The way I understand the theoretical formation of the universe is this:
1. The known universe expands. It is extremely hot at this point.
2. A significant amount of visible light forms along with other radiation.
3. Matter is later created from energy as the universe cools. On this point I'm confused. Shouldn't the most unstable elements form first and then decay? The most unstable elements are usually the heavier ones. But as I understand it, it is said that only lighter elements first form. I could do some more research, but it'd help if you could clue me in. I don't have a lot of time at the moment.
4. Regardless of what came first - stars or planets, I believe that it is now presently possible for planetary accretion to occur without the presence of a star. Planemos or planetars may be evidence of this. If heavier elements were not present at first in order for planetary mass objects to form before stars, the earth was still formless and void in the beginning. And an atmosphere can still exist without the presence of a star. In fact a planetary mass object isolated from a star I would think would largely consist of gas or some form of vapor.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather "Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
The way I understand the theoretical formation of the universe is this: 1. The known universe expands. It is extremely hot at this point. At this point you're in the quanta scale or smaller. You're talking about the things that make atoms (light elements) now. 2. A significant amount of visible light forms along with other radiation. Visible light exist within the UV spectrum, the only thing that makes visible light are stars. 3. Matter is later created from energy as the universe cools. On this point I'm confused. Shouldn't the most unstable elements form first and then decay? The most unstable elements are usually the heavier ones. But as I understand it, it is said that only lighter elements first form. I could do some more research, but it'd help if you could clue me in. I don't have a lot of time at the moment. When elements decay they break down into thier base components. If it's made of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon it will essentially decay into those things. Everything is made of the lighter elements, and everywhere that heavier elements are being created there is an abundance of lighter elements. I think unstable would only be applicable to the state in wich those elements exist. Some are very unstable as a gas but less unstable as a liguid, or vice versa. (could be wrong, but I believe that's how it is) 4. Regardless of what came first - stars or planets, I believe that it is now presently possible for planetary accretion to occur without the presence of a star. Planemos or planetars may be evidence of this. If heavier elements were not present at first in order for planetary mass objects to form before stars, the earth was still formless and void in the beginning. And an atmosphere can still exist without the presence of a star. In fact a planetary mass object isolated from a star I would think would largely consist of gas or some form of vapor. You have to have a star. The only way to get planetary accretion is with gravity. The only thing that can generate enough gravity is a star, or a black hole (but really, your talking about a star). Planets don't generate enough gravity to sustain planetary accretion discs. Planemos or planetars are evidence of the possible existance of an ort cloud. A cloud of matter that surrounds our solar system that could be partically responcible for planet and moon formation. That cloud is the result of matter created by the sun, thrown out to the very edge of the suns gravitational force. Beyond the solar system is just radioactive wind. Yes, it would be possible for a gass giant to form without a star, but not like the ones in our solar system. Jupiter and Saturn have iron cores if I'm correct. Stars have to start somehow, and it would only make sence that an abundance of hydrogen condenses into a kind of planetary structure before the pressure reaches a point that it's hot enough to begin fusion.
You can't make a "rock" planet without a star. You have to fuse hydrogen and other atoms to make things like metals.
It is possible for planets to exist without a star. Nasa has learned that when a star dies it doesn't always take all of it's planets with it, and can actually leave some behind. I believe it was hubble that found a white dwarf star with a surviving planet still around it.
You can't make an earth type planet without a sun.
But forget making planets. You can't have water without a sun.
It takes a lot of heat and pressure to fuse hydrogen and oxygen into water. The only thing that can do that and allow it to escape into space is a sun.
I'm curious how a creationist explains fusion. Everything about the creation of the planet, and ultimately life, relies on it. Fusion is a scientifically proven fact. BMW is even producing a car right now that runs on fusion. Scientists have built a fusion reactor. We know that in order to get water you need fusion. In order to get metal you need fusion. In order to get all the things that make the planet and pretty much everything in our solar system depends on fusion occuring.
