Oldest Galaxies

PlastikBuddha

PlastikBuddha

New member
bob b said:
How does one determine the age of a star without making assumptions?
Click to expand...

What assumptions are these? And why are they made? Are you saying it's impossible to guess based on the rates of atomic fusion and the laws of physics how long a star can shine before the inevitable happens?
 
Vern Reed

Vern Reed

BANNED
Banned
bob b said:
Professional scientists are limited by the "modern" definition of science to proposing "naturalistic" hypotheses.
Click to expand...

No, no, no no, no! A scientist, like any person, would challenge flaws. I did it with my church and its accepted doctrine, scientists will do it with what they know as well. You seem to think every scientist is a drone, enslaved by modern, naturalistic thinking. GO to a pub. Go anywhere in fact, and discuss any subject like politics or football or rugby or current affairs or ... or ... or ... (ad nauseum) and you will always get massively differing views. Don't you think this happens in science? You have arrogantly painted modern scientists as brainwashed idiots who are incapable of thinking outside of the current paradigm, and week by week with your posts you are looking more and more foolish. You are the one who can't see past his entrenched ideals, and you start from your belief and work backwards unlike scientists who process information into a logical theory/conclusion, and one that offers a lot of answers for a lot of stuff. If God made us and gave us brains to think and exercise logic, I would suggest the scientists are heading in very much the right direction. You, on the other hand, have cemented your position, set it in stone and refused to move on it.

Again, if free-thinking scientists see issues that can't be addressed in the current climate, they would say so frequently rather than keeping sheepishly silent. Scientists are motivated by new discoveries, probably even to the point of pride. What scientist wouldn't want their name mentioned in a hundred years time by other scientists? A silly one, so if there was a chance, an inkling, that all this science we have may be wrong because the 'background' is wrong, scientists would be falling over themselves to find the answers or propose better, more workable hypotheses.
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Vern Reed said:
Again, if free-thinking scientists see issues that can't be addressed in the current climate, they would say so frequently rather than keeping sheepishly silent. Scientists are motivated by new discoveries, probably even to the point of pride. What scientist wouldn't want their name mentioned in a hundred years time by other scientists? A silly one, so if there was a chance, an inkling, that all this science we have may be wrong because the 'background' is wrong, scientists would be falling over themselves to find the answers or propose better, more workable hypotheses.
Click to expand...

The only acceptable scientific hypotheses are those which are "naturalistic".

A hypothesis that assumed that God created the cosmos could never get published in a scientific journal because such a hypothesis is not scientific, even though it is true.
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
bob b said:
The only acceptable scientific hypotheses are those which are "naturalistic".

A hypothesis that assumed that God created the cosmos could never get published in a scientific journal because such a hypothesis is not scientific, even though it is true.
Click to expand...

Is that what you want to do? Publish a hypothesis that assumes God created the cosmos?
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
noguru said:
Is that what you want to do? Publish a hypothesis that assumes God created the cosmos?
Click to expand...

People have published such hypotheses for thousands of years. Most people would simply say: of course, nothing new here.
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I will now examine the possibility that when God "stretched out the heavens" on the first day of creation that this caused the Red Shift that astronomers measure today in their telescopes. As a prelude consider this discussion of the Red Shift from Wikipedia:

Expansion of space
Main article: Metric expansion of space
In the early part of the twentieth century, Slipher, Hubble and others made the first measurements of the redshifts and blue shifts of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. They initially interpreted these redshifts and blue shifts as due solely to the Doppler effect, but later Hubble discovered a rough correlation between the increasing redshifts and the increasing distance of galaxies. Theorists almost immediately realized that these observations could be explained by a different mechanism for producing redshifts. Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is required by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric expansion of space.[16] As a result, photons propagating through the expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift. This differs from the Doppler effect redshifts described above because the velocity boost (i.e. the Lorentz transformation) between the source and observer is not due to classical momentum and energy transfer, but instead the photons increase in wavelength and redshift as the space through which they are traveling expands.[22] This effect is prescribed by the current cosmological model as an observable manifestation of the time-dependent cosmic scale factor (a) in the following way:

[equation in original]

This type of redshift is called the cosmological redshift or Hubble redshift. If the universe were contracting instead of expanding, we would see distant galaxies blue shifted by an amount proportional to their distance instead of redshifted.[23]

These galaxies are not receding simply by means of a physical velocity in the direction away from the observer; instead, the intervening space is stretching, which accounts for the large-scale isotropy of the effect demanded by the cosmological principle.[24] For cosmological redshifts of z < 0.1 the effects of spacetime expansion are minimal and observed redshifts dominated by the peculiar motions of the galaxies relative to one another that cause additional Doppler redshifts and blue shifts.[25] The difference between physical velocity and space expansion can be illustrated by the Expanding Rubber Sheet Universe, a common cosmological analogy used to describe the expansion of space. If two objects are represented by ball bearings and spacetime by a stretching rubber sheet, the Doppler effect is caused by rolling the balls across the sheet to create peculiar motion. The cosmological redshift occurs when the ball bearings are stuck to the sheet and the sheet is stretched. (Obviously, there are dimensional problems with the model, as the ball bearings should be in the sheet, and cosmological redshift produces higher velocities than Doppler does if the distance between two objects is large enough.)

