# Cosmic Distances

194 replies to this topic

### #1 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
• Guests

Posted 08 January 2010 - 01:12 AM

It seems like at least a handful or more of you doubt the accepted values for the various distances to stuff out there. So I made a thread for it. Let's talk.

I'll start things off with a bang in the form of a question [but feel free to discuss whatever aspect of this topic you want]: if astronomers are wrong about cosmic distances, then why do the distance approximations from all the various methods [of which there are several] match together as well as they do? If we were wrong in our methods, then I can't think of any good reason that all the different methods should agree -- rather, it seems that we should get a hodge-podge of values even for specific objects, with no seeming correlation between them. But all the methods arrive at a single number [within experimental uncertainties, of course]. For example, from a parallax method the distance to the Hyades cluster can be estimated as 45.53 +- 2.64 parsecs, while from a moving cluster method the distance is 46.34 +- 0.27 parsecs. Those two estimates certainly agree -- but why should they if our methodology is wrong?

Here's a UCLA link to a bunch of methods; have a look - http://www.astro.ucl...ht/distance.htm.

(to the mods, creation v. evolution might not have been the forum to put this in, move it around as you see fit)

### #2 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
• Guests

Posted 08 January 2010 - 02:04 AM

Just to add what Martemius said, parallax is the base method to determine distances in astronomy. And all parallax is, is triangulation; mathematics. I think we can all agree that math is objective. And when we get these other methods (like variable stars and super nova) all agreeing with each other as well as the parallax method, why reject the distances?

### #3 falcone

falcone

Member

• Banned
• 497 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 36
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Scotland

Posted 08 January 2010 - 04:13 AM

I'm not sure creationists do reject the distances. They just reject the currently understood length of time it takes light to travel those distances

### #4 ikester7579

ikester7579

Member

• Member
• 12,500 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Florida
• Interests:God, creation, etc...
• Age: 48
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 January 2010 - 04:25 AM

I don't reject the distances. God made it clear that the light did not reach across the universe until He made it so.

Genesis 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

The reason the word lights is used instead of stars. It makes it clear that the stars were already giving off light upon their creation. The firmament is another word for space. And to say that the stars were created to give light upon the earth shows why they were created. And to "make it so" means it was not so until God made it so.

So whether light is consant or not, makes no difference. God admitted as much.

### #5 SeeJay

SeeJay

Member

• Veteran Member
• 310 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 45
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Sydney, Australia

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:29 AM

I don't reject the distances. God made it clear that the light did not reach across the universe until He made it so.

Genesis 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

The reason the word lights is used instead of stars. It makes it clear that the stars were already giving off light upon their creation. The firmament is another word for space. And to say that the stars were created to give light upon the earth shows why they were created. And to "make it so" means it was not so until God made it so.

So whether light is consant or not, makes no difference. God admitted as much.

Hi ikester

The difficulty with your comments above is that we have actually observed astronomical events, like supernovas, occurring at distances of hundreds of thousands and even millions of light years.

If the distances are correct and the speed of light is uniform, these events must have occurred before the beginning of the universe (according to the young-earth timeframe) -- which is impossible.

As noted by Jason Lisle, a professional astronomer at AIG:

... the techniques that astronomers use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound. They do not rely on evolutionary assumptions about the past.
... Some people have argued that the speed of light can never have been much different than it is today because it is so connected to other constants of nature. ...
This is a legitimate concern.

So how can the light from distant events get to the earth within a young-earth timeframe? It just seems impossible. Astronomers have measured the distances to hundreds of thousands of celestial objects with great precision, many of which are much too far away for their light to have reached the earth within 10,000 years. For this reason, astronomers are as certain that the stars are older than 10,000 years as they are that the earth orbits the sun.

Kind regards
SeeJay

### #6 scott

scott

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,749 posts
• Age: 21
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:49 AM

I reject the distances. Why? Because you cannot get the distance without any reference points. There are absolutely no reference point in space. You cannot use any of the planets, save for the moon, because the actual distances are not known.

Any given speed will not help, you will only get assumed answers, and estimated answers. The end answer will always be assumed.

The triangle (Pythagorean Theorem) does not work with the distance method. You will ask why it doesn't work. That's simple, the formula works for the assumed distances and constant speed of light. Unfortunately the distance is assumed.

