How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

[Stripe]

You'd get a difference yet, swamped

What are you talking about?

No, that's another bob's untruths. Bob's theory predicts vastly higher levels of red shift. Take a star 100,000 light years from us, scientific measurements show that the level of red shift on the light from this star is small; the light has undergone only a little expansion. Under bob's model this light has been expanded to at least 30 times it's original length. That produces a red shift wildly higher than any redshift observable in the universe! If star's were that red shifted we wouldn't be able to see them.

What are you talking about? Take the light we see today and compact (reverse expansion) it. That's the light we started with. Now expand it again. That's the light we have today.

 

[Mr Jack]

What are you talking about?

That wasn't exactly my clearest sentence, was it? Let me try again:

You'd get a difference, yes, but it would be swamped by the expansion bob proposes so the stars, overall, would be red shifted regardless of relative movement because the blue shift createable by motion is an order of magnitude less pronounced than that bob's expansion would create.

What are you talking about? Take the light we see today and compact (reverse expansion) it. That's the light we started with. Now expand it again. That's the light we have today.

Oh, you're pretending the light was radically blue shifted when it was first emitted and then expanded. That's nice. Look, if you're going to make this much nonsense up why not go back to pretending that God created the light already on route. It at least has the virtue of not being as convoluted.

 

[Stripe]

Oh, you're pretending the light was radically blue shifted when it was first emitted and then expanded. That's nice. Look, if you're going to make this much nonsense up why not go back to pretending that God created the light already on route. It at least has the virtue of not being as convoluted.

Mr. Jack! OF COURSE the light was not expanded before the expansion! Have you honestly been reading all these threads without understanding that?

 

[Mr Jack]

You said "Take the light we see today and compact (reverse expansion) it. That's the light we started with. Now expand it again. That's the light we have today." - that requires that the light be actively compacted when first emitted. Not merely "not expanded"; actively compacted (blue shifted). That was not part of bob's original idea - he merely claimed (wrongly) that his expansion would produce matching red shifts anyway.

In order for your new idea to work you need God to have faked up the light before the expansion; so why not just claim God faked up the light on route and drop the silly expansion idea?

 

[Johnny]

OK, Johnny, you can stop holding your breath. Your model does not discount Bob's proposal because you do not account for the fact that the star would be moving toward Earth both before and after expansion.

I don't have to account for this because the expansion would overwhelm the blueshift and shift the wavelength back into a redshift. The only way the blueshift could remain a blueshift is if the star was moving towards Earth faster than the expansion was expanding the light waves. Remember, redshift and blueshift are calculated based on a standard emission spectrum.

What would happen is that a star moving towards Earth during the expansion will have less redshift than a star stationary during expansion. However, this difference would almost be insignificant because the expansion absolutely dwarfs any motion towards Earth.

Mr Jack correctly pointed this out.

 

[zenboy81]

I posted 3 references which say that they found young galaxies which appear to be mature. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

For being a science lover you surely don't understand science.

There's a study from the NIH showing that statistically smokers have no increased risk for lung cancer compared to non-smokers. So should I start smoking? NO! Because's there's thousands of other studies showing the opposite.

I currently have about 5 journal articles that prove my dissertation wrong, so should I quit and drop out of school even though I currently have over 250 journal articles that support my dissertation?

You conveniently pick and choose the articles that support your ideas and post those with a gross misunderstanding of the entire field.

 

[Stripe]

You said "Take the light we see today and compact (reverse expansion) it. That's the light we started with. Now expand it again. That's the light we have today." - that requires that the light be actively compacted when first emitted. Not merely "not expanded"; actively compacted (blue shifted). That was not part of bob's original idea - he merely claimed (wrongly) that his expansion would produce matching red shifts anyway.

In order for your new idea to work you need God to have faked up the light before the expansion; so why not just claim God faked up the light on route and drop the silly expansion idea?

