How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

[Stripe]

No, it doesn't depend on any variables. Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. I understand where you're coming from now.

There's a misunderstanding as to how the "standard" is determined.

If we want to know how much the wavelength has shifted, we first have to know what the wavelength of light was when it was emitted, correct? The way we determine that is by using emission or absorption lines of certain elements. The reason these lines occur is not important to this discussion. Suffice it to say that when photons strike an element such as hydrogen, the electrons are excited and bumped to a higher energy level. When the electrons fall back to their original energy level, they emit a photon of a specific wavelength. These photons are called the hydrogen emission lines, and they occur at very specific wavelengths.

So to determine redshift, we look at the starlight from an incoming star or galaxy and find the hydrogen emission lines. The difference between the lines and the laboratory values of the lines is calculated. If the lines are shifted towards the red end of the spectrum, the light is called "redshifted", and vice versa. See this image for a good illustration of redshifted lines. See how those lines are shifted towards the red?

So the standard is a value derived here and now. It is derived from a light source stationary with the measuring device. That's how we know what the wavelength of the light should be. Then we compare incoming starlight to it and determine how much the light has been stretched or contracted as compared to the standard. It's like calibrating a scale. You have to "zero" the scale first with no weights on it. Likewise we have to "zero" the hydrogen emission lines with a stationary object. Only then can we measure how much the starlight's light has been shifted.

The wikipedia article on redshift is a worthwhile read if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Measurement.2C_characterization.2C_and_interpretation

So to use your illustration:
Star A has a blueshift value. A reading of 1 on an imaginary wavelength scale.
The constant is 2 (what we measured in the lab)
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 is still 2.
Star B will show a reading of 3x30=90.

Now both stars will still be redshifted.

Yes. I've read this. I don't understand how you can insist the constant will not be affected.

 

[Mr Jack]

Yes. I've read this. I don't understand how you can insist the constant will not be affected.

Because they're inextricably linked to everything else. If we look at stars in the universe what we discover is that they appear to behave exactly like we should expect them to if they were obeying the laws of physics that we observe on earth and in the solar system.

If something happened that shifted the spectra then it would also alter the properties of Hydrogen such that it would no longer fuse in such a way as to produce Stars that look like our Sun. You can't play silly buggers with the laws of Physics and expect the universe to carry on regardless.

 

[Stripe]

It's a claim bob never made. He just thought that the red shifts would match anyway. He was wrong. So you've come up with a new idea that is even more absurd.

I still don't see any reason to say that I have misrepresented Bob's ideas.

It's an ad hoc pretence without any evidence or explanation.

The starlight travel problem is one of the most obvious challenges to a young Earth hypothesis.

There is absolutely no natural process capable of creating the electromagnetic waves you'd need (I say electromagnetic, and not light, because they'd need to be shifted way beyond blue in order for your new idea to work).

They'd be light waves. Just uninflated. Bob's idea requires that matter be created and that inflation happens.

No, it didn't. It was far too hot and dense for matter to condense. In fact, the first atoms didn't form until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

Was the universe still expanding when matter "condensed". What was matter before it was matter?

This is false. What we have to go on is the entire laws of physics as derived in the laboratory, observations of the nearest star (the Sun), and light waves (and other electromagnetic waves) from other stars. These provide a consistent and detailed picture of what goes on in the universe (with, it must be said, various areas we haven't figured out yet).

Which physical rules make it impossible for matter to have existed within an uninflated universe? Your "condensing matter" sounds like the necessary requirements for a universe that inflated according to big bang theory. What observations do you have to prove matter condensed at 300 000 years?

 

[Stripe]

Because they're inextricably linked to everything else. If we look at stars in the universe what we discover is that they appear to behave exactly like we should expect them to if they were obeying the laws of physics that we observe on earth and in the solar system.

If something happened that shifted the spectra then it would also alter the properties of Hydrogen such that it would no longer fuse in such a way as to produce Stars that look like our Sun. You can't play silly buggers with the laws of Physics and expect the universe to carry on regardless.

Nothing happened that "shifted the spectra". It got inflated along with everything else in the universe. It would look to the uninflated observer pretty much as it looks to us today ..

 

[Mr Jack]

You're talking nonsense, Stipe, pure and simple.

I don't think you even vaguely understand the idea bob's abandoned you to defend.

You seem to be imagining a tiny little toy universe that gets expanded. This solves not a single thing, and is just a silly, made up idea. In you teeny, tiny toy universe how fast does light travel?

 

[Mr Jack]

I still don't see any reason to say that I have misrepresented Bob's ideas.

Bob never hypothesised a teeny, tiny universe. That's your invention.

The starlight travel problem is one of the most obvious challenges to a young Earth hypothesis.

Yes, and bob's idea doesn't solve it and your idea is a more convoluted variation on the God's deceiving us notion.

They'd be light waves. Just uninflated. Bob's idea requires that matter be created and that inflation happens.

Light waves are only a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum; in order to become light as we see it under Bob's expansion the light beforehand would have to be so shifted in frequency it would take it out of the range we call 'light'.

Was the universe still expanding when matter "condensed". What was matter before it was matter?

Energy, Stipe. You understand that energy and matter are interchangeable, yes?

Which physical rules make it impossible for matter to have existed within an uninflated universe? Your "condensing matter" sounds like the necessary requirements for a universe that inflated according to big bang theory. What observations do you have to prove matter condensed at 300 000 years?

