Agreed. But couldn't there could be thousands of different arrangements of stellar phenomena that would result in the same observible effect from earth? Just as there are thousands of arrangements of balls on a billiard table which, each played in a specific way, could result in the same resting positions?
How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
I'm not going to argue this, I suppose you could argue that it is an average of the most accurate measurements possible. If that's where you're going, fine. I thought you were thinking somewhere else when you said it's an "average".
I don't necessarily think you're misrepresenting Bob's proposal, I think your proposal is a bit different than his. In either case, the "stretching of the heavens" during creation week is what I was referring to.
I don't quite understand what you're saying here.
Why not? Why not take the simplest route to the desired end?
I still disagree with your dismissal of a universal constant to make the idea work. But I don't think our discussion will be very fruitful just going back and forth on this. Clearly we disagree as to what is acceptable reasoning.
But I'd like for you to address something about your scenario. How is your scenario any different from simply increasing the speed of light during creation week? Think about it for a moment. If, as you posit, all distances expanded proportionally, and all light expands proportionally, then there would be no noticeable change in the size of the universe or characteristics of the light coming from stars. And as size is a relative term (two objects must be compared for size to have meaning), it means nothing to say that the whole universe has increased in size proportionally. Really you've just increased the speed of light (because you hold that it travels at the same speed it does today).
It actually gets very hard to describe distance and speed under this scenario because all references to distance and speed require a frame of reference in the universe. When you say the "lightwaves traveled at the same speed they do today", it really doesn't mean anything. Speed is distance over time, or conventionally meters/second. If the distance we commonly call a meter is proportionally smaller in a pre-inflated universe, we wouldn't notice any change whatsoever. So if light traveled the same number of meters per second as it now does, then light would be proportionally slower. Unfortunately for our ponderings, a meter is now defined based on the speed of light. :dead: :dead:
Some other things would not change either. Like gravity for one..
How can we see light from distant stars in a Young universe?
Very simple. God lies to us. He can do anything. He has intentionally made a young universe look old so as to fool us. It is nothing compared to creating all those fossils of animals who never lived and putting them under layers of rock that appears to every test to have been laid down by sedimentation over millions of years. Clearly the creator of a young universe is a consumate liar and is utterly untrustworthy.
Very simple. God lies to us. He can do anything. He has intentionally made a young universe look old so as to fool us. It is nothing compared to creating all those fossils of animals who never lived and putting them under layers of rock that appears to every test to have been laid down by sedimentation over millions of years. Clearly the creator of a young universe is a consumate liar and is utterly untrustworthy.
, if you said as much about me I'd likely smack you. Guess you're fortunate that God is much more compassionate than I am 
Cricket
New member
Throwing him into hell is more compassionate?
No, I'm lucky, and indeed we are all very lucky that the creator of a young Universe is completely imaginary. ~00~
God is compassionate and honest, just, truthful and good, but He is not the creator of a young universe. He is a creator of a far more wonderful thing, an old and free universe.
The better image for God is not a potter forming things but a gardener growing the universe. He is tending the process He put in place. He has begun harvesting the early season fruits.
Mr Jack
New member
Put simply: no.
It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to construct a universe that appears to produce the observations that we see without actually being as it appears. And this statement becomes more and more true as we make more observations; and especially as we confirm further predictions. There's a margin of error on all of this, of course, larger at greater distances and small differences are quite likely but ones to the degree that it means our observations aren't meaningful without giving any indication of the difference? Bordering on the impossible.
Unfortunately the word "inflation" is used for two different eras (see Guth's diagram on page 146 of his groundbreaking book).
Guth proposed a period of extremely rapid inflationary expansion, followed by a period of much slower inflationary expansion which lasted until the present time.
When Mr. Jack refers to "inflation" he is apparently referring only to the extremely short period of extremely rapid inflationary expansion (10-33 seconds to achieve a 1025 increase in size).
My concept started at the same ending point of Guth's extremely rapid inflationary expansion, but assumed that the period of much slower inflationary expansion that followed was both slightly more rapid and hence much shorter than the conventional assumption (28 days versus 13.7 billion years).
I hope this clears up the misunderstandings over this matter.
Is there something important about the moment when the inflation rate slowed down according to Guth's theory?
Mr Jack
New member
Bob,
So are you saying now that the stars are created after the 10^-33 seconds, and before the second expansion? Is that it?
So what? Your model still predicts that the light we see from stars has undergone vastly more expansion than is derived from observation.
(And how do you do the superscripts in your post?)
So are you saying now that the stars are created after the 10^-33 seconds, and before the second expansion? Is that it?
So what? Your model still predicts that the light we see from stars has undergone vastly more expansion than is derived from observation.
(And how do you do the superscripts in your post?)
Mr Jack
New member
TaMuchly
Nah, delaying throwing him into hell, to give him more opportunity to avoid it altogether, is though.
You brought it up. I was being light hearted.
Cool. I'll defer to your expertise on the matter. It's good to know that our astronomers have so much confidence
Cool imagery. You might be right, but I sure do enjoy these discussions that test the conventionally held views, and investigate whether it could have all happened 10,000 years and 7 days ago.
No, that is not it and never has been.
My assumption has always been that any particular star was formed during the second expansion at the same metric expansion as Guth's theory. This was shown superimposed on Guth's page 146 diagram as a straight line of slightly greater slope which reached the current size of the ubiverse in 28 hours instead of 13.7 billion years and then stopped. Guth's theory assumes that the expansion is continuing.
Thus the only light reaching us today that has not been expanded (no expansion Red Shift) wou;d be within 6000 light years distance. away.
Scientists seem to have erred in assuming that the expansion is continuing, and hence have assumed a less steep expansion rate than I have assumed.
As I have mentioned before, the Red Shift tells us the amount of the expansion, not its rate, and since the amount of expansion is the same in both cases for any particular star, the amount of its Red Shift will be the same for both cases.
The bottom line is that God was not deceptive when He created the universe.
Human beings simple screwed up by assuming that the expansion of the universe is continuing today and did not cease 6000 years ago sometime during Creation Week.
Last edited:
Mr Jack
New member
So, when, bob, when? When exactly where the stars formed?
Again you state this, again you are wrong.
Take a star just 12,000 light years away, according to your notion the space between that star and us must have been expanded to at least twice it's original length (halving the frequency). THAT IS VASTLY MORE THAN THE SCIENTIFIC MODEL STATES. Red Shifts on that level are not observed anywhere in the universe and, in fact, the red shift of a star at 12,000 light years is composed almost entirely of velocity effects rather than expansion effects.
Your statement that the light has undergone the same expansion under your notion is completely wrong. If it were correct we couldn't see the light.
I will repeat showing Guth's diagram on page 146 of his book with my slightly greater expansion rate superimposed.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11907&d=1194542123
Note several things here:
1) Guth's diagram refers to both phases ( rapid and slower) as "inflation",
2) My theory starts at the same point where Guth's 2nd phase does,
3) My expansion theory reaches the present size of the universe after 28 hours (100,000 seconds),
4) My theory assumes that the expansion then stops.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11907&d=1194542123
Note several things here:
1) Guth's diagram refers to both phases ( rapid and slower) as "inflation",
2) My theory starts at the same point where Guth's 2nd phase does,
3) My expansion theory reaches the present size of the universe after 28 hours (100,000 seconds),
4) My theory assumes that the expansion then stops.