light years

[KerrMetric]

If the stars formed coveally is this why the theory of the strecthing of the universe makes sense?

Unrelated to each other.

 

[KerrMetric]

If light is being stretched does it affect the speed that it travels at? I thought that the speed of light was constant.

No to the first question.

It is to the second.

 

[KerrMetric]

How does this provide us with a lower limit?

If we see something when the light was emitted 13 billion years ago the we know the universe is at least that old, right?

Hence it is a lower limit.

 

[KerrMetric]

All that to say you can't support the claims, OK. The stars are assumed old if they are a certain size, basically, and the big bang is assumed, rather than creation. (Can't have both and the bible cause the earth was made before the stars, not vica versa, regardless of time arguements). No wonder proof isn't in your vocabulary!

And this is a good example of your inherent limitations I'm afraid. It is not assumed - you are the assumer not I.

 

[shinbits]

You are completely wrong and don't even understand why. You are a great creationist.

If the light that was hitting us was emitted when the star was closer as you suggest, the star would LOOK CLOSER THAN IT DOES NOW, just like the flashlight would.

I know. I never said the star would look any certain way. In fact, no one on this thread has been talking about visible appearance.

Where did you get that?

Shinbits, you are missing something rather obvious in your example. Even if you were somehow able to magically move at millions of times the speed of light backwards away from the Earth, the photons leaving your flashlight can't. Therefore, there wouldn't be a continuous stream hitting the earth if you recessed at greater than the speed of light, because those photons cannot move faster than 3 million m/s (you can't either, but assuming your hypothetical for a second we will allow it).

You're right. That completely slipped my mind. This would make the make the possibility of the universe being thousands of years old instead of millions, even more unlikely, unless you think that maybe the light in the universe was created en situ.

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

I agree with you completely.

And I had said earlier, that I have no idea how old the universe really is. I was hypothesizing other options as to the age of the universe, but my main point was, that using light to gague a star's age can't be accurate.

That's all.


I think I'm about done, but I have one last question; based on what we know for certain, without having to make any assumptions about the age of the universe, or without using dating tools that require assumptions---

What is the youngest that the universe can be? And I don't mean the earth, but the universe.

Thanx to anyone who can answer this for me.

 

[Physics_guy]

You're right. That completely slipped my mind. This would make the make the possibility of the universe being thousands of years old instead of millions, even more unlikely, unless you think that maybe the light in the universe was created en situ.

Well light created en route might eliminate all the physics problems with a young universe, but it creates a whole lot of logical problems. The most glaring is that light carries information and that information if the light was created en route would really be misinformation. For example, SN1987A was a supernova that exploded some 187,000 light years from Earth (measured quite accurately by parallax geometry). We viewed this explosion in 1987 because that was when the light of that explosion first reached Earth. If the Universe is only 10,000 years old and light was created en route, then the star that we viewed exploding never actually existed - all that existed was a stream of photons that looked like that star and then a stream in 1987 that looked like that star exploding. I am pretty sure you would agree this would be a very strange thing for a God to do - it seems pretty much like lying, doesn't it?

 

[KerrMetric]

Well light created en route might eliminate all the physics problems with a young universe, but it creates a whole lot of logical problems. The most glaring is that light carries information and that information if the light was created en route would really be misinformation. For example, SN1987A was a supernova that exploded some 187,000 light years from Earth (measured quite accurately by parallax geometry). We viewed this explosion in 1987 because that was when the light of that explosion first reached Earth. If the Universe is only 10,000 years old and light was created en route, then the star that we viewed exploding never actually existed - all that existed was a stream of photons that looked like that star and then a stream in 1987 that looked like that star exploding. I am pretty sure you would agree this would be a very strange thing for a God to do - it seems pretty much like lying, doesn't it?

And the 24 neutrinos (though I think 18 were used in the analyses) detected carried a false history of a core collapse too.

 

[shinbits]

Well light created en route might eliminate all the physics problems with a young universe, but it creates a whole lot of logical problems. The most glaring is that light carries information and that information if the light was created en route would really be misinformation. . . . . I am pretty sure you would agree this would be a very strange thing for a God to do - it seems pretty much like lying, doesn't it?

Yes, it would seem like lying. Hey, it was something to throw out there.

 

[shinbits]

And the 24 neutrinos (though I think 18 were used in the analyses) detected carried a false history of a core collapse too.

Can u explain what this was?

 

[KerrMetric]

Can u explain what this was?

When the core of a massive star collapses due to the iron core that is formed being unable to support the outer layers the nuclear reactions in the core (photodisintergration of the iron nuclei for instance) produce a huge neutrino pulse. In fact about 99% of the supernovas energy is the neutrino pulse.

This pulse was detected in 3 neutrino detectors in 1987 as 24 neutrinos.

 

[shinbits]

Thanx, Kerr, for that info.

I really only have one question, which wasn't answered when posted earlier.

Someone said that we can know for certain that the universe is at least a certain age. My question to this was:

Based on what we know for certain, without having to make any assumptions about the age of the universe, or without using dating tools that require assumptions---

What is the youngest that the universe can be? And I don't mean the earth, but the universe.

 

[KerrMetric]

Thanx, Kerr, for that info.

I really only have one question, which wasn't answered when posted earlier.

Someone said that we can know for certain that the universe is at least a certain age. My question to this was:

Based on what we know for certain, without having to make any assumptions about the age of the universe, or without using dating tools that require assumptions---

What is the youngest that the universe can be? And I don't mean the earth, but the universe.

