Doesn't the distance of stars disprove the young earth theory?

Before i post anything i just want to let everyone know. This is my first post.
With the Big Bang theory, when all the matter first exploded, it would have to obviously be very close to each other. Now with the stars being relatively close to each other at one point the light given from any certain star could have been seen from any planet or star. In the Big Bang did the matter travel faster than the speed of light to where we cannot see the stars now? If the stars/planets did move faster than the speed of light then how are we seeing any stars or other planets now, because they would still be moving that quickly.Just a disclaimer while reading this forum I just wondered if that was possible or not? This could have already been explained and if so I apologize.

Welcome Well, there were no stars at the Big Bang, but even if there were, this is not correct. Two "stars" expanding away from each other would be out of causal contact with each other. You can say that they were travelling faster than the speed of light away from each other, which is sort of true, but please appreciate that it is a "sort of".However, two "stars" expanding in roughly the same direction would not be out of causal contact with each other in the moments after the Big Bang, although this would happen later through inflation - unless they were very very very very very very much expanding in the same direction, in which case they could be still be in causal contact after inflation. These "stars" would be part of what makes up our Observable Universe.

Just to focus on Cavediver's point.There were no stars right after the big bang. First generation stars could only start to form after at least 400,000 years after the big bang.They kind of had to wait for the universe to cool so that hydrogen could condense and clump up due to gravity to be born.

It makes my head hurt to think about this, but would there ever have been two stars 'expanding' in roughly the same direction? After all, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, but was instead an initial high rate expansion of space. All points in space were expanding away from every other point in space. It might be that two relatively close stars might actually be moving towards each other, but that motion is not due to the Big Bang expansion of space.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It's worth the headache because you are quite right! Every point would have been expanding away from every other point. What I am doing is talking about how this would look on a space-time diagram, where the individual light-cones of neighbouring points would be roughly pointing in the same direction, where-as separated points would have their light-cones pointing in very different directions.I'm obviously out of practice with this pedagogical stuff, as that is very sloppy of me!

Happy American Thanksgiving day everyone. Even those of you who continue in the err of living somewhere else. In the context of NoNukes' comments even this clarification puts a picture of a radial event into my head. Could you be a bit pedagogical and elaborate on the difference between light cones and space points? Thank you, cavediver; you're one of the things I'm thankful for.

---

Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.

I know... crap, isn't it? Ok, I'll try... take the classic balloon analogy. As the balloon inflates, space expands, all points move away from each other. Place arrows on a selection of points of interest, such that they are perpendicular to the surface of the balloon - so pointing in the outward radial direction. These are the individual time directions of the inidvidual points. So here is the "real" radial picture - but only apparent in space-time rather than space.So you can see that time-directions of adjacent points diverge slowly, so keeping in causal contact for some time, where-as time directions of separated points are highly divergent and may never have been in causal contact. This gives rise to the "horizon problem", which is solved by Inflation.To get the light-cones, just make little paper cones and place them so that the apex of the cone is on the point and the arrow forms the axis of the cone.

Hi TribulationMMA,I think others have actually answered your question. I just wanted to address a few things I saw in your question that might be causing you to misunderstand the science underlying the Big Bang theory.

quote:

---

With the Big Bang theory, when all the matter first exploded, it would have to obviously be very close to each other.

---

The Bang was not an explosion. So there was no matter explosion which hurled stars away from each other. Instead, the big bang was a period of rapid expansion of space. During that period, the rate of expansion of some points in space might well have been greater than the speed of light, but matter was not actually traversing space faster than the speed of light.

quote:

---

In the Big Bang did the matter travel faster than the speed of light to where we cannot see the stars now?

---

No, for the reasons given above.

quote:

---

If the stars/planets did move faster than the speed of light then how are we seeing any stars or other planets now, because they would still be moving that quickly.

---

I think cavediver's ballon analogy is the best way to picture things. In nearby regions of space, the expansion rate is not significant. It's certainly not appreciable within our galaxy. I think that means we can forget about the effect on any planets we can see or detect, and likely on any individual stars we can see other that weird things that emit enormous amounts of lignt such as supernovae.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's excellent. I can easily see how two points' future cones can be non-contacting while their past cones were contacting; horizons. I don't know why this model hasn't occurred to me before. I'm going to think on it and see if I can develop a dynamic, thought model.As always, you rock.

---

Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.

Don't forget that in using the balloon analogy, I am presupposing a closed Universe - something that doesn't look particularly likely now. But if you just consider part of the balloon's curved surface, and imagine it curving away into infinite distance in all directions, then you have a more likely scenario and it doesn't change anything that I've talked about. Well, strictly speaking, last night I was post-rock, as I was at an Engineers gig in Southampton. But Tuesday night was Paul Weller in Brighton, and I most certainly did rock

Is there an established theory (rather than the one I've just made up) that assumes God's ability to manipulate time?It seems to me that if God had a viewpoint outside the laws of physics, he could cause the big bang and accelerate time (or go to sleep), place Earth at the point in time and space he chose, sleep some more, then place Adam and Eve at a suitable point in time.Essentially, God's days are as long or short as he chooses them to be, depending on how much he has to do (like Santa on Christmas eve).Think of a cooking program where they are showing you how to make a roast. You are told that the preparation time is 10 minutes. Time spend marinating or cooking is less relevant and makes very poor television.

Not a theory in the scientific sense, but I'd be surprised if the idea hadn't occurred to someone before. I've speculated on similar ideas myself.What bothers me about these hypotheses is the requirement that God must intervene quite so often. If God created a Big Bang for the express purpose of creating Adam, why would God need to keep showing up every few hundred million years to tweak things? Wouldn't an earth just show up somewhere after a few billion years after the Big Bang?Maybe God did spare himself some wait time by either accelerating time, or simply by not watching the pot boil. I cannot think of anyway we'd ever be able to detect time having magically accelerating in the distant past. So such speculations seem unlikely to become a scientific theory.

That's nothing compared to the amount of meddling that's reported since then.

The difference is Santa is real and i have the presents to prove it You relay believe in magic dont you ??You can never understand anything if you always bend your explanations with magic.If Isac Newton said "dose dam pixies keep dropping apples on my head" instead of looking for a rational explanation how would that increase the knowledge of mankind?If the numerus people who studied cold would just believe in the ferry tale about cold being a particle that has no weight and is invisible to the naked eye you can only feel it as a cold sensation. Where would your refrigerator be?Where would we be if we believed lighting was zeuses weapon and not for the mortals understanding where would your electronic equipment be???Where would we be if we still believed that sickness was the result of sin and the only cure is to repent would you be alive???SCIENCE WORKS RELIGION AND FAITH DONT !!!

Why is the debate always about evolution and creation? Why not something else? If humans are so smart then they would have realised that it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine how the universe began! There isn't much difference between both theories, both start with nothing! You can't get something from nothing! I don't think that humans can even comprehend nothingness!Evolutionists giving the universe an age of around 15 billion yrs isn't even an educated guess, its just a guess. 64 billion, 27 million 50-twleve million, see, i can do it too! It really is just about ego, one side wants to shove it in the others face. What we should really be worried about, is the future, eh!