A, B, and C.

1. A is earth
2. B is the light speed.
3. C is the star.

Problem here is that the actual distance between the earth to the star isn't known. We assume that the constant speed of light will give us an accurate answer, but it can't because....

You have A, B, and C...... you need E another reference point for your speed. A point of reference of an actual known distance, so that you can compare, and actually know if the distance is correct, but such is not available.

The only equation we have is A,B, and C... It's impossible to get an accurate answer for this. Absolutely no math formula on this planet can get the answer, because the key element is MISSING.

What is the key element? The reference point, or for better words CONFERMATION POINT.

### #7 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
• Guests

Posted 08 January 2010 - 08:13 AM

I'm not sure creationists do reject the distances. They just reject the currently understood length of time it takes light to travel those distances

I've seen various people on here claim that we can't know the distances because we haven't traveled them -- incidentally, they also reject the constancy of the speed of light over the course of history. But that's for a different thread.

### #8 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
• Guests

Posted 08 January 2010 - 08:19 AM

I reject the distances.  Why?  Because you cannot get the distance without any reference points.  There are absolutely no reference point in space.  You cannot use any of the planets, save for the moon, because the actual distances are not known.

Any given speed will not help, you will only get assumed answers, and estimated answers.  The end answer will always be assumed.

The triangle (Pythagorean Theorem) does not work with the distance method.  You will ask why it doesn't work.  That's simple,  the formula works for the assumed distances and constant speed of light.  Unfortunately the distance is assumed.

A, B, and C.

1. A is earth
2. B  is the light speed.
3. C is the star.

Problem here is that the actual distance between the earth to the star isn't known.  We assume that the constant speed of light will give us an accurate answer, but it can't because....

You have A, B, and C...... you need E another reference point for your speed.  A point of reference of an actual known distance, so that you can compare, and actually know if the distance is correct, but such is not available.

The only equation we have is A,B, and C... It's impossible to get an accurate answer for this.  Absolutely no math formula on this planet can get the answer, because the key element is MISSING.

What is the key element?  The reference point, or for better words  CONFERMATION POINT.

Um...I assume that by the "triangle" you're referring to the process of triangulation, to which I'd have to say that, no, it doesn't depend on the speed of light. We know the distance from the earth to the sun, so we know the distance of the baseline -- we can measure the angle based on how much a certain star shifts against the background stars, and given the baseline and the angle we can determine the distance to the star based on basic trigonometry. Nowhere in there did we need to know the speed of light.

And you haven't answered my primary question, which was: if our methodology is as wrong as it apparently is, why is it as consistent as it is?

### #9 falcone

falcone

Member

• Banned
• 497 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 36
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Scotland

Posted 08 January 2010 - 08:19 AM

I've seen various people on here claim that we can't know the distances because we haven't traveled them -- incidentally, they also reject the constancy of the speed of light over the course of history.  But that's for a different thread.

Fair do's. The only 2 creationists to have posted here so far, Scott and Ikester seem to be in disagreement. I wonder if there is an 'official' creationists party line?

### #10 Scanman

Scanman

Member

• Banned
• 641 posts
• Age: 49
• Christian
• Theistic Evolutionist
• West Virginia

Posted 08 January 2010 - 08:20 AM

I reject the distances.  Why?  Because you cannot get the distance without any reference points.  There are absolutely no reference point in space.  You cannot use any of the planets, save for the moon, because the actual distances are not known.

Any given speed will not help, you will only get assumed answers, and estimated answers.  The end answer will always be assumed.

The triangle (Pythagorean Theorem) does not work with the distance method.  You will ask why it doesn't work.  That's simple,  the formula works for the assumed distances and constant speed of light.  Unfortunately the distance is assumed.

A, B, and C.

1. A is earth
2. B  is the light speed.
3. C is the star.

Problem here is that the actual distance between the earth to the star isn't known.  We assume that the constant speed of light will give us an accurate answer, but it can't because....

You have A, B, and C...... you need E another reference point for your speed.  A point of reference of an actual known distance, so that you can compare, and actually know if the distance is correct, but such is not available.

The only equation we have is A,B, and C... It's impossible to get an accurate answer for this.  Absolutely no math formula on this planet can get the answer, because the key element is MISSING.

What is the key element?  The reference point, or for better words  CONFERMATION POINT.

