didn't say anything except that some things were assumptions. I told you they are not. You had no substance to your comments.

You are the poster who exhibits probably more rudeness than anyone else on here with your endless creationist paroDADy. Yours is the empty bluster. The only thing you exhibit are comments about it's all "assumption". There is nothing else from you - it's vacuous utterings devoid of substance.

Since I am a Christian you can't accuse me of ripping you for your faith. I don't recall ever seeing a single poster actually agree with your rhetorical nonsense whether atheist, agnostic or Christian. That should perhaps be telling you something.

You, to me, obviously don't have the intellectual acumen for the material on this forum. Nothing wrong with that, many don't, but don't act like you do.

Of course, I'm still tempted to think you are a paroDADy.

 

[dad]

You didn't say anything except that some things were assumptions. I told you they are not. You had no substance to your comments.

You are the poster who exhibits probably more rudeness than anyone else on here with your endless creationist paroDADy. Yours is the empty bluster. The only thing you exhibit are comments about it's all "assumption". There is nothing else from you - it's vacuous utterings devoid of substance.

Since I am a Christian you can't accuse me of ripping you for your faith. I don't recall ever seeing a single poster actually agree with your rhetorical nonsense whether atheist, agnostic or Christian. That should perhaps be telling you something.

You, to me, obviously don't have the intellectual acumen for the material on this forum. Nothing wrong with that, many don't, but don't act like you do.

Of course, I'm still tempted to think you are a paroDADy.

Right, sure sure, blah blah. So, evidence then, how we can be sure of the things I twice listed are provable, or certain. Or stop talking.

 

[KerrMetric]

Okay. But how do you know this? Has it been reserched and observed that stars need time to "adjust" after they are formed? If so, how much time do they need? And how do you know how much time they'd need?

Basic laws of physics. You can calculate this approx. with a pencil and paper. Or more accurately model it on a computer.

I wrote a code to do stellar modelling. I work on modelling gas giant planets - it's my job.

Who knows why it isn't supernaturally formed yesterday. For all we know, the Designer just chose thousands of years ago instead of yesterday.

I cannot argue this except then God made a false history. BAD theology.

Assumptions do have to be made. If you are going by how much fuel the star has burned to determine it's age, which is said to be indicated by it's brightness, then you must assume that the universe has been there long enough for the star to burn up all that fuel, right?

That is true. You cannot have the star older than the universe. But this has no bearing on the physics of stars.

But again, for reasons already mentioned, you can't know for sure how old the universe is, especially not if you are using light.

You can know based upon the light travel time. I don't know why this isn't sinking in.

You don't believe ID could have possibly have something to do with star clusters?

I don't see the link here.

But you've admitted that you don't find star clusters randomly aged anywhere. This all just a coincidence?

I did not say that. I said you don't find the stars in a cluster randomly aged. That is different from what you thought I said.

But again, that's making another assumption. You have to assume that the rate of expansion was always the same.

Not so. The expansion does vary in time.

How do you know how fast the stars were moving when the universe was first created? If the Big Bang really happened like some evolutionists believe, then the universe was moving many times the speed of light.

There were no stars then. You are taking about the hypothesised inflationary models. This is at a very early stage (tiny fraction of a second) and nothing directly to do with stars and galaxies as they appeared later.

And there's no reason to believe if the universe was created, that the universe wasn't moving at many times the speed of light.

It's stuff to think about, that's all.

This makes no sense. What would it be moving realtive to?

 

[KerrMetric]

Right, sure sure, blah blah. So, evidence then, how we can be sure of the things I twice listed are provable, or certain. Or stop talking.

You can't even talk the lingo. "provable"??? LOL.

You took some article and then said these things were assumptions. I told you they were not. You actually shock us all and do some checking. Instead of playing peanut gallery boy actually do some leg work. I personally doubt the chances of you following the arguments necessary but I'd be happy if you could prove me wrong on that point. I'm rooting for you dad.

 

[Lonnie]

"...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." Paul Davies, Other Worlds, p. 54

How can I be confident that the distance travelled "is" several billion light years?

Eh, good luck discussing about light travel.
Physicists, and Astronomers are still finding out many things about the effects gravity, and light which they have never known before. Some of the these effects call for new theorys, and show that others are very much lacking, or incorrect.

 

[KerrMetric]

Eh, good luck discussing about light travel.
Physicists, and Astronomers are still finding out many things about the effects gravity, and light which they have never known before. Some of the these effects call for new theorys, and show that others are very much lacking, or incorrect.

Example please?

 

[shinbits]

Basic laws of physics. You can calculate this approx. with a pencil and paper. Or more accurately model it on a computer.

Okay. What basic law of physics says that stars need time to "adjust" after being created? And how much time would they need, according to physics?

The answer to this question would basically prove your point, at least on the question of stars needing time to adjust.
Of course, that's after some logical follow up questions, if there are any to be asked.

I wrote a code to do stellar modelling. I work on modelling gas giant planets - it's my job.

This sounds like an awesome job! You must be very intelligent.

I cannot argue this except then God made a false history. BAD theology.

It's not a false history or bad theology. If God made the universe only a few thousand years ago, wouldn't He want man to enjoy His creation? Wouldn't He want to show off His Glory and the work of His hands? Why would God want to wait millions of years for this to happen?

That is true. You cannot have the star older than the universe. But this has no bearing on the physics of stars.

A universe only a few thousand years old wouldn't a change in the current physics of stars.

You can know based upon the light travel time. I don't know why this isn't sinking in.

Well, as mentioned before, the light could've started reaching earth at a much closer distance, then moved away from the earth as the universe expanding, making more space between celestial systems. It could've started out taking only a few weeks to reach earth at first, and as it reached earth, and moving away as the universe expanded.

If I had a powerful flashlight pointed at a wall, kept the light from it steadily pointing at the wall, and drove away in a car with someone at the wheel---
If someone tried to measure how old that light was and started first by measuring the distance of the source, then calculating the speed of light, they would come up with the wrong age. That's because it did not take however many seconds for the light to get there; there light was always there.

So if the universe was created, the light could've taken only a few weeks to reach, as it moved away from earth, with the spreading of the galaxy.

And if earth is only a few thousand years old, and it only took, say a few weeks for the light to initially reach it, that means that the stars would only be a few thousand years old also.

"But we can measure how fast the universe is spreading out."

As mentioned, no one knows how fast the universe was initially moving at creation. And if it's believable that the Big Bang's "explosion" made the universe move at many times the spead of light, initially, then it is believable, that the universe could've moved that fast initially, at creation.

Does that make sense?

 

[Dannager]

Eh, good luck discussing about light travel.
Physicists, and Astronomers are still finding out many things about the effects gravity, and light which they have never known before. Some of the these effects call for new theorys, and show that others are very much lacking, or incorrect.

Could you please identify for us the changes that need to be made to currently existing theory so that we can recalculate our measurements based on your new proposal?