How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

[Mr Jack]

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 many times does this have to be explained to you, Stipe? How many times?

Under bob's notion the light from stars has undergone vastly more inflation than under the scientific model. This is because under the scientific model the inflationary period occurs before the formation of stars whereas as in bob's notion the inflation occurs after the creation of stars.

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?

Your scenario is categorically not based on what we see. Name a single observational piece of support for your position. One, just one, that supports it.

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

From Wikipedia: "In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation is the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density." Note the final part of that sentence: in the Scientific theory there is a mechanism for how expansion occurs; in yours it is simply "God stretched out the heavens".

But that wasn't the miracle I was referring to. Yours requires special small planets that emit weird blue shifted light in a manner that varies according to their distance from the Earth in order to avoid the fact that if your stars operate according to anything approaching conventional physics bob's notion is directly contradicted by the evidence.

 

[Stripe]

Under bob's notion the light from stars has undergone vastly more inflation than under the scientific model.

This only changes the necessary starting conditions. Just because we assume a different set of starting conditions does not falsify the idea.

This is because under the scientific model the inflationary period occurs before the formation of stars whereas as in bob's notion the inflation occurs after the creation of stars.

I take it this is concession that my ideas reflect accurately what Bob was proposing...?

Your scenario is categorically not based on what we see.

It is based on what we see. We simply disagree on the means by which we got here.

Name a single observational piece of support for your position. One, just one, that supports it.

To support a theory of how things were, but are not now, requires observations that agree with the idea from outside sources. So observational evidence that inflation happened recently and quickly rather than a long time ago and slowly means finding evidence that the universe is young. One cannot use starlight to show this when the assumption of how and when starlight got here is what we are trying to prove.

So evidence to support this theory would come from other sources like the distribution of elements and structures in space, the age of the Earth, solar system .. things like that. I'm sure you'll agree all reasons to start other threads.

I believe the point of this thread is to establish the validity of an alternative to the old-age-expansion idea. It is always valid to propose a new idea that can be used to make prediction in other fields.

What observations do you have to show that inflation happened mostly a long time ago and before stars formed?

From Wikipedia: "In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation is the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density." Note the final part of that sentence: in the Scientific theory there is a mechanism for how expansion occurs; in yours it is simply "God stretched out the heavens".

Well, not to be rude, but a "negative-pressure vacuum energy density" used to describe the early universe's actions sounds about as descriptive as "God did it". What evidence do you have to support your idea?

But that wasn't the miracle I was referring to. Yours requires special small planets that emit weird blue shifted light in a manner that varies according to their distance from the Earth in order to avoid the fact that if your stars operate according to anything approaching conventional physics bob's notion is directly contradicted by the evidence.

Sentence too long. Does not compute.

Trying ...

I do not believe Bob's proposal requires specially determined blue shifted stars. I believe it requires everything in the same relative position and velocities as it was just after expansion. Then I believe expansion converted all those velocities, masses and associated lightwaves into today's situation.

 

[Stripe]

Just for interest's sake

 

[colin73]

Looking at starlight as it arrives to earth, and deducing the location of the originating star is like trying to determine where LA is by looking at a train pulling into Seattle.

 

[SUTG]

Looking at starlight as it arrives to earth, and deducing the location of the originating star is like trying to determine where LA is by looking at a train pulling into Seattle.

Not at all. Starlight doesn't behave any differently than any other kind of light.

 

[Mr Jack]

Looking at starlight as it arrives to earth, and deducing the location of the originating star is like trying to determine where LA is by looking at a train pulling into Seattle.

Why? Please be specific.

Why doesn't geometry work?

 

[Stripe]

Not at all. Starlight doesn't behave any differently than any other kind of light.

Colin. I agree with SUTG. There are some things that we can be fairly certain of. Distance and position are two of those things.

 

[Mr Jack]

This only changes the necessary starting conditions. Just because we assume a different set of starting conditions does not falsify the idea.

IT CHANGES THE AMOUNT OF INFLATION AND THUS THE AMOUNT OF RED SHIFT. THE DEGREE OF REDSHIFT MEASURED IN THE REAL WORLD MATCHES WITH THE SCIENTIFIC MODEL AND NOT WITH BOB'S.