So... not one single observation in support of your idea, huh?

 

[Jukia]

All of you who are objecting to bob b and stipe miss the point.

GODDIDIT. End of story. You do not need evidence, you do not need to try to explain it with standard physics, quantum physics or any weird physics. It is supernatural. The Bible says it happened in a few days a few 1000 years ago. Don't bother to try to explain. Let them have their fantasy.

 

[Mr Jack]

GODDIDIT. End of story. You do not need evidence, you do not need to try to explain it with standard physics, quantum physics or any weird physics. It is supernatural. The Bible says it happened in a few days a few 1000 years ago. Don't bother to try to explain. Let them have their fantasy.

When they just say "goddidit" they will have some faint credibility; it is at least a credible position.

 

[Johnny]

Yes. I've read this. I don't understand how you can insist the constant will not be affected.

Why would it be? In order to change a constant such as emission spectra (used for redshift), you'd have to completely rework the universe. We're talking about a fundamental process here (orbital energy levels).

Given that Bob's whole idea was proposed to preserve a constant, I think it's a bit ironic we're willing to sacrifice a different constant in order to do so.

 

[Stripe]

Why would it be? In order to change a constant such as emission spectra (used for redshift), you'd have to completely rework the universe. We're talking about a fundamental process here (orbital energy levels).

How about expansion of the entire universe? Is that enough of a "reworking"?

 

[Mr Jack]

How about expansion of the entire universe? Is that enough of a "reworking"?

No. Inflationary expansion doesn't change any of the physical properties of the universe.

And if it did you're going to need an explanation for why we don't see that change in the light that supposedly came from the pre-expansion universe.

 

[Stripe]

No. Inflationary expansion doesn't change any of the physical properties of the universe. And if it did you're going to need an explanation for why we don't see that change in the light that supposedly came from the pre-expansion universe.

OF COURSE the light changed! Even you insist that all matter and energy was affected by your own ideas of what happened during expansion!

Mr. Jack. I understand entirely that you do not want to be wrong. We both, I hope, admit that there is actually little other than theory to guide us as to what happened in the early universe. I appreciate the discussion and the ideas you've put forward, but it seems there is little use in further describing ideas to each other as it seems all we have left is assaults on opposing ideas about God.

 

[Johnny]

How about expansion of the entire universe? Is that enough of a "reworking"?

No.

If you want to rewrite the laws of the universe to make your idea work, which is what you're suggesting, then at least state that up front. What you're doing is no different then saying "...and then a miracle happens..." You've left the realm of science and moved into a sort of metaphysical explanation. In doing so you remove any means by which someone might criticize or analyze your idea. When someone brings up a valid objection, you can simply waive your hands and say "Well that condition has changed", "Well that law wasn't in place yet", "Well that law changed", "Well if you throw away that law then it works".

And that, Stipe, puts this idea in the same intellectual trashcan as every other metaphysical crackpot idea. You and Bob shouldn't expect to impress any scientists if this is the sort of ideas you're throwing out.

I also think it's a bit inconsistent with the modern creationist idea that the universe is finely tuned. You can't just change a constant such as orbital energy levels without changing everything we know about the universe. That's changing how atoms interact with each other. You couldn't be changing a more fundamental process.

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/images/miracle3.gif

 

[Stripe]

No.

If you want to rewrite the laws of the universe to make your idea work, which is what you're suggesting, then at least state that up front. What you're doing is no different then saying "...and then a miracle happens..." You've left the realm of science and moved into a sort of metaphysical explanation. In doing so you remove any means by which someone might criticize or analyze your idea. When someone brings up a valid objection, you can simply waive your hands and say "Well that condition has changed", "Well that law wasn't in place yet", "Well that law changed", "Well if you throw away that law then it works".

And that, Stipe, puts this idea in the same intellectual trashcan as every other metaphysical crackpot idea. You and Bob shouldn't expect to impress any scientists if this is the sort of ideas you're throwing out.

I also think it's a bit inconsistent with the modern creationist idea that the universe is finely tuned. You can't just change a constant such as orbital energy levels without changing everything we know about the universe. That's changing how atoms interact with each other. You couldn't be changing a more fundamental process.

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/images/miracle3.gif

What miracle am I suggesting?

 

[Mr Jack]

What miracle am I suggesting?

You're suggesting the light emitted before the inflation was fudged in order to make it produce light matching what we see. Your inflation is also miraculous.

 

[Stripe]

From the first post on this thread:

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.

I guess one of us should have simply looked a long time ago..

 

[Stripe]

You're suggesting the light emitted before the inflation was fudged in order to make it produce light matching what we see. Your inflation is also miraculous.

What is the difference between light that has undergone a lot of inflation quickly and light that has undergone a lot of inflation slowly?

How is anything fudged when the whole scenario is based upon what we see and only makes inferences about how the universe would have been?

How is "my" inflation any more miraculous than "yours"?

 

[Supremum]

Yours contradicts the principle that position and energy densities be continuous over space-time.

 

[Jukia]

Yours contradicts the principle that position and energy densities be continuous over space-time.

Oooh, I'll bet he really understands that!!!

 

[Stripe]

Yours contradicts the principle that position and energy densities be continuous over space-time.

Really?

That's a principle?

How does it contradict?