In spite of the distinction between redshifts caused by the velocity of objects and the redshifts associated with the expanding universe, astronomers sometimes refer to "recession velocity" in the context of the redshifting of distant galaxies from the expansion of the Universe, even though it is only an apparent recession.[26] As a consequence, popular literature often uses the expression "Doppler redshift" instead of "cosmological redshift" to describe the motion of galaxies dominated by the expansion of spacetime, despite the fact that a "cosmological recessional speed" when calculated will not equal the velocity in the relativistic Doppler equation.[27] In particular, Doppler redshift is bound by special relativity; thus v > c is impossible while, in contrast, v > c is possible for cosmological redshift because the space which separates the objects (e.g., a quasar from the Earth) can expand faster than the speed of light.[28] More mathematically, the viewpoint that "distant galaxies are receding" and the viewpoint that "the space between galaxies is expanding" are related by changing coordinate systems. Expressing this precisely requires working with the mathematics of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric.[29]
Click to expand...

One additional point. Since the cosmological red shift is a consequence of the stretching of space, the amount of red shift depends only on the amount of stretching that has occurred, not the rate at which the stretching occurred. Thus, if God did the stretching of the universe to its present size at a high rate, not the low rate assumed by the Big Bang, the red shifts of stars would be identical to what is seen today in astronomer's telescopes.

The final question then is: is the universe still expanding? My claim is that it is not and that it would not be possible to detect whether it is still expanding because the Doppler Red Shift of stars within 6000 light years of the Earth would be much larger than a hypothetical Cosmological Red Shift (at the Big Bang assumed rate) and hence be masked. In other words the expansion of space stopped on Day 1 of Creation Week because God is no longer "stretching out the heavens".

I presented the calculation that showed this in an earlier post on a different thread and will attempt to retrieve it and post it here for your examination.
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Calculation of red shift due to expansion of space at distance of 6000 light years.

Hubble's Law v=HD
where H is 75(km/s)/Mpc and v=km/sec and D=parsec

6000 light years / 3.26 light years/parsec = 1840 parsec

v = 75km/s/Mpc(1840pc) = (75/106) x 1840 = 0.138 km/s

So the apparent recessional velocity due to the expansion of space at a distance of 6000 light years would be 0.138 km/sec

But stars within a galaxy are of course also in motion with velocities much greater than 0.138 km/sec which would create a red or blue shift great enough to mask the red shift due to the expansion of space at a distance of 6000 light years.
 
R

rexlunae

New member
I think the question, Bob, is why you haven't gotten this published in any scientific journals. You're right that the supernatural parts would never be accepted because they violate naturalistic methodology, but there are several natural claims here that could be if they had merit. All your calculations and assertions about how such a very young universe would have evolved can be evaluated by science, if they are meaningful at all, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find a cosmologist willing to take seriously the idea that the universe is younger than Egyptian civilization.

The fact of the matter is that you're working too hard. You don't need to come up with bogus calculations to try to justify magical thinking. Once you have accepted the idea that the universe came into existence by magic, you can really believe anything about it. It's easy to come up with scenarios that fit if they are allowed to rely on magic. All you have to do is pick your favorite one and hold on tight. Why would you let science get in the way? The universe could be five years old, or a trillion. Scientific explanations allow only what can be scrutinized, only natural processes, because science seeks to understand, not accept.
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rexlunae said:
I think the question, Bob, is why you haven't gotten this published in any scientific journals. You're right that the supernatural parts would never be accepted because they violate naturalistic methodology, but there are several natural claims here that could be if they had merit. All your calculations and assertions about how such a very young universe would have evolved can be evaluated by science, if they are meaningful at all, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find a cosmologist willing to take seriously the idea that the universe is younger than Egyptian civilization.
Click to expand...

Of course they wouldn't, but on the other hand they have no valid way to determine the age of Egyptian civilization, or the age of the universe either for that matter.

The fact of the matter is that you're working too hard. You don't need to come up with bogus calculations to try to justify magical thinking.
Click to expand...

If you think that the calculations are bogus you have an obligation to show this, instead of making unfounded charges. The calculations are not difficult. Have you ever taken any math courses like algebra?
 
