Scientific results here and now apply to there and then

[essentialsaltes]

I addressed that in the previous post. Did you miss it? It hasn't been 'strictly geometric' for the last century. Minute changes telescope error when you use stellar parallax, so we use our actual measured distances in the solar system - via radar.

Modern methods have supplanted older ones, yes. But they give the same measurement within a few percent. Your claim that "the reason we think [stars] are 'lightyears' away, is because we apply a Uniformitarian standard on the speed of light." is simply false. We already knew stars were that far away before we had any means of using radar.

No, we measure electromagnetic radiation that arrived here, then assume uniformitarianism, and then ascribe the measurements to what we think is spectral lines of hydrogen around a distant star, as it fits how hydrogen and electromagnetism acts on earth in the present. A circular argument if that is how you seek to affirm uniformitarianism.

We have eyes that can tell whether a grouping of lines has the same pattern or a different one. We do not assume that the lines are the same; we observe it. If the pattern were different, it would be evidence that nature is different out there. Instead, what we find is that the pattern is the same, which is consistent with the assumption of nature being invariant under space and time translations. Stars out there could be made out of bubblegum, and entirely unlike what we expect, but there is no evidence for it. Denying uniformitarianism is an unsupported assertion.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Modern methods have supplanted older ones, yes. But they give the same measurement within a few percent. Your claim that "the reason we think [stars] are 'lightyears' away, is because we apply a Uniformitarian standard on the speed of light." is simply false. We already knew stars were that far away before we had any means of using radar.

We only determined the first distance to another star by parallax in the mid 19th century. This was done by Bessel, and he could only manage to do so, because he knew the distances in the solar system - determined geometrically by use of the speed of light by this stage. He was working with an infintessimally small angle, something like a 10000th of a degree. We had worked out the speed of light in the late 17th, but only got proper data in the early 19th which allowed this, though met with much scepticism initially.

Most stars this doesn't work at all. Ever heard of the Cosmic Distance Ladder? We determine the brightness of certain stars whose distance was established by parallax and then use that relative value to determine the distance to similar stars further away. So yes, dependant on a uniformitarian assumption of the speed of light. Even if you want to quibble historically, it certainly is very much true in current methods by any measure.

But that is beside the point, as those 'few percent' we are out magnify errors when dealing with angles and trigonometry, so prior to such measurements, those values would have been way off anyway. The method's error margin is tiny or the result may differ by a massive factor.

We have eyes that can tell whether a grouping of lines has the same pattern or a different one. We do not assume that the lines are the same; we observe it. If the pattern were different, it would be evidence that nature is different out there. Instead, what we find is that the pattern is the same, which is consistent with the assumption of nature being invariant under space and time translations. Stars out there could be made out of bubblegum, and entirely unlike what we expect, but there is no evidence for it. Denying uniformitarianism is an unsupported assertion.

We observe the same pattern here, exactly. Assuming this corresponds out there, that therefore hydrogen is floating about millions of lightyears hence, is an assumption. If the patterns were different, it would only be evidence that nature is different out there if you assume Uniformitarianism. The essence is that what 'rules' are found here today must correspond to what is out there whenever that data originated, is the uniformitarian assumption. Not saying it is wrong, but to accept or reject uniformitarianism are both positions ultimately that have to be taken axiomatically.

Thank you for the discussion, but I feel I am wasting my time. Good evening.

 

[pitabread]

I am saying I highly doubt they can validate it as yet.

Why not?

I can not trust their measurements, no one has measured them with a tape measure, nor gone back in time.

So why can't you trust those measurements when it comes to astronomical observations?

(Also, I'm not sure what the tape measure or "back in time" claim is supposed to illustrate. I mean, nobody can go back in time to validate the existence of the Roman Empire, but I don't think its existence is a matter of debate. And just because someone measures something with a tape measure doesn't mean that's a valid measurement either. There is still a need for validation.)

 

[Sam91]

Why not?



So why can't you trust those measurements when it comes to astronomical observations?

(Also, I'm not sure what the tape measure or "back in time" claim is supposed to illustrate. I mean, nobody can go back in time to validate the existence of the Roman Empire, but I don't think its existence is a matter of debate. And just because someone measures something with a tape measure doesn't mean that's a valid measurement either. There is still a need for validation.)

There is a difference between the Roman Empire which we can touch remnants of and something billions of light years away, supposedly billions of years old. Hey, I have walked on old Roman roads as a child. We have some in the UK. We have many artefacts and texts from then.

I've already explained in simple terms why. It is a matter of thinking critically. Maybe those who can't admit that it is just theory have a vested interest in it. I am leaving this thread too.

I wouldn't trust an astronomer who spoke in terms of fact. Over confidence is often incompetence.