The way I understand the theoretical formation of the universe is this: 1. The known universe expands. It is extremely hot at this point. At this point you're in the quanta scale or smaller. You're talking about the things that make atoms (light elements) now. 2. A significant amount of visible light forms along with other radiation. Visible light exist within the UV spectrum, the only thing that makes visible light are stars. 3. Matter is later created from energy as the universe cools. On this point I'm confused. Shouldn't the most unstable elements form first and then decay? The most unstable elements are usually the heavier ones. But as I understand it, it is said that only lighter elements first form. I could do some more research, but it'd help if you could clue me in. I don't have a lot of time at the moment. When elements decay they break down into thier base components. If it's made of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon it will essentially decay into those things. Everything is made of the lighter elements, and everywhere that heavier elements are being created there is an abundance of lighter elements. I think unstable would only be applicable to the state in wich those elements exist. Some are very unstable as a gas but less unstable as a liguid, or vice versa. (could be wrong, but I believe that's how it is) 4. Regardless of what came first - stars or planets, I believe that it is now presently possible for planetary accretion to occur without the presence of a star. Planemos or planetars may be evidence of this. If heavier elements were not present at first in order for planetary mass objects to form before stars, the earth was still formless and void in the beginning. And an atmosphere can still exist without the presence of a star. In fact a planetary mass object isolated from a star I would think would largely consist of gas or some form of vapor. You have to have a star. The only way to get planetary accretion is with gravity. The only thing that can generate enough gravity is a star, or a black hole (but really, your talking about a star). Planets don't generate enough gravity to sustain planetary accretion discs. Planemos or planetars are evidence of the possible existance of an ort cloud. A cloud of matter that surrounds our solar system that could be partically responcible for planet and moon formation. That cloud is the result of matter created by the sun, thrown out to the very edge of the suns gravitational force. Beyond the solar system is just radioactive wind. Yes, it would be possible for a gass giant to form without a star, but not like the ones in our solar system. Jupiter and Saturn have iron cores if I'm correct. Stars have to start somehow, and it would only make sence that an abundance of hydrogen condenses into a kind of planetary structure before the pressure reaches a point that it's hot enough to begin fusion.
You can't make a "rock" planet without a star. You have to fuse hydrogen and other atoms to make things like metals.
It is possible for planets to exist without a star. Nasa has learned that when a star dies it doesn't always take all of it's planets with it, and can actually leave some behind. I believe it was hubble that found a white dwarf star with a surviving planet still around it.
You can't make an earth type planet without a sun.
But forget making planets. You can't have water without a sun.
It takes a lot of heat and pressure to fuse hydrogen and oxygen into water. The only thing that can do that and allow it to escape into space is a sun.
I'm curious how a creationist explains fusion. Everything about the creation of the planet, and ultimately life, relies on it. Fusion is a scientifically proven fact. BMW is even producing a car right now that runs on fusion. Scientists have built a fusion reactor. We know that in order to get water you need fusion. In order to get metal you need fusion. In order to get all the things that make the planet and pretty much everything in our solar system depends on fusion occuring.
Hey, Urdig. I'd like to address some of the points you made, but all in good time. My college is keeping me busy with paperwork, fees, and red tape. Like I said, I'm busy as heck, but I find this very interesting and I hope to get back to you with a worthy post some time in the future.
All I have to say right now though is: I understand that there is or may be such a thing as hydrogen metal and that planetary cores may be composed of them. I'm afraid I don't have a great knowledge of chemistry. I personally hate it, although I find physics and math somewhat interesting. The semester before last I took my Calc III course from a friend of mine with a Master's who, I hear, had developed his own Theorem for a Fourth Dimensional Sphere. Great teacher that guy. Had a lot of fun in his classes. But you'll have to bear with me on my ignorance of chemistry.
You have to have a star. The only way to get planetary accretion is with gravity. The only thing that can generate enough gravity is a star, or a black hole (but really, your talking about a star). Planets don't generate enough gravity to sustain planetary accretion discs.
From what I hear, there is a theory of planetary creation that works within the confines of broken off and isolated parts of nebulae. I forget where I originally read it - on the net or not - so it may be hearsay, but I'll try to get back to you on it. This theory essentially says that a piece of a nebula breaks off and becomes isolated. Then it collapses inward. The matter needs to remain cold for it to collapse inward, otherwise you've got too much excitement of the atoms for it to gravitate inward. As far as I know, this is one theoretical process of how stars form as well. Why could planets not form in the same way?
Yes, it would be possible for a gass giant to form without a star, but not like the ones in our solar system.
I may do more looking into that just for the sake of curiosity, but as explained in this discussion it is supposedly possible for a planet to be thrown out of its orbit around its native star and into a new orbit with a new star, or it is possible simply for it to be formed and then drift into orbit around a star that it passes in its lonely journey through space. What I find interesting is that I had read a secular college-level text-book state once that the majority of our surface water on the Earth came from beneath the surface in "upwellings" of water such as springs or geysers. And if in order to form water you need a lot of heat and pressure and the elements oxygen and hydrogen and it is possible for planets to have metallic hydrogen cores, then isn't it possible for a planet with a metallic hydrogen core to produce water in the core, given oxygen and a significant amount of heat and pressure? A planet like Earth need not resemble modern-day Earth in any way shape or form in its early stages of life. I'm fairly certain that Earth would appear to us quite alien like Venus or Mars (just for generic examples) in the early stages of its life if we could have seen it.