And, once again, you're the only one assuming (actually plain making up). The scientific model is derived from observation.

I take it this is concession that my ideas reflect accurately what Bob was proposing...?

Yes. I'd missed that part of bob's notion. It just makes it sillier.

It is based on what we see. We simply disagree on the means by which we got here.

It is not based on what we see. At no point has bob reasoned from observational evidence to his notion; if he had he could not have come up with his notion as it is contradicted by observation.

To support a theory of how things were, but are not now, requires observations that agree with the idea from outside sources. So observational evidence that inflation happened recently and quickly rather than a long time ago and slowly means finding evidence that the universe is young. One cannot use starlight to show this when the assumption of how and when starlight got here is what we are trying to prove.

There is not a single assumption about age involved in the Big Bang theory; all statements about the age of the universe are derived from, and supported by, observation. The total failure of your notion to be able to provide this speaks volumes about it.

What observations do you have to show that inflation happened mostly a long time ago and before stars formed?

All of them. Frankly I'm not going to get involved in discussing the evidence for the Big Bang in this thread. Instead you can stick to defending your idea.

Well, not to be rude, but a "negative-pressure vacuum energy density" used to describe the early universe's actions sounds about as descriptive as "God did it".

Your lack of understanding of science says nothing about its level of description.

I do not believe Bob's proposal requires specially determined blue shifted stars.

Yes it does. Because Bob's notion requires vastly more expansion of the light we see than the scientific model, the light we see should be vastly red shifted. It isn't. The only possible way that bob's notion can be correct and match observation is if the pre-inflationary stars emitted light of much, much higher wavelength (blue shifted) - in a specific way that matches the observed spectral patterns - so that when red shifted by the inflation it gets converted to match the light we see.

I believe it requires everything in the same relative position and velocities as it was just after expansion. Then I believe expansion converted all those velocities, masses and associated light waves into today's situation.

Which requires fudging on a massive scale. Each star needs to blue shift its output - as discussed above - but the degree of blue shifting required will depend on the distance from the Earth.

Not only that but since we can observe many, many other features of stars and spectral objects and each of these has to be carefully fine tuned to match the observed values when red shifted by expansion.

 

[colin73]

Why? Please be specific.

Why doesn't geometry work?

Geometry works fine, in a closed system in which all factors are known.

The point I was trying to illustrate is that in such an infathomable distance as the ones we're describing, you can't imagine all the wonderful things that poor ol beam of light has had to endure on its way to earth.

As I understand it (help me out) there are three things that can affect the shift in light:
- stretching/compressing of the light in transit
- relative velocity of the source of the light
- gravitational forces that the light comes in contact with

Now, if light affected by any one of these three, or a combination, is observibly indistinguishable, how can anyone suppose to know what the cause of a particular shift is?

 

[Mr Jack]

As I understand it (help me out) there are three things that can affect the shift in light:
- stretching/compressing of the light in transit
- relative velocity of the source of the light
- gravitational forces that the light comes in contact with

Now, if light affected by any one of these three, or a combination, is observibly indistinguishable, how can anyone suppose to know what the cause of a particular shift is?

What makes you think these would be observationally indistinguishable?

 

[Stripe]

IT CHANGES THE AMOUNT OF INFLATION AND THUS THE AMOUNT OF RED SHIFT. THE DEGREE OF REDSHIFT MEASURED IN THE REAL WORLD MATCHES WITH THE SCIENTIFIC MODEL AND NOT WITH BOB'S.

Redshift is a measure of how much different a wavelength is from a standard or an average. You have yet to show me how that average would not be affected by an inflationary event.

If the universe expanded to double it's current size overnight what differences would we see. When would we see them? Assume, of course, that we survived the event

And, once again, you're the only one assuming (actually plain making up). The scientific model is derived from observation.

No, I'm certain there are assumptions necessary in order to arrive at a BB conclusion.

Yes. I'd missed that part of bob's notion. It just makes it sillier.

Possibly. But it also shows you did not understand what you were arguing against yet you were absolutely certain it was wrong.

It is not based on what we see. At no point has bob reasoned from observational evidence to his notion; if he had he could not have come up with his notion as it is contradicted by observation.

What observations?

There is not a single assumption about age involved in the Big Bang theory; all statements about the age of the universe are derived from, and supported by, observation.