 

[pitabread]

There is a difference between the Roman Empire which we can touch remnants of and something billions of light years away, supposedly billions of years old. Hey, I have walked on old Roman roads as a child. We have some in the UK. We have many artefacts and texts from then.

How do you know those roads, artifacts and texts were from the Roman Empire? Did you travel back in time to verify when they were made?

I've explained in simple terms why already. It is a simple matter of thinking critically. Maybe those who can't admit that it is just theory have a vested interest in it. I am leaving this thread too.

I see incredulity but I still don't see a justification for it.

I wouldn't trust an astronomer who spoke in terms of fact. Over confidence is often incompetence.

Do you trust historians when it comes to the existence of the Roman Empire?

 

[essentialsaltes]

We only determined the first distance to another star by parallax in the mid 19th century.

This is conspicuously before the advent of radar.

Most stars this doesn't work at all. Ever heard of the Cosmic Distance Ladder? We determine the brightness of certain stars whose distance was established by parallax and then use that relative value to determine the distance to similar stars further away. So yes, dependant on a uniformitarian assumption of the speed of light.

Brightness does not depend on the speed of light.

 

[46AND2]

We only determined the first distance to another star by parallax in the mid 19th century. This was done by Bessel, and he could only manage to do so, because he knew the distances in the solar system - determined geometrically by use of the speed of light by this stage. He was working with an infintessimally small angle, something like a 10000th of a degree. We had worked out the speed of light in the late 17th, but only got proper data in the early 19th which allowed this, though met with much scepticism initially.

Most stars this doesn't work at all. Ever heard of the Cosmic Distance Ladder? We determine the brightness of certain stars whose distance was established by parallax and then use that relative value to determine the distance to similar stars further away. So yes, dependant on a uniformitarian assumption of the speed of light. Even if you want to quibble historically, it certainly is very much true in current methods by any measure.

But that is beside the point, as those 'few percent' we are out magnify errors when dealing with angles and trigonometry, so prior to such measurements, those values would have been way off anyway. The method's error margin is tiny or the result may differ by a massive factor.


We observe the same pattern here, exactly. Assuming this corresponds out there, that therefore hydrogen is floating about millions of lightyears hence, is an assumption. If the patterns were different, it would only be evidence that nature is different out there if you assume Uniformitarianism. The essence is that what 'rules' are found here today must correspond to what is out there whenever that data originated, is the uniformitarian assumption. Not saying it is wrong, but to accept or reject uniformitarianism are both positions ultimately that have to be taken axiomatically.

Thank you for the discussion, but I feel I am wasting my time. Good evening.

At best, all you have demonstrated is that the accuracy of the measurements of these vast distances is reliant on a uniform speed of light. However, stars can be, and have been measured by mathematical methods alone (to include prerequisite distances in our solar system, and specifically the size of earth's orbit). Though these methods may have larger error tolerances, it's certainly not enough to mistake the distances required of YEC; particularly with the accuracy of current measurement methods (i.e. not your standard Costco telescope).

 

[JackRT]

Parallax methods are limited to distances < 15-20 light years.

 

[46AND2]

Parallax methods are limited to distances < 15-20 light years.

"The Hubble telescope WFC3 now has a precision of 20 to 40 microarcseconds, enabling reliable distance measurements up to 3,066 parsecs (10,000 ly) for a small number of stars."

Stellar parallax - Wikipedia

Relevant citation:

NASA's Hubble Extends Stellar Tape Measure 10 Times Farther Into Space

 

[JackRT]

"The Hubble telescope WFC3 now has a precision of 20 to 40 microarcseconds, enabling reliable distance measurements up to 3,066 parsecs (10,000 ly) for a small number of stars."

Stellar parallax - Wikipedia

Relevant citation:

NASA's Hubble Extends Stellar Tape Measure 10 Times Farther Into Space

I was unaware of recent advances. 10,000 ly is quite remarkable.

 

[sjastro]

These "stupid" astronomers (why is there so much astronomer bashing in this forum?) can hedge their bets as the increased parallax distance brings more Cepheid variables into the range where one can compare distances using parallax or luminosity methods.
The maximum distance for Cepheid variables is around 30,000,000 parsecs. (1 parsec = 3.26 light years)

At the other end of the scale are the type 1A supernova with a maximum range of around 10,000,000,000 parsecs.
In turn these can be compared to the latest ruler used by astronomers.
What the hell are Acoustic Baryon Oscillations?

 

[Sam91]

I said I wasn't posting here but as it is now unsociable hours my interest in the universe has risen.

