How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

[Johnny]

Expansion hit all things at the same time under Bob's proposal. So two stars before the expansion would have their own velocities. Those velocities would be retained after expansion. This could explain their different redshifts.

Under Bob's proposal, then, there should be no blueshifted stars after 7000+ light years, right? Because the new light hasn't reached earth, and the old light is stretched...

 

[Johnny]

I am beginning to get annoyed with a person who just answers "wrong" without giving any reasons or support for saying it.

Perhaps then you understand how the rest of us feel with your deliberate efforts to avoid (a) showing any math, (b) presenting any current observations that exclusively support your model, (c) presenting any specific unique predictions of your model, (d) responding extensively, clearly, and directly to any criticisms of your model, (e) explaining any details whatsoever of your model, including how the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces were affected by such an expansion, how mass interacted with other masses in a condensed universe, etc. No details at all. Just a few ambiguous statements about how the universe "expanded" in the 7 days of genesis, and POOF, problem solved. Trust me, I've been trying to dig out what you're actually arguing for several months now, and I still have a ton of questions.

I also notice you've dropped the "if the universe inflated one more picosecond" idea. Now it's an expansion over a seven day period? Why?

 

[Stripe]

Uniform expansion?

Both the Big Bang and my concept assume exponential expansion.

By uniform expansion I mean that every point in space was affected in the same manner. Or even if some areas expanded more or faster then there would have been a pattern to it.

Does exponential expansion require that more distant stars have a greater redshift?

 

[Stripe]

Under Bob's proposal, then, there should be no blueshifted stars after 7000+ light years, right? Because the new light hasn't reached earth, and the old light is stretched...

No. Under Bob's proposal all the stars in existence will have light reaching Earth. In the beginning God made the heavens and the Earth. He made them all within a confined area and the expanded them to their current size. In the time that all the stars were close to Earth (unexpanded) their light reached Earth with highly compressed light waves. After expansion all those waves were stretched in a uniform(?) and exponential manner.

I would assume that a hypothetical observer who could survive expansion would notice no difference in redshift before during and after the creation event.

So my question was about redshifts and how they have changed. I'm not sure how this works which is why I asked. Do stars further away from EArth suffer more redshifting than those closer? Do stars generally show an increasing redshift that correlates to distance from Earth?

Might the Earth be the center of the expansion?

 

[Caacrinolass]

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.

BTW, my concept, based on scripture, also explains the conventional dilemma of how the great groups of galaxies such as the Great Wall could have formed, because their current velocities are insufficient to have generated such huge structures in a 13.7 billion year old universe.

But in a week old universe things were closer together in the beginning and the dilemma disappears.

My theory is that the big bang never happened and that the universe was always expanding and will always be expanding. So that means space is always increasing in size meaning almost all stars that Earth can see will be in the redshift.

 

[Johnny]

No. Under Bob's proposal all the stars in existence will have light reaching Earth. In the beginning God made the heavens and the Earth. He made them all within a confined area and the expanded them to their current size. In the time that all the stars were close to Earth (unexpanded) their light reached Earth with highly compressed light waves. After expansion all those waves were stretched in a uniform(?) and exponential manner.

Exactly. And if all light was expanded, there should be no blueshifted light from the expansion at all. So for stars where we're still viewing expanded light (as opposed to recently emitted light), there should be no blueshift. Understand what I'm saying?

 

[Supremum]

Does exponential expansion require that more distant stars have a greater redshift?

Do tell, bob. This is the perfect opportunity for you to show that your model predicts data(at all,) that you understand elementary science and mathematics(in this case, elementary differential equations,) and that you do not just throw out "scientific buzzwords" like exponential expansion without having any clue what they mean.

 

[Mr Jack]

Before he tries again, maybe you could make an actual argument for the first time?

When bob does; I'll extend him the same courtesy. While he continues to peddle unsupported nonsense after it's been demonstrated that his silly ideas contradict the facts I don't really think it's worth it.

 

[Stripe]

Exactly. And if all light was expanded, there should be no blueshifted light from the expansion at all. So for stars where we're still viewing expanded light (as opposed to recently emitted light), there should be no blueshift. Understand what I'm saying?

Blue or redshift can be a function of things other than expansion, but I'm guessing that you are correct. There should be no blueshifted light from the expansion. Unless expansion was not centered on Earth.

Can universal expansion be centered?

 

[bob b]

Blue or redshift can be a function of things other than expansion, but I'm guessing that you are correct. There should be no blueshifted light from the expansion.

Yes, but this is no different than what the Big Bang assumes.

Once again I emphasize that Red Shift is a function of how much expansion occurred not the rate of expansion.

Johnny seems to have been confused by my statement that the expansion was fully completed by the time light reached our telescopes. This does not mean that the light from all galaxies was expanded by the same amount. When the universe was smaller the galaxies were still separated from one another. The difference today is that the separations are much larger, just as the galaxies themselves are much larger.