And on my point of hydrogen metal cores, I think I read that it is believed that Jupiter and Saturn have metallic hydrogen cores. I'm not arguing against the idea of needing a star to have a terrestrial earth-type planet; I just think that it may be nearsighted to believe without second-guessing that Earth was originally formed from more solid elements in a state of planetary accretion around the star (our Sun) that it now orbits. By the way, I'm foggy on the concept of how Earth's elliptical orbit formed. Was it supposedly from an object colliding with the Earth and thus creating our moon? Is the orbit maintained in some way by the forces of gravity of other planets orbiting around our Sun acting on it?
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather "Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
You think it's bad reading about it? Try having to live within the area. My house is probably 10 miles away from that damn museum. It's the shame of the city. Secondly Forza, might doesn't make right, just because a lot of people do something, doesn't mean it's any good, you know what I mean- McDonalds, WoW, Latter Day Saints, etc..
The way I understand the theoretical formation of the universe is this: 1. The known universe expands. It is extremely hot at this point. 2. A significant amount of visible light forms along with other radiation. 3. Matter is later created from energy as the universe cools. On this point I'm confused. Shouldn't the most unstable elements form first and then decay? The most unstable elements are usually the heavier ones. But as I understand it, it is said that only lighter elements first form. I could do some more research, but it'd help if you could clue me in. I don't have a lot of time at the moment. 4. Regardless of what came first - stars or planets, I believe that it is now presently possible for planetary accretion to occur without the presence of a star. Planemos or planetars may be evidence of this. If heavier elements were not present at first in order for planetary mass objects to form before stars, the earth was still formless and void in the beginning. And an atmosphere can still exist without the presence of a star. In fact a planetary mass object isolated from a star I would think would largely consist of gas or some form of vapor.
You're mostly right... It's more like this.
1. The universe starts at the Big Bang. Space and time and all matter start compressed together. Keep in mind that heat is increased by pressure, which is increased by reducing the size of something... so when the universe starts infinitely small, it is so hot that we can't even understand heats that high. Matter didn't even exist, it was all energy at that point. Within the first second the universe expands and cools enough that matter begins condensing out of energy. At this point matter is extremely primitive: quarks pop up but can't form into hadrons until the universe cools further, then turn into leptons and finally photons. These aren't photons as we understand them though. Energies are so high that they interact with normal matter as if they were non-relativistic particles.
2. Radiation and matter at this point have no real difference and keep on trading back and forth: there are a few "reheating" periods during which matter reforms back into energy due to fusion and suchlike. So while visible light is created it's not sticking around for long.
3. Lighter elements form first because they're being built up from their composite forms. As the universe cools quarks are finally moving slowly enough that they can bind together into protons, but it's only a single proton (the first hydrogen atoms). As the universe remains hot more complex elements like Helium and Deuterium pop up, but the universe does not maintain fusion temperatures long enough to make many of these materials. While hydrogen composition continues for some 300,000 years, helium and deuterium are only formed in the first 3 minutes of the matter phase of the matter-dominated phase of the universe.
So that's why there's so much hydrogen and so little of the higher elements.
4. Stars came first. Only from the last stages of nuclear fusion in stars can materials like iron form, and heavy elements like uranium are only born from supernovas. It may be possible for planetary accretion to form without a star... I don't think there's much evidence for it, but.
Here is one you can ask him, that I kinda wonder about myself, getting this explained away will take some skills in denial.
First we need to establish that the speed of ligth in vacuum is actually 300000km per second, 186000 miles, I really doubt anyhow can make an argument against this, they may try but then at least you know that arguing is pointless, ( it may be in either case as it often is with people like that, but anyway ).
Second we need to establish that the universe is bigger then 6000 ligthyears, again no giant leap of the imagiantion even for the most hardcore of creationists, I would REALLY like to see an arguemnt against this one as well, the milky way is about 100000 ligthyears across, again I would find it extremely hard to contradict this and it would be fun to see someone trying, and I am sure I will.
So, we now have the speed of ligth, and we may not believe the known universe is 15 billion ligthyears across but it is certainly bigger then 6000.