Scott,

We only need two data points to measure the distance.

radius = (6.23 x 1012 km = 0.658 light-years)
angle = 0.808 arcseconds = 0.000224 degrees

From that it is a simple trigonomic calculation.

simplified:
or
base = 0.658 ly ÃƒÂ· 0.00000392
base = 168,307 lightyears

distance = 168,307 lightyears

Peace

### #11 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,153 posts
• Age: 54
• Christian
• Creationist
• Northern Califiornia

Posted 08 January 2010 - 11:03 AM

Inflation theory

The Horizon Problem:

Distant regions of space in opposite directions of the sky are so far apart that, assuming standard Big Bang expansion, they could never have been in causal contact with each other. This is because the light travel time between them exceeds the age of the universe. Yet the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background temperature tells us that these regions must have been in contact with each other in the past.

Do to space expanding in the vacuum the initial mass moved with the expanding vacuum at several times the speed of light.

### #12 menes777

menes777

Junior Member

• 91 posts
• Age: 33
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Wichita, KS

Posted 08 January 2010 - 02:44 PM

Inflation theory

The Horizon Problem:
Do to space expanding in the vacuum the initial mass moved with the expanding vacuum at several times the speed of light.

How Does Inflation Solve these Problems?

* The Flatness Problem:
Imagine living on the surface of a soccer ball (a 2-dimensional world). It might be obvious to you that this surface was curved and that you were living in a closed universe. However, if that ball expanded to the size of the Earth, it would appear flat to you, even though it is still a sphere on larger scales. Now imagine increasing the size of that ball to astronomical scales. To you, it would appear to be flat as far as you could see, even though it might have been very curved to start with. Inflation stretches any initial curvature of the 3-dimensional universe to near flatness.
* The Horizon Problem:
Since Inflation supposes a burst of exponential expansion in the early universe, it follows that distant regions were actually much closer together prior to Inflation than they would have been with only standard Big Bang expansion. Thus, such regions could have been in causal contact prior to Inflation and could have attained a uniform temperature.

* The Monopole Problem:
Inflation allows for magnetic monopoles to exist as long as they were produced prior to the period of inflation. During inflation, the density of monopoles drops exponentially, so their abundance drops to undetectable levels.

### #13 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
• Guests

Posted 08 January 2010 - 04:16 PM

Inflation theory

The Horizon Problem:
Do to space expanding in the vacuum the initial mass moved with the expanding vacuum at several times the speed of light.

How does this relate to the topic?

### #14 scott

scott

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,749 posts
• Age: 21
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:12 PM

Scott,

We only need two data points to measure the distance.

radius = (6.23 x 1012 km = 0.658 light-years)
angle =  0.808 arcseconds = 0.000224 degrees

From that it is a simple trigonomic calculation.

simplified:
or
base = 0.658 ly ÃƒÂ· 0.00000392
base = 168,307 lightyears

distance = 168,307 lightyears

Peace

Well, you still don't get it. You don't know the distance of the radius, and you don't know the distance from the Earth to the Supernova. As I stated, using assumptions the formula will always work and produce an assumed answer. Nowhere in here have you shown a reference point of any kind.

All of this is based on light speed. You assume the distance, and calculate the time it takes for light to reach Point A to point B.

You still need a reference point to verify the actual distance, but you nor any other human being on this planet has that information, because they have not traveled the distance.

I understand that the formula itself is easy, but it's also extremely easy to recognize that no one has traveled the distance, and that the actual distance is being assumed upon lightspeed. Such is impossible, and I take such things as garbage. Quite frankly, because you have no accurate points of reference.

Show me your point of reference.

I used A, B, and C. For the triangle, because you are using the ring as your reference point, but quite frankly the distance of the ring isn't even known by any man on this planet. It's assumed based on the constant speed of light.

All of this is based on an assumed constant speed of light, that has NEVER been confirmed using long distances, and you can't show me that it has. NO man on this planet can. Why? No one has shown a reliable point of reference, your points have to be traveled and staked out, before you even begin the simplistic formula.

All of this has EVERYTHING to do with the speed of light. Thats the only thing it can be based on, but then again that doesn't even matter when the actual distances aren't even known. They are assumed. None of these formula's show that these points are factual distances. They aren't, and it's obvious they aren't. No one has traveled these distances.