This link shows what I mean: How Old Is the Universe? | Age of Universe

And in this one they admit that they are probably missing something:

Universe Surprises Scientists With Rapid Expansion

 

[Sam91]

These "stupid" astronomers (why is there so much astronomer bashing in this forum?) can hedge their bets as the increased parallax distance brings more Cepheid variables into the range where one can compare distances using parallax or luminosity methods.
The maximum distance for Cepheid variables is around 30,000,000 parsecs. (1 parsec = 3.26 light years)

At the other end of the scale are the type 1A supernova with a maximum range of around 10,000,000,000 parsecs.
In turn these can be compared to the latest ruler used by astronomers.
What the hell are Acoustic Baryon Oscillations?

10,000,000,000 parsecs would be 32 or 33 billion light years? I thought the universe was less than 13 billion years old. Do they use the big billion then, as opposed to the British one? If it is the British billion, then they can measure 32 billion light years away. How did light from there start travelling towards us before the big bang occured? I also wonder what difference the size of the universe at different times makes to these calculations. How do they compensate for it. Or do they avoid it?

I guess this partially explains it:
It took centuries, but we now know the size of the Universe

 

[Ken Rank]

Would it be deceptive to create fossils of animals that never lived?

What fossils are you talking about?

 

[essentialsaltes]

What fossils are you talking about?

I'm not talking about any fossils. I'm asking if it would be deceptive to create fossils of animals that never lived.

 

[sjastro]

10,000,000,000 parsecs would be 32 or 33 billion light years? I thought the universe was less than 13 billion years old. Do they use the big billion then, as opposed to the British one? If it is the British billion, then they can measure 32 billion light years away. How did light from there start travelling towards us before the big bang occured? I also wonder what difference the size of the universe at different times makes to these calculations. How do they compensate for it. Or do they avoid it?

I guess this partially explains it:
It took centuries, but we now know the size of the Universe

The universe has expanded "radially" in the 14 billion years it took for the distant photons to reach us.
By the time these photons have reached us the size of the observable universe is approximately 93 billion light years.
If the universe is flat with zero curvature as the evidence from the cosmic radiation background suggests the size of the total universe may be infinitely large.

 

[klutedavid]

This is what I meant by the original claim being, at best, an unproven assertion. You can assert that there might be some sort of phenomenon that messes everything up. But there is no evidence for such a thing. In fact, the evidence is entirely consistent with physics being the same long ago and far away as it is here and now.

That's only true if you believe in the observational evidence (empirical) which science is based on.

We need observations from the universe at thousands of points in time, and thousands of locations across thousands of Galaxies.

We cannot extrapolate to the extremes that modern cosmology is guilty of. No conclusions can be drawn on the basis of observations from one solar system, one point in time and space.

 

[klutedavid]

The universe has expanded "radially" in the 14 billion years it took for the distant photons to reach us.
By the time these photons have reached us the size of the observable universe is approximately 93 billion light years.
If the universe is flat with zero curvature as the evidence from the cosmic radiation background suggests the size of the total universe may be infinitely large.

Infinity is mathematically undefined, infinity cannot be measured either and something cannot be infinitely large.

I wish scientists would stop discussing ridiculous ideas, that the universe may be infinite in scale.

That is a paradox and highly unscientific.

 

[zippy2006]

But that is beside the point, as those 'few percent' we are out magnify errors when dealing with angles and trigonometry...

Apparently some scientists also made a very small philosophical error--mistaking an axiom for a premise--that resulted, over time, in very significant errors regarding the nature of Uniformitarianism. Great posts in this thread. It was edifying to see that error unraveled. The discussion helps one to begin to imagine the breathtaking nature of a paradigm shift. I found this image to have a great deal of dynamism with respect to paradigm shifts:

One should always remember that the entirety of Science is an embedded structure of hypotheses, one on the other, that are not necessarily valid.

My own personal microcosmic anecdote would be finding a slight discrepancy in a web of carefully-written code, and then digging deeper and deeper until you finally find the foundational bug, which may have just been an oversight or mistaken generalization. The underlying assumption functions fine until it is strained by some previously-unheard-of circumstance.

 

[sjastro]

Infinity is mathematically undefined, infinity cannot be measured either and something cannot be infinitely large.

I wish scientists would stop discussing ridiculous ideas, that the universe may be infinite in scale.

That is a paradox and highly unscientific.

The concept of infinity is difficult for the layperson to grasp particularly when they are not familiar with the mathematics.

For example there are infinite sets that are countable; there are infinite sets that are uncountable; the set of positive integers is an infinite set as is the set of integers, yet the set of integers contains more elements.
The concept of infinity is much more complicated than the layperson definition.
However I have digressed....

The relationship between curvature and infinity can be explained with a relevant analogy; the Riemann curvature scalar R for the surface of a sphere of radius r defined by the equation.
R = 2/r²

Note as the radius of the sphere increases the curvature of the surface decreases.
As the radius approaches infinity the curvature approaches zero.
In this particular context infinity is defined as a limit as is an infinite universe to a cosmologist using zero curvature as the definition.