Now, how can we see the ligth from stuff more then 6000 ligthyears away if the universe is only 6000 years?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is one you can ask him, that I kinda wonder about myself, getting this explained away will take some skills in denial.
First we need to establish that the speed of ligth in vacuum is actually 300000km per second, 186000 miles, I really doubt anyhow can make an argument against this, they may try but then at least you know that arguing is pointless, ( it may be in either case as it often is with people like that, but anyway ).
Second we need to establish that the universe is bigger then 6000 ligthyears, again no giant leap of the imagiantion even for the most hardcore of creationists, I would REALLY like to see an arguemnt against this one as well, the milky way is about 100000 ligthyears across, again I would find it extremely hard to contradict this and it would be fun to see someone trying, and I am sure I will.
So, we now have the speed of ligth, and we may not believe the known universe is 15 billion ligthyears across but it is certainly bigger then 6000.
Now, how can we see the ligth from stuff more then 6000 ligthyears away if the universe is only 6000 years?
Check out time dilation with respect to Big Bang expansion. I'm fairly sure that regardless of how old the universe is it is still larger than would be predicted given a set speed of light, and that isn't because two objects are speeding off from each other both at or near the speed of light to expand the universe's diameter to a distance of two light years in one year. I think that it's because of time dilation. I haven't done much research on the matter so I wouldn't be the one to ask if you want to know more about it, but just to give an example of my understanding of time dilation and the initial expansion of the universe:
Object A travels at the speed of light to the left. At the same time, object B travels at the speed of light to the right. In one year the distance between them ends up being three light years. Why not two light years in one year? Well, I think that's where time dilation comes into play, but I couldn't say for sure. I may be wrong, so do your own research on the matter.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather "Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
2. Radiation and matter at this point have no real difference and keep on trading back and forth: there are a few "reheating" periods during which matter reforms back into energy due to fusion and suchlike. So while visible light is created it's not sticking around for long.
Yeah, I was just giving a basic outline of the universe and my own take on the subject such as when God says, "Let there be light," there was light. It doesn't matter whether or not it hangs around, just as long as it appeared as predicted by modern science and as stated in the account of Genesis.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather "Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
Why would it even matter to you whether or not the earth is young or old (assuming that's what you were concerned about in relation to ice cores)? It, at least in my opinion so far, has no religious or secular implications. I have found nothing in my studies of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures to lead me to believe that it states that the universe is 6,000 years old. And if any Creationist tells you this - whether or not that is the actual position of the Scriptures - it is probably (NOT absolutely) from faulty reasoning and flawed assumptions (on their part) concerning the teachings of the Scriptures.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather "Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
Comments
The way I understand the theoretical formation of the universe is this:
1. The known universe expands. It is extremely hot at this point.
2. A significant amount of visible light forms along with other radiation.
3. Matter is later created from energy as the universe cools. On this point I'm confused. Shouldn't the most unstable elements form first and then decay? The most unstable elements are usually the heavier ones. But as I understand it, it is said that only lighter elements first form. I could do some more research, but it'd help if you could clue me in. I don't have a lot of time at the moment.
4. Regardless of what came first - stars or planets, I believe that it is now presently possible for planetary accretion to occur without the presence of a star. Planemos or planetars may be evidence of this. If heavier elements were not present at first in order for planetary mass objects to form before stars, the earth was still formless and void in the beginning. And an atmosphere can still exist without the presence of a star. In fact a planetary mass object isolated from a star I would think would largely consist of gas or some form of vapor.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
You can't make a "rock" planet without a star. You have to fuse hydrogen and other atoms to make things like metals.
It is possible for planets to exist without a star. Nasa has learned that when a star dies it doesn't always take all of it's planets with it, and can actually leave some behind. I believe it was hubble that found a white dwarf star with a surviving planet still around it.
You can't make an earth type planet without a sun.
But forget making planets. You can't have water without a sun.
It takes a lot of heat and pressure to fuse hydrogen and oxygen into water. The only thing that can do that and allow it to escape into space is a sun.
I'm curious how a creationist explains fusion. Everything about the creation of the planet, and ultimately life, relies on it. Fusion is a scientifically proven fact. BMW is even producing a car right now that runs on fusion. Scientists have built a fusion reactor. We know that in order to get water you need fusion. In order to get metal you need fusion. In order to get all the things that make the planet and pretty much everything in our solar system depends on fusion occuring.
Wish Darkfall would release.