Show me your point of reference. Why do I ask this? Because quite frankly you need a point of reference that is known to be accurate, the distance staked out, If you knew the distance of a star near by ( as a reference) that has been traveled, but you don't, because man hasn't traveled that far... then the formula would be extremely less assumed than it already is.

The supernova ring hasn't been traveled, and it's distance is assumed. It's all based on an assumed constant speed of light. All of it is. The entire star distance game is based on the exact same box of assumptions.

### #15 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,153 posts
• Age: 54
• Christian
• Creationist
• Northern Califiornia

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:37 PM

How does this relate to the topic?

Star distances create problems of me. For one thing the vacuum theory states that universe expanded faster that the speed on light and the mass expanded with it. I don't know how you reconcile that with the theory of relativity stating things can't go faster that the speed of light. Theoretically this deviation from the space time continuum would create worm holes and other paradoxs. When you start breaking hard and fast physical laws, like the speed of light, than you you really have no basis to measure anything in space.

### #16 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,153 posts
• Age: 54
• Christian
• Creationist
• Northern Califiornia

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:38 PM

Well, you still don't get it.  You don't know the distance of the radius, and you don't know the distance from the Earth to the Supernova.  As I stated, using assumptions the formula will always work and produce an assumed answer.  Nowhere in here have you shown a reference point of any kind.

All of this is based on light speed.  You assume the distance, and calculate the time it takes for light to reach Point A to point B.

You still need a reference point to verify the actual distance, but you nor any other human being on this planet has that information, because they have not traveled the distance.

I understand that the formula itself is easy, but it's also extremely easy to recognize that no one has traveled the distance, and that the actual distance is being assumed upon lightspeed.  Such is impossible, and I take such things as garbage.  Quite frankly, because you have no accurate points of reference.

Show me your point of reference.

I used A, B, and C.  For the triangle, because you are using the ring as your reference point, but quite frankly the distance of the ring isn't even known by any man on this planet.  It's assumed based on the constant speed of light.

All of this is based on an assumed constant speed of light, that has NEVER been confirmed using long distances, and you can't show me that it has.  NO man on this planet can.  Why? No one has shown a reliable point of reference,  your points have to be traveled and staked out, before you even begin the simplistic formula.

All of this has EVERYTHING to do with the speed of light.  Thats the only thing it can be based on, but then again that doesn't even matter when the actual distances aren't even known.  They are assumed.  None of these formula's show that these points are factual distances.  They aren't, and it's obvious they aren't.  No one has traveled these distances.

Show me your point of reference.  Why do I ask this?  Because quite frankly you need a point of reference that is known to be accurate, the distance staked out,  If you knew the distance of a star near by ( as a reference) that has been traveled, but you don't, because man hasn't traveled that far... then the formula would be extremely less assumed than it already is.

The supernova ring hasn't been traveled, and it's distance is assumed.  It's all based on an assumed constant speed of light.  All of it is.  The entire star distance game is based on the exact same box of assumptions.

Scott,

This is a very good posting.

Bruce

### #17 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
• Guests

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:55 PM

Star distances create problems of me.Ã‚Â  For one thing the vacuum theory states that universe expanded faster that the speed on light and the mass expanded with it.Ã‚Â  I don't know how you reconcile that with the theory of relativity stating things can't go faster that the speed of light.Ã‚Â  Theoretically this deviation from the space time continuum would create worm holes and other paradoxs.Ã‚Â  When you start breaking hard and fast physical laws, like the speed of light, than you you really have no basis to measure anything in space.

Well, first off, the modern measuring of distances doesn't really have anything to do with how everything got here -- just for conceptual simplicity, suppose we had no clue about how the sun formed, but we could still say "we know that the sun is so and so many kilometers away, even though we have no clue why it's there or how it came to be there". So the big bang isn't terribly relevant to measuring cosmic distances (although measuring cosmic distances is, in a certain sense, relevant to the big bang) -- why, we were measuring the distances to stars 'n stuff before we even had the big bang theory.