I don't believe you.

The total failure of your notion to be able to provide this speaks volumes about it.

I've explained that to use the theory to show evidence for the theory is a flawed practice. Observational evidence would have to come from other areas of study. Those would be other threads.

All of them. Frankly I'm not going to get involved in discussing the evidence for the Big Bang in this thread. Instead you can stick to defending your idea.

How can I defend what is not being questioned?

Your lack of understanding of science says nothing about its level of description.

That was something of a joke, sir! If you could explain what a negative density somethingorother means in the context of a tiny inflating universe without making any assumptions then I would be in your debt. I'm certain any such evidence could be equally valid to Bob's theory.

Yes it does. Because Bob's notion requires vastly more expansion of the light we see than the scientific model, the light we see should be vastly red shifted. It isn't. The only possible way that bob's notion can be correct and match observation is if the pre-inflationary stars emitted light of much, much higher wavelength

That is the idea.

(blue shifted)

But they would not be blue shifted unless you compared them against light we see today.

- in a specific way that matches the observed spectral patterns - so that when red shifted by the inflation it gets converted to match the light we see.

Yes. Lightwaves in an uninflated state were inflated to the state they are in today. That is the idea.

Which requires fudging on a massive scale. Each star needs to blue shift its output - as discussed above - but the degree of blue shifting required will depend on the distance from the Earth.

Those degrees we see today correlate to relative distances within the uninflated universe.

Not only that but since we can observe many, many other features of stars and spectral objects and each of these has to be carefully fine tuned to match the observed values when red shifted by expansion.

No. those conditions only need to have existed in the early universe in an uninflated state.

 

[colin73]

What makes you think these would be observationally indistinguishable?

if you observe a light wave affected by any of these, what property is affected other than the wavelength? If they can all affect the same changes, then theyre indistinguishable. What would you use to distinguish?

 

[Stripe]

If you observe a light wave affected by any of these, what property is affected other than the wavelength? If they can all affect the same changes, then they're indistinguishable. What would you use to distinguish?

I've heard that gravity affects redshift though I can't immediately realise why.

Velocity affects redshift.

Expansion of the universe affects redshift as a function of distance from Earth.

I would guess the work has been done to remove the influences from the data as much as possible.

The only influence that could be removed without assuming too much would be the gravitational effects. We could look at what was between the star and Earth and estimate the gravitational influence lumps of matter assert between the observer and the target.

Once we assume a theory on universal expansion a constant could be applied to level out the data to a point where the velocities of stars could be accurately estimated.

That would be all that could be done by looking only at shifts in wavelength unless I've missed something.. what other data can be gleaned from starlight?

 

[Johnny]

Redshift is a measure of how much different a wavelength is from a standard or an average. You have yet to show me how that average would not be affected by an inflationary event.

It's not an average. It's a measured constant value. Just like half-life, just like the speed of light, just like the gravitational constant, etc. It's a measured constant.

You're a smart cookie, there is no reason in the world you should struggle with this concept other than the fact that it results in the invalidation of Bob's idea. If you want to change around constants to make an idea work, then by all means. But again, be upfront about the fact that you're altering universal constants.

If you're going to take that route, you might as well argue that the speed of light used to be faster, and that atomic half-lives used to be shorter, etc. Pick an idea you like. Find out which universal constant makes it impossible. Disregard constant.

And stipe, it's not anyone's job to show how the "standard" would not be affected, it's your job to show how it would be. You're making the positive claim. Don't shift the burden of proof.

 

[Mr Jack]

if you observe a light wave affected by any of these, what property is affected other than the wavelength? If they can all affect the same changes, then theyre indistinguishable. What would you use to distinguish?

As just one example, Gravitational effects produce lensing, because we're looking at light sources rather than a single beam of light, any gravitational effect can be detected and, indeed, we have detected such lensing effects.

And you're not just talking about any old light; you're talking about light from stars. Stars have a distinct set of properties. And it's not just a matter of wavelengths there are - often the most significant factor is what wavelengths there aren't.

 

[Mr Jack]

Redshift is a measure of how much different a wavelength is from a standard or an average. You have yet to show me how that average would not be affected by an inflationary event.