You can't make a "rock" planet without a star. You have to fuse hydrogen and other atoms to make things like metals.
It is possible for planets to exist without a star. Nasa has learned that when a star dies it doesn't always take all of it's planets with it, and can actually leave some behind. I believe it was hubble that found a white dwarf star with a surviving planet still around it.
You can't make an earth type planet without a sun.
But forget making planets. You can't have water without a sun.
It takes a lot of heat and pressure to fuse hydrogen and oxygen into water. The only thing that can do that and allow it to escape into space is a sun.
I'm curious how a creationist explains fusion. Everything about the creation of the planet, and ultimately life, relies on it. Fusion is a scientifically proven fact. BMW is even producing a car right now that runs on fusion. Scientists have built a fusion reactor. We know that in order to get water you need fusion. In order to get metal you need fusion. In order to get all the things that make the planet and pretty much everything in our solar system depends on fusion occuring.
Hey, Urdig. I'd like to address some of the points you made, but all in good time. My college is keeping me busy with paperwork, fees, and red tape. Like I said, I'm busy as heck, but I find this very interesting and I hope to get back to you with a worthy post some time in the future.
All I have to say right now though is: I understand that there is or may be such a thing as hydrogen metal and that planetary cores may be composed of them. I'm afraid I don't have a great knowledge of chemistry. I personally hate it, although I find physics and math somewhat interesting. The semester before last I took my Calc III course from a friend of mine with a Master's who, I hear, had developed his own Theorem for a Fourth Dimensional Sphere. Great teacher that guy. Had a lot of fun in his classes. But you'll have to bear with me on my ignorance of chemistry.
You have to have a star. The only way to get planetary accretion is with gravity. The only thing that can generate enough gravity is a star, or a black hole (but really, your talking about a star). Planets don't generate enough gravity to sustain planetary accretion discs.
From what I hear, there is a theory of planetary creation that works within the confines of broken off and isolated parts of nebulae. I forget where I originally read it - on the net or not - so it may be hearsay, but I'll try to get back to you on it.
This theory essentially says that a piece of a nebula breaks off and becomes isolated. Then it collapses inward. The matter needs to remain cold for it to collapse inward, otherwise you've got too much excitement of the atoms for it to gravitate inward. As far as I know, this is one theoretical process of how stars form as well. Why could planets not form in the same way?
Yes, it would be possible for a gass giant to form without a star, but not like the ones in our solar system.
I may do more looking into that just for the sake of curiosity, but as explained in this discussion it is supposedly possible for a planet to be thrown out of its orbit around its native star and into a new orbit with a new star, or it is possible simply for it to be formed and then drift into orbit around a star that it passes in its lonely journey through space. What I find interesting is that I had read a secular college-level text-book state once that the majority of our surface water on the Earth came from beneath the surface in "upwellings" of water such as springs or geysers. And if in order to form water you need a lot of heat and pressure and the elements oxygen and hydrogen and it is possible for planets to have metallic hydrogen cores, then isn't it possible for a planet with a metallic hydrogen core to produce water in the core, given oxygen and a significant amount of heat and pressure? A planet like Earth need not resemble modern-day Earth in any way shape or form in its early stages of life. I'm fairly certain that Earth would appear to us quite alien like Venus or Mars (just for generic examples) in the early stages of its life if we could have seen it.
And on my point of hydrogen metal cores, I think I read that it is believed that Jupiter and Saturn have metallic hydrogen cores. I'm not arguing against the idea of needing a star to have a terrestrial earth-type planet; I just think that it may be nearsighted to believe without second-guessing that Earth was originally formed from more solid elements in a state of planetary accretion around the star (our Sun) that it now orbits. By the way, I'm foggy on the concept of how Earth's elliptical orbit formed. Was it supposedly from an object colliding with the Earth and thus creating our moon? Is the orbit maintained in some way by the forces of gravity of other planets orbiting around our Sun acting on it?
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
How is multiple wives and endless celestial sex ever a bad thing.
The most pimp religion in existence.
Betta Recognize!
Edit
2:13 - Demon boobies sag a bit more than righteous ones.
- Burying Threads Since 1979 -
You're mostly right... It's more like this.
1. The universe starts at the Big Bang. Space and time and all matter start compressed together. Keep in mind that heat is increased by pressure, which is increased by reducing the size of something... so when the universe starts infinitely small, it is so hot that we can't even understand heats that high. Matter didn't even exist, it was all energy at that point. Within the first second the universe expands and cools enough that matter begins condensing out of energy. At this point matter is extremely primitive: quarks pop up but can't form into hadrons until the universe cools further, then turn into leptons and finally photons. These aren't photons as we understand them though. Energies are so high that they interact with normal matter as if they were non-relativistic particles.
