How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

[bob b]

This question keeps coming up so I guess I should present my theory.

It is not widely known that one must apply a correction factor to determine how far light travelled from a distant star.

The reason is that when a light photon was first emitted the star was not as far away as it is now when the light photon reaches the Earth and the astronomer's telescope.

So the question then becomes: how much expansion occurred between the time the photon was emitted and when it reached the Earth?

The correction factor depends on how fast the expansion occurred or is occurring (if it is still occurring).

If we assume that the Genesis creation account is correct then the expansion took less than a week. This compares to the usual assumption made by astronomers that the expansion has taken 13.7 billion years and is still continuing.

What the Genesis scenario implies is that the stars and galaxies were formed when the universe was small and the sizes of the stars and galaxies and their distances from one another was also much smaller.

This means that photons from the newly created stars could easily reach the Earth without exceeding the speed of light. However, by the time that they do reach the Earth the universe has been fully expanded to its present size.

This expansion of the light wave of photons connecting the star and the Earth shows up as the Red Shift, because the wave length of photons has been stretched out along with all other physical objects in the universe.

So God did not have to do anything special to allow us to see distant stars in a young universe. All it took was for Him to "spread out the heavens" as it says He did so many times in scripture.

 

[mighty_duck]

Presumably God made the stars and planets in their current form so they would appear as they do. But they would have to be tiny to fit in close enough that the light could still travel, and they would still have the appearance of being spaced apart.

So in essence your "theory" is that God made a little model universe, and then expanded it. Is that it?

 

[bob b]

Presumably God made the stars and planets in their current form so they would appear as they do. But they would have to be tiny to fit in close enough that the light could still travel, and they would still have the appearance of being spaced apart.

So in essence your "theory" is that God made a little model universe, and then expanded it. Is that it?

The Big Bang assumes that all the matter and energy in the universe started out as a tiny dot billions of times smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence.

My theory is a minor variation of that theory in that it says that God did the expansion and it took Him less than a week, instead of 13.7 billion years.

BTW, my concept, based on scripture, also explains the conventional dilemma of how the great groups of galaxies such as the Great Wall could have formed, because their current velocities are insufficient to have generated such huge structures in a 13.7 billion year old universe.

But in a week old universe things were closer together in the beginning and the dilemma disappears.

 

[Stripe]

Why would expansion cause red shift? Isn't red shift a measure of how much more specific light rays are stretched than the constant speed of light? How would uniform expansion cause a lot of different red shift measurements for different stars?

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Why would expansion cause red shift? Isn't red shift a measure of how much more specific light rays are stretched than the constant speed of light? How would uniform expansion cause a lot of different red shift measurements for different stars?

JustinFoldsFive <~~ Eagerly awaiting Bob B's simplistic, scientifically deficient answer.

 

[bob b]

How would uniform expansion cause a lot of different red shift measurements for different stars?

Uniform expansion?

Both the Big Bang and my concept assume exponential expansion.

 

[Johnny]

Both the Big Bang and my concept assume exponential expansion.

I think he's using "uniform" to mean equal in all parts.

Here's another question to add on to stipe's:

(Q) Why might two relatively local stars with equal distances have different redshifts?

 

[Johnny]

This expansion of the light wave of photons connecting the star and the Earth shows up as the Red Shift, because the wave length of photons has been stretched out along with all other physical objects in the universe.

Imagine a string with a known length is stretched between two objects in the universe. Now imagine the universe expands. Our string expands as well. Now simply subtract the length of the current string from the length of the original string and you have the amount of expansion that occurs (rate is irrelevant).

You can do the same with wavelength.

It doesn't work out.

 

[Supremum]

Both the Big Bang and my concept assume exponential expansion.

Just a point of order: Can you tell me what exponential expansion means without looking it up?

 

[mighty_duck]

The Big Bang assumes that all the matter and energy in the universe started out as a tiny dot billions of times smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence.

My theory is a minor variation of that theory in that it says that God did the expansion and it took Him less than a week, instead of 13.7 billion years.

BTW, my concept, based on scripture, also explains the conventional dilemma of how the great groups of galaxies such as the Great Wall could have formed, because their current velocities are insufficient to have generated such huge structures in a 13.7 billion year old universe.

But in a week old universe things were closer together in the beginning and the dilemma disappears.

According to the big bang, the universe was very different in its early stages than the one we see today. According to your "theory", it was identical, just smaller. Is that correct?

 

[Nick M]

We have also learned that the speed of light isn't constant, and appears to have slowed drastically.

Interesting point Bob b. Something to think about. I think the not enough time is one of the reasons the universe is 20 billion years old to some. The models just don't work.

 

[Just Tom]

We have also learned that the speed of light isn't constant, and appears to have slowed drastically.

Interesting point Bob b. Something to think about. I think the not enough time is one of the reasons the universe is 20 billion years old to some. The models just don't work.

Is it possible to create something in motion or to create light that is already everywhere? Does it really need to start from somewhere since it is created?

Can you create a stream already flowing?

Wind already blowing?

 

[Just Tom]

No, logically this would not be possible. Creationism and evolution are not mutably exclusive.

Did you mean mutually exclusive?

 

[Mr Jack]

If we assume that the Genesis creation account is correct then the expansion took less than a week. This compares to the usual assumption made by astronomers that the expansion has taken 13.7 billion years and is still continuing.

Not this again, Bob! You know your understanding of Science would come on leaps and bounds if you stopped claiming everything as an assumption.

Scientists do not assume the expansion has taken 13.7 billion years; they derive from the evidence that the expansion has taken 13.7 billion years.

Stop calling observational and experimental derivations assumptions.

 

[Stripe]

Here's another question to add on to stipe's:
(Q) Why might two relatively local stars with equal distances have different redshifts?

Expansion hit all things at the same time under Bob's proposal. So two stars before the expansion would have their own velocities. Those velocities would be retained after expansion. This could explain their different redshifts.

My first question was aimed at exploring the reason we have redshifts. I believe current-day expansion is used to explain some redshift along with other factors. I'm wondering if Bob's proposal removes expansion as a contributing factor to redshift (as I assume it would, but he seems to say otherwise).

 

[Stripe]

Scientists do not assume the expansion has taken 13.7 billion years; they derive from the evidence that the expansion has taken 13.7 billion years.

How can the rate of expansion be anything but an assumption? All we have are the light rays from stars to look at for evidence!

 

[Mr Jack]

How can the rate of expansion be anything but an assumption? All we have are the light rays from stars to look at for evidence!

Yes, that's the case. And from those light rays*, Physicists are able to deduce the properties of the expansion.

* - strictly we also have other elements of the electromagnetic spectrum as well; in particular radio and micro waves have provided some important data.

 

[Mr Jack]

We have also learned that the speed of light isn't constant, and appears to have slowed drastically.

[Cite needed]

Back in the real world, the evidence shows that the speed of light has not altered by a significant amount in at least the last 10 billion years, and the evidence all supports the idea that it has never changed at all.

 

[bob b]

According to the big bang, the universe was very different in its early stages than the one we see today. According to your "theory", it was identical, just smaller. Is that correct?

Not necessarily.

Also, it was a surprise when scientists found that the further back in time they looked (farthest galaxies) that some of them were fully formed and looked no different than ones close to us.

The convential view was that stars and galaxies take lots of time to form (evolve) and hence the farthest galaxies should show evidence of their early formation.

Another beautiful theory shot down by a gang of nasty facts.

 

[Gerald]

Is it possible to create something in motion or to create light that is already everywhere? Does it really need to start from somewhere since it is created?

Can you create a stream already flowing?

Wind already blowing?

If one is God, I don't see why not...