Umm .. I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm fairly certain that Bob has explained that everything in the universe under expansion was itself expanded. It only stands to reason that if there is universal expansion then everything has been expanded in a uniform (even if exponential) fashion. So claiming that redshift should be different under Bob's model is to claim that the difference between Bob's proposal and the commonly accepted proposal is to assert that Bob claims a larger amount of expansion. He has stated, many times, that the amount is the same under both models.

 

[Stripe]

I don't have to account for this because the expansion would overwhelm the blueshift and shift the wavelength back into a redshift. The only way the blueshift could remain a blueshift is if the star was moving towards Earth faster than the expansion was expanding the light waves. Remember, redshift and blueshift are calculated based on a standard emission spectrum. What would happen is that a star moving towards Earth during the expansion will have less redshift than a star stationary during expansion. However, this difference would almost be insignificant because the expansion absolutely dwarfs any motion towards Earth. Mr Jack correctly pointed this out.

If we accept that redshift and blueshift are measurements of lightwave frequencies that differ from an accepted constant then expansion of any amount or rate will have zero effect on the relative difference between lightwave frequencies.

A star moving toward Earth and showing blueshift and a star moving away from Earth and showing redshift are both giving off lightwaves that are of higher or lower frequency as compared to the accepted constant regardless of the amount of expansion that has happened.

 

[Johnny]

If we accept that redshift and blueshift are measurements of lightwave frequencies that differ from an accepted constant then expansion of any amount or rate will have zero effect on the relative difference between lightwave frequencies.

Certainly, I agree. But redshift is calculated using an absolute standard.

A star moving toward Earth and showing blueshift and a star moving away from Earth and showing redshift are both giving off lightwaves that are of higher or lower frequency as compared to the accepted constant regardless of the amount of expansion that has happened.

The expansion of space would stretch both frequencies into a redshift -- though the relative difference would be preserved.

 

[Stripe]

Certainly, I agree. But redshift is calculated using an absolute standard.

What absolute standard is that? The average wavelength of light received from stars?

The expansion of space would stretch both frequencies into a redshift -- though the relative difference would be preserved.

And it would also stretch every other lightwave arriving at Earth. Thus when measuring a blueshifted star's light against the average wavelength of all the rest of the stars one would find the same scale of difference regardless of the rate or amount of expansion.

 

[Johnny]

What absolute standard is that? The average wavelength of light received from stars?

Depends on how it's being measured -- the hydrogen emission peaks are commonly used. The peaks are not derived from incoming starlight, they're observations made under laboratory conditions. Incoming starlight is then compared to these known peaks. If the frequency happens to be higher, the light is called "blueshifted". If it's lower, then it's called "redshifted".

Light present during the expansion would be redshifted. The only way it could be blue-shifted is if a star was moving towards the Earth faster than the expansion was expanding the lightwaves.

And it would also stretch every other lightwave arriving at Earth. Thus when measuring a blueshifted star's light against the average wavelength of all the rest of the stars one would find the same scale of difference regardless of the rate or amount of expansion.

Ok, I don't necessarily disagree.

 

[Mr Jack]

Umm .. I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm fairly certain that Bob has explained that everything in the universe under expansion was itself expanded. It only stands to reason that if there is universal expansion then everything has been expanded in a uniform (even if exponential) fashion. So claiming that redshift should be different under Bob's model is to claim that the difference between Bob's proposal and the commonly accepted proposal is to assert that Bob claims a larger amount of expansion. He has stated, many times, that the amount is the same under both models.

As we have explained many, many times - bob's model doesn't predict the same level of expansion because under the real science the derived inflationary expansion happens before any starlight is emitted, before stars are even formed. Bob is completely wrong about this.

 

[Mr Jack]

Depends on how it's being measured -- the hydrogen emission peaks are commonly used.

I was under the impression it was usually based on adsorption spectra?

 

[Mr Jack]

And it would also stretch every other lightwave arriving at Earth. Thus when measuring a blueshifted star's light against the average wavelength of all the rest of the stars one would find the same scale of difference regardless of the rate or amount of expansion.

Wrong, bob's model wouldn't have stretched the light of stars (including, most significantly, our Sun) within 6,000 light years (which is yet another observation that proves bob's idea wrong - the lack of any discontinuity in red shifts).

 

[Stripe]

Depends on how it's being measured -- the hydrogen emission peaks are commonly used. The peaks are not derived from incoming starlight, they're observations made under laboratory conditions. Incoming starlight is then compared to these known peaks. If the frequency happens to be higher, the light is called "blueshifted". If it's lower, then it's called "redshifted".

An absolute standard that depends on variables? Would not expansion make these readings change along with measured wavelengths?

Light present during the expansion would be redshifted. The only way it could be blue-shifted is if a star was moving towards the Earth faster than the expansion was expanding the lightwaves.

Here's how I see it:
Star A has a blueshift value. A reading of 1 on an imaginary wavelength scale.
The constant is set at 2
Star B has a redshift value. 3 on the same scale.

Expansion occurs.

Star A now has a wavelength value of 30 times its original reading. 1x30=30.
The constant increases by the same amount (or potentially an exponentially higher amount). 2x30=60.
Star B will show a reading of 3x30=90.

Now both stars will still be blueshifted and redshifted just as before. What has changed is only the scale by which we measure their properties.

Does this make sense?

 

[Stripe]

As we have explained many, many times - bob's model doesn't predict the same level of expansion because under the real science the derived inflationary expansion happens before any starlight is emitted, before stars are even formed. Bob is completely wrong about this.

And I assume you have proof that stars did not or cannot exists while the universe is expanding?

 

[Stripe]

Wrong, bob's model wouldn't have stretched the light of stars (including, most significantly, our Sun) within 6,000 light years (which is yet another observation that proves bob's idea wrong - the lack of any discontinuity in red shifts).

Bob's model would have stretched all lightwaves that existed at the time of expansion. Any light emitted thereafter would be indistinguishable from the light that was stretched.

With an exponential expansion the light from stars that are further away should have undergone more expansion and have more redshift than those closer.

But there will be no 6-7000 year redshift horizon just as there is no horizon that correlates to an old-world view of universal expansion.

 

[Jukia]

And I assume you have proof that stars did not or cannot exists while the universe is expanding?

You miss the point. bob b's model assumes that the inflationary period occured after the stars and galaxies existed--I think that has already been stated somewhere. The standard model provides for the inflationary period to occur long, long before the existence of stars.
My recollection is that we are dealing with the inflationary period suggested by the most recent cosmological theories. bob b has claimed that he only needs it to last for a teeny bit longer than the real theorists need.
And "proof", you seek "proof", be careful what you wish for.

 

[Mr Jack]

And I assume you have proof that stars did not or cannot exists while the universe is expanding?

You've missed the point.

Let me spell it out in simple steps:

In the real world, it happened in this order:

1. Inflationary expansion
2. Stars form
3. Light from stars undergoes small post-inflationary expansion

Under bob's notion, it happens in this order:

1. Stars form
2. Inflationary expansion.

In the real world, the light we see from stars never underwent inflationary expansion, under bob's model it did.

These models predict wildly different values of red shift. The prediction of bob's notion is contradicted by observation.

 

[Mr Jack]

Bob's model would have stretched all lightwaves that existed at the time of expansion. Any light emitted thereafter would be indistinguishable from the light that was stretched.

No, it wouldn't. Light that had undergone expansion would be red shifted; light that hadn't wouldn't.

With an exponential expansion the light from stars that are further away should have undergone more expansion and have more redshift than those closer.

Yes.

But there will be no 6-7000 year redshift horizon just as there is no horizon that correlates to an old-world view of universal expansion.

Wrong. In bob's proposal the universe gets expanded in creation week only, the light from stars within 6,000 years therefore would have come to us without that expansion, the light reaching us from a star 6,001 light years away would have. This would produce a discontinuity in red shift. What's more it'd be an observably moving discontinuity.