H

Hank

New member
bob b said:
Calculation of red shift due to expansion of space at distance of 6000 light years.

Hubble's Law v=HD
where H is 75(km/s)/Mpc and v=km/sec and D=parsec

6000 light years / 3.26 light years/parsec = 1840 parsec

v = 75km/s/Mpc(1840pc) = (75/106) x 1840 = 0.138 km/s

So the apparent recessional velocity due to the expansion of space at a distance of 6000 light years would be 0.138 km/sec

But stars within a galaxy are of course also in motion with velocities much greater than 0.138 km/sec which would create a red or blue shift great enough to mask the red shift due to the expansion of space at a distance of 6000 light years.
Click to expand...

So now all you have to explain is how a star that is 169,000 light years away from us we just now see as exploding. When did that happen if the universe was created 6000 years ago?
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hank said:
So now all you have to explain is how a star that is 169,000 light years away from us we just now see as exploding. When did that happen if the universe was created 6000 years ago?
Click to expand...

Were you sleeping all these months when I have been explaining this?
 
R

rexlunae

New member
bob b said:
Of course they wouldn't, but on the other hand they have no valid way to determine the age of Egyptian civilization, or the age of the universe either for that matter.
Click to expand...

Have you presented the calculations to a cosmologist for evaluation? What did they say about them?

bob b said:
If you think that the calculations are bogus you have an obligation to show this, instead of making unfounded charges. The calculations are not difficult. Have you ever taken any math courses like algebra?
Click to expand...

I could certainly check your arithmetic, but that wouldn't really address the problem. I am not well-versed enough in cosmology, particularly red shift and all its implications, to evaluate how you are applying the math, so I'll wait for you to submit them to a cosmological journal for peer review to see if scientists agree with you. Feel free to mention which journal you're being published in here. My point is that you don't need all that to just believe in magic.

And, to answer your other question, I have had math through calculus, three credits shy of a math minor.

One additional point. If the universe were in the 6-7 thousand year range, the Milky Way (our galaxy) wouldn't have had time to form. It is 80-100 thousand light years in diameter, and in your time scale would not have enough time for gravity to draw the matter into a coherent structure, because it would only have had time to revolve about 0.028 times, assuming that the outer stars orbit at the speed of light (which is ludicrous, in actuality it is about 1/1000th the speed) , using the numbers most favorable to your claims. Other galaxies have similar calculation, so you would have to hold that all the galaxies were just poofed into existence as-is rather than forming by gravity as they appear to. I think scientists might have a problem with this, but of course you wouldn't have such a problem if you just believe in magic.

80kly diameter is 40kly radius, 251kly circumference. 7/251 = 0.028 revolutions

source: Wikipedia: Milky Way
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rexlunae said:
Have you presented the calculations to a cosmologist for evaluation? What did they say about them? I could certainly check your arithmetic, but that wouldn't really address the problem. I am not well-versed enough in cosmology, particularly red shift and all its implications, to evaluate how you are applying the math, so I'll wait for you to submit them to a cosmological journal for peer review to see if scientists agree with you. Feel free to mention which journal you're being published in here. My point is that you don't need all that to just believe in magic. And, to answer your other question, I have had math through calculus, three credits shy of a math minor. One additional point. If the universe were in the 6-7 thousand year range, the Milky Way (our galaxy) wouldn't have had time to form. It is 80-100 thousand light years in diameter, and in your time scale would not have enough time for gravity to draw the matter into a coherent structure, because it would only have had time to revolve about 0.028 times, assuming that the outer stars orbit at the speed of light (which is ludicrous, in actuality it is about 1/1000th the speed) , using the numbers most favorable to your claims. Other galaxies have similar calculation, so you would have to hold that all the galaxies were just poofed into existence as-is rather than forming by gravity as they appear to. I think scientists might have a problem with this, but of course you wouldn't have such a problem if you just believe in magic.

80kly diameter is 40kly radius, 251kly circumference. 7/251 = 0.028 revolutions

source: Wikipedia: Milky Way
Click to expand...

What you do not seem to realize is that there is no way for gravity to form a coherent structure like a spiral galaxy, not to mention large scale constructions in the universe like the "Great Wall". This is just one of the reasons why there are a growing number of cosmologists doubting the accuracy of the Big Bang hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
 
PlastikBuddha

PlastikBuddha

New member
bob b said:
What you do not seem to realize is that there is no way for gravity to form a coherent structure like a spiral galaxy, not to mention large scale constructions in the universe like the "Great Wall". This is just one of the reasons why there are a growing number of cosmologists doubting the accuracy of the Big Bang hypothesis.
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to realize is that none of these discussions involve lowering the age of the universe to a few thousand years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top