The youngest the universe can be based upon direct observation would be somewhat greater than 13.1 billion years.

Based upon the analysis of the CMB with the WMAP satellite the age is pinned down to 13.7 billion plus or minus 200 million years. There are assumptions in the analysis of this data but not assumptions of age per se.

 

[dad]

And this is a good example of your inherent limitations I'm afraid. It is not assumed - you are the assumer not I.

On the contrary.

"How do you measure the age of stars and the universe?
The ages of stars are determined by knowing their current surface temperatures, luminosities and masses. The masses allow astronomers to compute from the Theory of Stellar Evolution, how rapidly the star can evolve in temperature and luminosity as it burns various fusion 'fuels' in its core. The current luminosity and temperature then pinpoints a particular evolutionary stage in these models. "
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1591.html

You see, all they enter in to computers is assumptions, as are the results the computer then spits out!

 

[KerrMetric]

On the contrary.

"How do you measure the age of stars and the universe?
The ages of stars are determined by knowing their current surface temperatures, luminosities and masses. The masses allow astronomers to compute from the Theory of Stellar Evolution, how rapidly the star can evolve in temperature and luminosity as it burns various fusion 'fuels' in its core. The current luminosity and temperature then pinpoints a particular evolutionary stage in these models. "
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1591.html

You see, all they enter in to computers is assumptions, as are the results the computer then spits out!

Do you know what the word assumption means? It seems not. Run along now.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You see, all they enter in to computers is assumptions, as are the results the computer then spits out!

programming a computer to do something really illuminates human assumptions. almost nothing about programming is assumptions everything has to be specified and made explicit, the exact opposite of your contention.

 

[dad]

Do you know what the word assumption means? ....

1. something taken for granted: something that is believed to be true without proof
2. belief without proof: the belief that something is true without having any proof
..
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861587326/assumption.html

So, there you go, exactly as I suspected.

If that is too lofty a concept, let's look at an example.
4 hydrogen atoms are heavier than one helium atom now. We could assume that it was so in the distant past as well, and gravity as we know it was the same. Since we can't prove it, it is an assumption. We can assume light, and decay was the same, etc etc.
I think we know what an assumption is, why be coy?

 

[dad]

You see, all they enter in to computers is assumptions, as are the results the computer then spits out!

programming a computer to do something really illuminates human assumptions. almost nothing about programming is assumptions everything has to be specified and made explicit, the exact opposite of your contention.

As illuminating as it sometimes may be, it really depends on what gets put in. What do you think we specify to a computer when working on a stellar problem? We don't rub the monitor, and expect some genie to pop out after we ask, how old and far away ids that star? We put in the distance, based on present light years, and present nuclear decay, perhaps, etc.
If it is an evolutionary set of assumptions underlying the process, we get evolutionary answers. Not rocket science, that.

 

[KerrMetric]

1. something taken for granted: something that is believed to be true without proof
2. belief without proof: the belief that something is true without having any proof
..
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861587326/assumption.html

So, there you go, exactly as I suspected.

If that is too lofty a concept, let's look at an example.
4 hydrogen atoms are heavier than one helium atom now. We could assume that it was so in the distant past as well, and gravity as we know it was the same. Since we can't prove it, it is an assumption. We can assume light, and decay was the same, etc etc.
I think we know what an assumption is, why be coy?

OK - so you have descended into insanity. By this argument you cannot even perform a lab table experiment since you are assuming the laws of physics changed from the day before or even the minute before or nansecond before.

In your "universe" any science is impossible, be it in a lab, in a field, in a wind tunnel - anywhere. By this use of the word assumption our very existence is an assumption.

I can calculate the mass of hydrogen and helium 13 billion years ago by oberservation but you can trot out the assumption word at will and say the measurement itself is an assumption.

Are you a solipsist? More than anything else your paroDADy is descending into solipsism. Overall this is why I'm pretty sure you are a paroDADy.

 

[KerrMetric]

We put in the distance, based on present light years, and present nuclear decay, perhaps, etc.
If it is an evolutionary set of assumptions underlying the process, we get evolutionary answers. Not rocket science, that.

Wrong again.

Are you actually lying here to put on a show?

 

[dad]

OK - so you have descended into insanity. By this argument you cannot even perform a lab table experiment since you are assuming the laws of physics changed from the day before or even the minute before or nansecond before.

Hate to break it to you, it is not I who have decended. Of course we can perform lab tests etc. Not from 4400 years ago, of course, but for the 'present' What are you talking about? Performing a lab test does not prove the distant past was the same.

In your "universe" any science is impossible, be it in a lab, in a field, in a wind tunnel - anywhere. By this use of the word assumption our very existence is an assumption.

Completely false. Get a grip. I live in the same universe you do. What we are talking about is how much science we can do on the future and distant past, since you claim great ages.

I can calculate the mass of hydrogen and helium 13 billion years ago by oberservation but you can trot out the assumption word at will and say the measurement itself is an assumption.

Of course it is, and a meaningless one, unless you can do more than assume the past was the same. Even some basic thing like gravity. Imagine if even something as simple as 4 hydrogen atoms being the same weight as one helium atom - if gravity was not here as we know it in the distant past.!!!

Are you a solipsist? More than anything else your paroDADy is descending into solipsism. Overall this is why I'm pretty sure you are a paroDADy.

No, we are really here now, and there is really gravity, and decay and light moves at what we know now as light speed, etc. But we are talking about the future and the past, and assumptions about that.