Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stars and a 6000 year old universe.
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 28 (220233)
06-27-2005 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
06-27-2005 1:26 PM


Julien Barbour as well as a number of other leading physicists suggest that time and maybe even space are illusionary. When you use the term lightyear it involves time. But if time isn't what we think it is, all of our measurements of time and distance become meaningless. (I think ). From what I read it often seems that the more that is learned, the more we learn how much we don't know.
I'm not trying to argue here for YEC I'm just saying that it seems to me that there aren't easy clear cut answers.
This is Julien Barbour's web site with is hypothesis on time.
Julian Barbour
This message has been edited by GDR, 06-27-2005 09:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 06-27-2005 1:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 06-27-2005 9:28 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2005 9:35 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 28 (220270)
06-27-2005 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
06-27-2005 9:35 PM


Coragyps writes:
That may be part of why astronomers don't use "light year" much, but prefer parsec. That unit is based on plain ol' trigonometry.
We had a discussion about this on another thread, and as near as I can tell there are problems with triangulation as well because we can't measure with certainty how much light is being bent by gravity in 4 dimensional space. How can you measure distances with trigonometry when you don't have straight lines and you can't be certain of just how curved the sides of the triangle are?
I only have the vaguest of ideas what I'm talking about here, so please be gentle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2005 9:35 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2005 11:09 PM GDR has replied
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 06-28-2005 2:17 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 12 of 28 (220298)
06-28-2005 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coragyps
06-27-2005 11:09 PM


Coragyps writes:
The closer stars, Sirius for example, don't have any real opportunity for much of anything massive to be between them and us. And they also move over time relative to background stars (and us): only if some unseen mass moved along with them would the parallax - the triangle - stay warped the same way. And then we have thousands of parallaxes on stars out to 100 parsecs or so, and 1) members of clusters have very similar "triangles" and 2) stars whose spectra show them to be very similar are appropriately bright for their trigonometric distances. It would take a very devious gravitational field to make that happen all over the sky.
Is it possible that dark matter could form this devious gravitational field?
I guess my thinking goes something like this. I started reading various books. Hawking, Geeene, Schroeder and a couple of others. Basically I found that virtually nothing that I assumed about matter and the universe were what I had thought. Time isn't a constant, matter is really all about energy, everything is not only atoms but all atoms are particles, particles behave incredibly strangely, this whole universe is maybe a brane or a matrix or a hologram, and so on.
With all these various observations and theories, including again the theory that space and time are illusionary, it just seems to me that maybe all of these measurements that we make in space aren't what they seem either.
I realize that there are no answers to this but I get the feeling that for those who really do understand astro physics that it is likely even more confusing because it appears to me that there aren't any absolutes anymore.
Sorry I got off on a tangent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2005 11:09 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024