 

[Jackson]

How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

With our eye's? :wave2:


Sorry couldn't resist...

 

[Granite]

The ignorance is stupefying. Truly stupefying. I am a lesser person for having read this painful, ghastly OP.:doh:

Shame on me.

 

[Vaquero45]

When bob does; I'll extend him the same courtesy. While he continues to peddle unsupported nonsense after it's been demonstrated that his silly ideas contradict the facts I don't really think it's worth it.

Try again.

 

[Freedomcry]

Ohhh!!!! I love pseudo-science. :crackup:

This question keeps coming up so I guess I should present my theory.

It is not widely known that one must apply a correction factor to determine how far light travelled from a distant star.

The reason is that when a light photon was first emitted the star was not as far away as it is now when the light photon reaches the Earth and the astronomer's telescope.

So the question then becomes: how much expansion occurred between the time the photon was emitted and when it reached the Earth?

The correction factor depends on how fast the expansion occurred or is occurring (if it is still occurring).

If we assume that the Genesis creation account is correct then the expansion took less than a week. This compares to the usual assumption made by astronomers that the expansion has taken 13.7 billion years and is still continuing.

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.

This means that photons from the newly created stars could easily reach the Earth without exceeding the speed of light. However, by the time that they do reach the Earth the universe has been fully expanded to its present size.

This expansion of the light wave of photons connecting the star and the Earth shows up as the Red Shift, because the wave length of photons has been stretched out along with all other physical objects in the universe.

So God did not have to do anything special to allow us to see distant stars in a young universe. All it took was for Him to "spread out the heavens" as it says He did so many times in scripture.

Wow. There's so many wonderful points to talk about. But lets start out with a simple issue:

What is to be said of the gravitational side-effects of moving hundreds of billions of galaxies billions of light years within the span of one week?

And a follow up question: Assume those galaxies were able to attain the velocities needed to move billions of light years within a single week, what is going to slow them down?

A side note: Whether we talk about a single week, or 6000 years is of no matter. When taking into account the vast distance that is 13 billion light years, the difference between 7 days and 6000 years becomes negligible.

 

[Jukia]

Ohhh!!!! I love pseudo-science. :crackup:



Wow. There's so many wonderful points to talk about. But lets start out with a simple issue:

What is to be said of the gravitational side-effects of moving hundreds of billions of galaxies billions of light years within the span of one week?

And a follow up question: Assume those galaxies were able to attain the velocities needed to move billions of light years within a single week, what is going to slow them down?

A side note: Whether we talk about a single week, or 6000 years is of no matter. When taking into account the vast distance that is 13 billion light years, the difference between 7 days and 6000 years becomes negligible.

It is really very simple. Your choices are "Goddidit" or "And then a miracle happened"

Please note that the person who posted earlier mentioning differential equations is only trying to cause trouble.

 

[Freedomcry]

The ignorance is stupefying. Truly stupefying. I am a lesser person for having read this painful, ghastly OP.:doh:

Shame on me.

I think the following video sums up my thoughts about the OP.

I'm with stupid

 

[Freedomcry]

It is really very simple. Your choices are "Goddidit" or "And then a miracle happened"

I don't know who told you, but you are right! The correct answers to my questions about are "Goddidit" and "And then a miracle happened". Congratulations! :second:

 

[fourcheeze]

Unfortunately a lot of Christians who grew up with having the start of Genesis taught to them as factual truth get a bit thrown when they are faced with the facts. They then often go on to make up these strange theories and in doing so manufacture a God in their own image.

I don't see any harm in saying that Genesis 1-11 are stories told by Israel to try to explain what they saw around them. Given that they didn't have telescopes or atomic clocks or particle accelerators, they did a fair job, but it was a guess really.

 

[bob b]

Unfortunately a lot of Christians who grew up with having the start of Genesis taught to them as factual truth get a bit thrown when they are faced with the facts. They then often go on to make up these strange theories and in doing so manufacture a God in their own image.

I don't see any harm in saying that Genesis 1-11 are stories told by Israel to try to explain what they saw around them. Given that they didn't have telescopes or atomic clocks or particle accelerators, they did a fair job, but it was a guess really.

There is some internal evidence in the Genesis stories that they were written by eyewitnesses to the accounts they describe.

Moses, being a prince of Egypt, would have had access to documents in the Egyptian archives and hence may have compiled these accounts into a single document we now call the Book Of Genesis.

The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship.
http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html

 

[fourcheeze]

Moses, being a prince of Egypt, would have had access to documents in the Egyptian archives and hence may have compiled these accounts into a single document we now call the Book Of Genesis.

Problem: Moses is only "traditionally" the author of Genesis, most scholars date its writing in stages over a 500 year period from 1000 to 500 BC.