Anyways, here's the wikipedia snippet on the expansion of the universe in their Faster-than-light page: "The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, if comoving distance and cosmological time are used to calculate the speeds of these galaxies. However, in general relativity, velocity is a local notion, so velocity calculated using comoving coordinates does not have any simple relation to velocity calculated locally.[31] Rules that apply to relative velocities in special relativity, such as the rule that relative velocities cannot increase past the speed of light, do not apply to relative velocities in comoving coordinates, which are often described in terms of the "expansion of space" between galaxies. This expansion rate is thought to have been at its peak during the inflationary epoch thought to have occurred in a tiny fraction of the second after the Big Bang (models suggest the period would have been from around 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to around 10−33 seconds), when the universe may have rapidly expanded by a factor of around 1020 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 1030.[32]"

### #18 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
• Guests

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:36 PM

Star distances create problems of me.  For one thing the vacuum theory states that universe expanded faster that the speed on light and the mass expanded with it.  I don't know how you reconcile that with the theory of relativity stating things can't go faster that the speed of light.  Theoretically this deviation from the space time continuum would create worm holes and other paradoxs.  When you start breaking hard and fast physical laws, like the speed of light, than you you really have no basis to measure anything in space.

It's only information/matter that can't be observed to propagate faster than c. The expansion of space is unrestricted.

### #19 Scanman

Scanman

Member

• Banned
• 641 posts
• Age: 49
• Christian
• Theistic Evolutionist
• West Virginia

Posted 08 January 2010 - 08:28 PM

Star distances create problems of me.  For one thing the vacuum theory states that universe expanded faster that the speed on light and the mass expanded with it.  I don't know how you reconcile that with the theory of relativity stating things can't go faster that the speed of light.  Theoretically this deviation from the space time continuum would create worm holes and other paradoxs.  When you start breaking hard and fast physical laws, like the speed of light, than you you really have no basis to measure anything in space.

Light only travels at 'c'.
Photons do not slow down.
Photons do not speed up.

When you hear about light slowing down as it travels through a medium, it is a misnomer.

The appearance of a decrease in speed is really photon propagation.

The photon travelling through space/vacuum travels at 'c'.
When the photon encounters an atom, the photon is absorbed.
An electron moves to a higher energy state.
When the electron returns back to it's original energy state, a new photon is emitted at a specific vector based on the particular type of atom.
The new photon travels at 'c' until it encounters another atom and the cycle continues.

It is really the difference between a highway and stop'n'go traffic.
The photons are all travelling at 'c' in a relay race.
The handoff is what causes the appearance of a slowdown.

As for 'vacuum theory'...I was unable to find a description that spoke about anything exceeding the speed of light.

If you have a source for Vaccum Theory that includes this concept, please cite it...I would like to look further into it.

Peace

### #20 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,153 posts
• Age: 54
• Christian
• Creationist
• Northern Califiornia

Posted 08 January 2010 - 08:41 PM

Well, first off, the modern measuring of distances doesn't really have anything to do with how everything got here -- just for conceptual simplicity, suppose we had no clue about how the sun formed, but we could still say "we know that the sun is so and so many kilometers away, even though we have no clue why it's there or how it came to be there".  So the big bang isn't terribly relevant to measuring cosmic distances (although measuring cosmic distances is, in a certain sense, relevant to the big bang) -- why, we were measuring the distances to stars 'n stuff before we even had the big bang theory.
Anyways, here's the wikipedia snippet on the expansion of the universe in their Faster-than-light page: "The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, if comoving distance and cosmological time are used to calculate the speeds of these galaxies. However, in general relativity, velocity is a local notion, so velocity calculated using comoving coordinates does not have any simple relation to velocity calculated locally.[31] Rules that apply to relative velocities in special relativity, such as the rule that relative velocities cannot increase past the speed of light, do not apply to relative velocities in comoving coordinates, which are often described in terms of the "expansion of space" between galaxies. This expansion rate is thought to have been at its peak during the inflationary epoch thought to have occurred in a tiny fraction of the second after the Big Bang (models suggest the period would have been from around 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to around 10−33 seconds), when the universe may have rapidly expanded by a factor of around 1020 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 1030.[32]"

I am definably out of my comfort zone here. Doesn't relativity state that co-moving bodies going in different directions observe the other object going the speed of light . So two bodies approaching each other, both going the speed of light, will both observe the other body going just the speed of light- not 2x the speed of light. The speed of light stays constant but time and distance is relative. So if distance and time is relative than how do you measure distance? This would also apply to objects that at one time traveled near the speed of light?

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users