Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Doesn't the distance of stars disprove the young earth theory?
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4798 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 106 of 138 (575256)
08-19-2010 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Percy
08-14-2010 3:07 PM


Stars with a mass of more than twice our sun live less than a billion years.
Hi Percy,
Based on those numbers, how big would our sun have been 4.5 billions years ago?
IC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 08-14-2010 3:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2010 8:39 AM ICdesign has replied
 Message 109 by cavediver, posted 08-19-2010 8:48 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 110 by Apothecus, posted 08-19-2010 8:48 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 107 of 138 (575260)
08-19-2010 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by ICdesign
08-19-2010 8:27 AM


About the same size as it is today.
Here is a picture:
Yes, it says "not to scale", but that's only for the ones in the latter stages (red giant and later), whixh is why I suspect it is only on the right of the picture

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ICdesign, posted 08-19-2010 8:27 AM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ICdesign, posted 08-19-2010 8:06 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 108 of 138 (575263)
08-19-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Nuimshaan
08-18-2010 8:35 PM


Too much credit...
Hi Nuimshaan,
Distance between two objects is not a clear indicator of age.
You admit that though the stars are far away....whereever they are located....they are alive right NOW.
Looks like I gave you way too much credit in my first reply to you. I was apparently confused by your rambling post and attributed meaning to it where there was none. Silly me.
Evidently you're somehow of the notion that any star we see still exists. That's quite funny, as it is very possible many of those stars have in reality have gone nova or plain burned out at any time between their births and the present day. We just may not be close enough to witness these events yet...
Have a good one.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Nuimshaan, posted 08-18-2010 8:35 PM Nuimshaan has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 109 of 138 (575269)
08-19-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by ICdesign
08-19-2010 8:27 AM


Based on those numbers, how big would our sun have been 4.5 billions years ago?
Percy's numbers were not refering to the Sun so largely irrelevant. 4.5 billion years ago is a bit vague so could catch the Sun at various stages from enormous coalescing gas cloud to proto-star to early stages of the Sun proper. This covers a huge range of sizes. BUT the mass would have been the same (within a couple of %) at all stages including today, and it is mass that dictates the lifetime, not volume.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ICdesign, posted 08-19-2010 8:27 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 110 of 138 (575270)
08-19-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by ICdesign
08-19-2010 8:27 AM


Hi ICDesign,
Based on those numbers, how big would our sun have been 4.5 billions years ago?
I may be way off base on your point here, but you're not really planning to trot out a Hovind-esque "large sun" reverse extrapolation to explain why it's impossible that our solar system is as old as science says it is?
Are you?

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ICdesign, posted 08-19-2010 8:27 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4798 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 111 of 138 (575393)
08-19-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Huntard
08-19-2010 8:39 AM


Hi Huntard,
Could you please provide the link where you got this chart?
Thanks much,
IC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2010 8:39 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 08-19-2010 8:16 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 112 of 138 (575396)
08-19-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by ICdesign
08-19-2010 8:06 PM


Use peek
If you sue peek you can see the image is from wiki. I typed in solar life scycle and it sent me to Stellar evolution that shows the image.
Stellar evolution - Wikipedia
Simple really.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ICdesign, posted 08-19-2010 8:06 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 113 of 138 (575428)
08-20-2010 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by cavediver
08-13-2010 6:10 PM


Re: Hubble
The answer is about 46 billion light years in radius.
Are we limited to seeing only 13.5 billion light years due to a technical limitation? IE the resolution of our cameras.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 08-13-2010 6:10 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Huntard, posted 08-20-2010 2:17 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 115 by cavediver, posted 08-20-2010 4:24 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 114 of 138 (575436)
08-20-2010 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Dogmafood
08-20-2010 12:40 AM


Re: Hubble
Dogmafood writes:
Are we limited to seeing only 13.5 billion light years due to a technical limitation? IE the resolution of our cameras.
No, because of the age of the universe. You can't see things if the light hasn't reached you yet, and since the universe is 13.5 billion years old, you can't see more than 13.5 billion light years away. Of course, that what you see at 13.5 billion light years away is at the time you see it much farther away, since it took the light 13.5 billion years to reach us. That's why what you see now as being 13.5 billion light years away is at the time of seeing it actually 46 billion light years away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Dogmafood, posted 08-20-2010 12:40 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 115 of 138 (575458)
08-20-2010 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Dogmafood
08-20-2010 12:40 AM