Wrong. There's no average. Redshift measures the difference from the properties of matter observable in the laboratory. A difference requires radical and selective changing of the laws of physics, carefully constructed that at no distance is it detectable. In other words; it requires massive deception.

If the universe expanded to double it's current size overnight what differences would we see. When would we see them? Assume, of course, that we survived the event

I answered this question before.

No, I'm certain there are assumptions necessary in order to arrive at a BB conclusion.

Assumptions, your only resort. Never mind you can never actually find these assumptions or demonstrate anything unreasonable about them. Science does rest on assumptions, this is true, it does assume a real world.

Possibly. But it also shows you did not understand what you were arguing against yet you were absolutely certain it was wrong.

The stupid, poorly specified "details" of a stupid notion are hardly relevant; and it makes no difference to a single argument I've made.

What observations?

How many times? RED SHIFT alone disproves it. Every other observation about stars merely makes it unlikely. I rather suspect the CMB also disproves it but I've not done any maths on it.

I don't believe you.

That's nice. Not believing me doesn't make you right though. Tell you what, Stipe, why don't you find such an assumption rather than simply sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la, la, la, la". Oh, and while you're at come up with some kind of coherant explanation of how the history of age estimates for the universe makes any sense if such assumptions are involved.

I've explained that to use the theory to show evidence for the theory is a flawed practice. Observational evidence would have to come from other areas of study. Those would be other threads.

You're wrong. Explaining wrong ideas again, doesn't make them less wrong.

No. those conditions only need to have existed in the early universe in an uninflated state.

Uh huh. And that makes what I said incorrect how? You're notion requires massive fakery. It's a fraud.

 

[Stripe]

It's not an average. It's a measured constant value. Just like half-life, just like the speed of light, just like the gravitational constant, etc. It's a measured constant.

Right. A value that doesn't change, but one that has to be measured accurately. So depending on how you are going to approach the issue one could say it is a constant or it is an average.

You're a smart cookie, there is no reason in the world you should struggle with this concept other than the fact that it results in the invalidation of Bob's idea.

Is this another concession that I have not misrepresented Bob's proposal?

If you want to change around constants to make an idea work, then by all means. But again, be upfront about the fact that you're altering universal constants.

I find it hard to believe that the popular theory, which claims to not understand what physics meant at the time, cannot be charged with exactly the same crime. If the universe inflates then it affects many things about the universe.

If you're going to take that route, you might as well argue that the speed of light used to be faster, and that atomic half-lives used to be shorter, etc. Pick an idea you like. Find out which universal constant makes it impossible. Disregard constant.

Well, I suppose I could do that. But I'm not.

And stipe, it's not anyone's job to show how the "standard" would not be affected, it's your job to show how it would be. You're making the positive claim. Don't shift the burden of proof.

The universe and everything in it expanded. Before it expanded lightwaves traveled at the same speed they do today. The distances between objects was much less. The distance between wave peaks of light was also much less. After inflation the distances between objects and the distances between wave peaks both grew at the same rates. The speed of light remained the same.

Thus the constant in question - the value from which red and blueshifts are derived - grew. The red and blueshift values all grew as well (though the relationship is an exponential function).

This isn't proof. This is the theory as I understand it.

 

[colin73]

As just one example, Gravitational effects produce lensing, because we're looking at light sources rather than a single beam of light, any gravitational effect can be detected and, indeed, we have detected such lensing effects.

But astronomy is a pretty hands-off science isn't it. We can't exactly go out and find out if the effect that we 'guess' is because of gravity really is, because it all happens too far away. It's like if chemists had to do chemistry by being handed 1000 test tubes containing the results of 1000 experiments, and try to guess what the experiments were.

 

[whatisaspirit]

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.

lol so the universe banged about 6,000 years ago? You're a new inspiration for the fun in reading about science fiction.

 

[Mr Jack]

But astronomy is a pretty hands-off science isn't it. We can't exactly go out and find out if the effect that we 'guess' is because of gravity really is, because it all happens too far away. It's like if chemists had to do chemistry by being handed 1000 test tubes containing the results of 1000 experiments, and try to guess what the experiments were.

It could be that the universe suddenly stops working the same way roughly a light year from earth while mysteriously appearing to work in exactly the same way at all distances we can see but it's not a very coherant idea, is it?