Read the link and decide for yourself.
How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Read the link and decide for yourself.
You need to read up on the Big Bang "expansion of the coordinates of space". I suggest Wikipedia.
In this type of expansion the objects within the universe are not actually moving at all: the space between them is expanding. Thus they have no velocity due to the expansion.
The Red Shift in this type of expansion is not a Velocity Red Shift, it is an Expansion Red Shift.
Metric expansion of space
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The metric expansion of space is a key part of science's current understanding of the universe, whereby spacetime itself is described by a metric which changes over time in such a way that the spatial dimensions grow or stretch as the universe gets older. It explains how the universe expands in the Big Bang model, a feature of our universe supported by all cosmological experiments, astrophysics calculations, and measurements to date.
The expansion of space is conceptually different from other kinds of expansions and explosions that are seen in nature. Our understanding of the "fabric of the universe" (spacetime) requires that what we see normally as "space", "time", and "distance" are not absolutes, but are determined by a metric that can change. In the metric expansion of space, rather than objects in a fixed "space" moving apart into "emptiness", it is the space that contains the objects which is itself changing. It is as if without objects themselves moving, space is somehow "growing" in between them. In the language of Riemannian geometry, expansion is an intrinsic effect: the universe is expanding, as measured intrinsically by distances between points, in contrast to the familiar extrinsic notion of an object expanding within an ambient space—there is no need for an ambient space to define expansion.
Because it is the metric defining distance that is changing rather than objects moving in space, this expansion (and the resultant movement apart of objects) is not restricted by the speed of light upper bound that results from special relativity.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The metric expansion of space is a key part of science's current understanding of the universe, whereby spacetime itself is described by a metric which changes over time in such a way that the spatial dimensions grow or stretch as the universe gets older. It explains how the universe expands in the Big Bang model, a feature of our universe supported by all cosmological experiments, astrophysics calculations, and measurements to date.
The expansion of space is conceptually different from other kinds of expansions and explosions that are seen in nature. Our understanding of the "fabric of the universe" (spacetime) requires that what we see normally as "space", "time", and "distance" are not absolutes, but are determined by a metric that can change. In the metric expansion of space, rather than objects in a fixed "space" moving apart into "emptiness", it is the space that contains the objects which is itself changing. It is as if without objects themselves moving, space is somehow "growing" in between them. In the language of Riemannian geometry, expansion is an intrinsic effect: the universe is expanding, as measured intrinsically by distances between points, in contrast to the familiar extrinsic notion of an object expanding within an ambient space—there is no need for an ambient space to define expansion.
Because it is the metric defining distance that is changing rather than objects moving in space, this expansion (and the resultant movement apart of objects) is not restricted by the speed of light upper bound that results from special relativity.
Perhaps it would help if I displayed a diagram which shows the difference between the Big Bang rate of Expansion and my assumed rate of expansion.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11907&d=1194542123
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11907&d=1194542123
Last edited:
So could we list the potential causes of redshift?
By definition it is possible for God to do whatever He wants.
He could have made the whole universe yesterday and put it in place with physical evidence that it is older and with humans having false memories of childhoods they never had. If He did there is no way we would be able to tell.
The only problem with this is that it makes God a lying trickster.
If we say God is not a liar and has not faked the evidence, then we have to accept all the evidence. It is illogical to say He lied about some things and yet is truthful and worthy of trust.
He could have made the whole universe yesterday and put it in place with physical evidence that it is older and with humans having false memories of childhoods they never had. If He did there is no way we would be able to tell.
The only problem with this is that it makes God a lying trickster.
If we say God is not a liar and has not faked the evidence, then we have to accept all the evidence. It is illogical to say He lied about some things and yet is truthful and worthy of trust.
I agree.
God did not lie.
Our ability to see stars that are millions of light years away is a necessary consequence of the rapid expansion of the universe during Creation Week.
Here's my argument.
And mods, I posted a new thread because Bob selectively ignores things. Figured he's more likely to respond if he's called out directly. Apologies.
And mods, I posted a new thread because Bob selectively ignores things. Figured he's more likely to respond if he's called out directly. Apologies.
We all ignore things. If I didn't ignore things on TOL I wouldn't have time to eat.
Get over yourself already.
Don't hold your breath.
Mr Jack
New member
Doesn't matter.
Would you mind explaining why? As far as I can tell if a star was traveling towards Earth then its light waves would be more frequent than a star not traveling towards Earth. After expansion we would see the same thing.
The "7,000 year horizon" would not exist just as no horizon exists for distant stars whose light has not yet reached Earth under mainstream cosmology.
The "7,000 year horizon" would not exist just as no horizon exists for distant stars whose light has not yet reached Earth under mainstream cosmology.
Blueshift is a measure of difference. One star that in moving towards Earth at a higher rate than another star will have more blueshift.
Expansion would expand all lightwaves by the same degree leaving the difference just as noticeable before and after.
No it doesn't. It simply assumes that the lightwaves we see were once packed into a much smaller piece of space. Same as BB theory.
Mr Jack
New member
You'd get a difference yet, swamped
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.