Re: Hubble
Are we limited to seeing only 13.5 billion light years due to a technical limitation?
At the moment, we cannot see beyond the "surface of last scattering", which is the point when the Universe went from opaque to transparent. Before this time, the Universe was filled with a proton/electron plasma, hence photons had a very short mean free path. As the Universe cooled, the electrons and protons combined (hence "recombination")to form neutral hydrogen, and the photons were now free ("decoupled") to travel unhindered through the Universe - "vision" became possible. The first photons to fly free form the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). This occured 13.5 billion years ago, about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. This will always be the limit to our electromagnetic observations (visible, IR, UV, radio, X-ray, etc).
There was a much earlier decoupling when the Universe's density decreased to the point that neutrinos could suddenly travel freely. So there is an analagous Cosmic Neutrino Background Radiation there for the detection which will represent an observation of the Universe at a far earlier stage than the CMBR. But we're probably a few thousand year's of technology away from being able to meaure it!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Dogmafood, posted 08-20-2010 12:40 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Dogmafood, posted 08-21-2010 7:49 PM cavediver has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 116 of 138 (575933)
08-21-2010 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by cavediver
08-20-2010 4:24 AM


Re: Hubble
Sorry to dredge this up again, not sure where else to ask.
If our galaxy takes 250 million years to make one rotation and the universe is 13.5 billion years old does that mean the Milky Way has only made 54 revolutions? Surely not.
Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by cavediver, posted 08-20-2010 4:24 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 08-21-2010 7:53 PM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 120 by cavediver, posted 08-22-2010 5:16 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 117 of 138 (575934)
08-21-2010 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Dogmafood
08-21-2010 7:49 PM


Re: Hubble
What does the age of the universe have to do with the age of our galaxy?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Dogmafood, posted 08-21-2010 7:49 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Dogmafood, posted 08-21-2010 7:56 PM jar has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 118 of 138 (575935)
08-21-2010 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by jar
08-21-2010 7:53 PM


Re: Hubble
Pretty sure we can say that the universe showed up before the galaxy. What am I missing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 08-21-2010 7:53 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 08-21-2010 9:12 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 119 of 138 (575949)
08-21-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Dogmafood
08-21-2010 7:56 PM


Re: Hubble
Our galaxy itself seems to be rather old, maybe 13.2 billion years old, but the thin disk itself seems to be much younger.
This seems to indicate that the age and shape of the galaxy has changed over time and so it's likely that the rate of rotation has also changed over time. For example, some estimates I've seen show that the thin disk, where we are, may only be 7-10 billion years old. If that's true then the area where Earth is located my only have made about 30 trips around.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Dogmafood, posted 08-21-2010 7:56 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 120 of 138 (575973)
08-22-2010 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Dogmafood
08-21-2010 7:49 PM


Re: Hubble
Sorry to dredge this up again, not sure where else to ask.
No probklem at all.
If our galaxy takes 250 million years to make one rotation and the universe is 13.5 billion years old does that mean the Milky Way has only made 54 revolutions? Surely not.
Yep And as Jar pointed out, it's actually less! When you look at the Universe from the point of view of the galaxies, it is a very different place; it is almost on a human scale: it's age is several tens of "years" (rotations of the galaxies), and distances are typically very local - distance from one galaxy to the next is measured in a few diameters of a galaxy! For example, our sister galaxy, Andromeda, which is essentially the same size and type of galaxy as ours, is only a mere 20 diaimeters of the Milky Way away from us! And there are plenty of minor galaxies at smaller distances. If you could turn up the sensitivity of your eyes, you would see that Andromeda is as wide on the sky as four diameters of the moon!!
How about this?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Dogmafood, posted 08-21-2010 7:49 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by TribulationMMA, posted 11-24-2010 7:02 AM cavediver has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024