2. Radiation and matter at this point have no real difference and keep on trading back and forth: there are a few "reheating" periods during which matter reforms back into energy due to fusion and suchlike. So while visible light is created it's not sticking around for long.
3. Lighter elements form first because they're being built up from their composite forms. As the universe cools quarks are finally moving slowly enough that they can bind together into protons, but it's only a single proton (the first hydrogen atoms). As the universe remains hot more complex elements like Helium and Deuterium pop up, but the universe does not maintain fusion temperatures long enough to make many of these materials. While hydrogen composition continues for some 300,000 years, helium and deuterium are only formed in the first 3 minutes of the matter phase of the matter-dominated phase of the universe.
So that's why there's so much hydrogen and so little of the higher elements.
4. Stars came first. Only from the last stages of nuclear fusion in stars can materials like iron form, and heavy elements like uranium are only born from supernovas. It may be possible for planetary accretion to form without a star... I don't think there's much evidence for it, but.
First we need to establish that the speed of ligth in vacuum is actually 300000km per second, 186000 miles, I really doubt anyhow can make an argument against this, they may try but then at least you know that arguing is pointless, ( it may be in either case as it often is with people like that, but anyway ).
Second we need to establish that the universe is bigger then 6000 ligthyears, again no giant leap of the imagiantion even for the most hardcore of creationists, I would REALLY like to see an arguemnt against this one as well, the milky way is about 100000 ligthyears across, again I would find it extremely hard to contradict this and it would be fun to see someone trying, and I am sure I will.
So, we now have the speed of ligth, and we may not believe the known universe is 15 billion ligthyears across but it is certainly bigger then 6000.
Now, how can we see the ligth from stuff more then 6000 ligthyears away if the universe is only 6000 years?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is one you can ask him, that I kinda wonder about myself, getting this explained away will take some skills in denial.First we need to establish that the speed of ligth in vacuum is actually 300000km per second, 186000 miles, I really doubt anyhow can make an argument against this, they may try but then at least you know that arguing is pointless, ( it may be in either case as it often is with people like that, but anyway ).
Second we need to establish that the universe is bigger then 6000 ligthyears, again no giant leap of the imagiantion even for the most hardcore of creationists, I would REALLY like to see an arguemnt against this one as well, the milky way is about 100000 ligthyears across, again I would find it extremely hard to contradict this and it would be fun to see someone trying, and I am sure I will.
So, we now have the speed of ligth, and we may not believe the known universe is 15 billion ligthyears across but it is certainly bigger then 6000.
Now, how can we see the ligth from stuff more then 6000 ligthyears away if the universe is only 6000 years?
Check out time dilation with respect to Big Bang expansion. I'm fairly sure that regardless of how old the universe is it is still larger than would be predicted given a set speed of light, and that isn't because two objects are speeding off from each other both at or near the speed of light to expand the universe's diameter to a distance of two light years in one year. I think that it's because of time dilation. I haven't done much research on the matter so I wouldn't be the one to ask if you want to know more about it, but just to give an example of my understanding of time dilation and the initial expansion of the universe:
Object A travels at the speed of light to the left. At the same time, object B travels at the speed of light to the right. In one year the distance between them ends up being three light years. Why not two light years in one year? Well, I think that's where time dilation comes into play, but I couldn't say for sure. I may be wrong, so do your own research on the matter.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
2. Radiation and matter at this point have no real difference and keep on trading back and forth: there are a few "reheating" periods during which matter reforms back into energy due to fusion and suchlike. So while visible light is created it's not sticking around for long.
Yeah, I was just giving a basic outline of the universe and my own take on the subject such as when God says, "Let there be light," there was light. It doesn't matter whether or not it hangs around, just as long as it appeared as predicted by modern science and as stated in the account of Genesis.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
Why would it even matter to you whether or not the earth is young or old (assuming that's what you were concerned about in relation to ice cores)? It, at least in my opinion so far, has no religious or secular implications. I have found nothing in my studies of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures to lead me to believe that it states that the universe is 6,000 years old. And if any Creationist tells you this - whether or not that is the actual position of the Scriptures - it is probably (NOT absolutely) from faulty reasoning and flawed assumptions (on their part) concerning the teachings of the Scriptures.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain