Jump to content


Photo

New Theory On Starlight


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
68 replies to this topic

#1 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 02 September 2010 - 08:31 PM

I am developing a new theory which solves the starlight problem for a recent creation.

I'm calling my theory the ''Wandering Star Hypothesis''.

My theory is that stars were once far closer to the earth, and over time moved further away. I don't know if anyone has theorised this before, but i'm developing it and collecting many interesting sources.

I look forward to presenting some stuff here as the research develops.

#2 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 02 September 2010 - 10:44 PM

Do you mean once there was just a central collection of celestial bodies that over 6-10,000 years or so drifted from each other? I'm guessing at an irregular rate.

#3 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 03 September 2010 - 02:31 PM

The problem with that hypothesis is that it doesnt really solve anything. We see stars and other objects that appear to be several billion light years away. That means the light we're seeing from them took several billion years to reach us. Even if the stars had been closer at one point, that's not the light we're seeing, because then they would appear to be closer.

#4 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 04 September 2010 - 06:20 AM

Do you mean once there was just a central collection of celestial bodies that over 6-10,000 years or so drifted from each other?  I'm guessing at an irregular rate.

View Post


I'm saying that stars were once far closer to earth (only a few thousand miles), and so their light reached more quickly to us.

#5 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 04 September 2010 - 06:22 AM

The problem with that hypothesis is that it doesnt really solve anything. We see stars and other objects that appear to be several billion light years away. That means the light we're seeing from them took several billion years to reach us. Even if the stars had been closer at one point, that's not the light we're seeing, because then they would appear to be closer.

View Post


?? If stars were once closer then they would not be ''billions light years away'', therefore it means the universe could easily be only 6,000 years old.

#6 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 04 September 2010 - 07:02 AM

I am developing a new theory which solves the starlight problem for a recent creation.

No, you're developing a hypothesis which will make sense to creationists. Same with all of "creation science".

#7 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 04 September 2010 - 03:02 PM

?? If stars were once closer then they would not be ''billions light years away'', therefore it means the universe could easily be only 6,000 years old.

View Post


If the light we see from stars was emitted when they were only a few thousand light years away, then they would appear to be only a few thousand light years away, even if they're farther away now. If you suddenly moved Alpha Centauri to another galaxy, it would still appear to be in its old spot for another 4 years, until the light stopped reaching us. Furthermore, we wouldnt be able to see it in its new spot until the light reached us, which would take million of years. If a star 6000 light years from us was moved millions of light years away 4000 years ago, it would still appear to be in its old spot for another 2000 years, and we wouldnt be able to see the light from its new position at all.

#8 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 04 September 2010 - 03:16 PM

Funny thing is We can see stars exploding and supernovas etc that happened billions of years ago. Its kind of ridiculous to think that what we are looking at in the sky at night is only a "snap shot" into the past.

From what I know, starlight is just a theory? I could be wrong.

#9 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 04 September 2010 - 04:49 PM

Funny thing is We can see stars exploding and supernovas etc that happened billions of years ago. Its kind of ridiculous to think that what we are looking at in the sky at night is only a "snap shot" into the past.

From what I know, starlight is just a theory? I could be wrong.

View Post


It's "just a theory" in the same sense that it's "just a theory" that the Earth goes around the Sun. Really, it's no different than seeing a flash of lightning before you hear the thunder. You're hearing an event that happened in the past. Sound doesnt reach you instantly, and neither does light, even though it's much faster.

#10 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 04 September 2010 - 05:13 PM

i found this interesting

http://www.answersin...stant-starlight

#11 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 04 September 2010 - 07:22 PM

i found this interesting

http://www.answersin...stant-starlight

View Post

How is this interesting? All he's said is that the bible is right and anything that contradicts it must be wrong. He didn't really show why it's wrong. He just reiterated that the idea of distant starlight conflicts with scripture.

This isn't science.

#12 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 04 September 2010 - 07:52 PM

I thought he pointed out all the pros and cons of both sides. Like the horizon problem that the big bangers must deal with.

#13 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 04 September 2010 - 07:59 PM

i found this interesting

http://www.answersin...stant-starlight

View Post


Yeah, I find it interesting too. I especially like the part where he straight out says that creationism isnt testable, and therefore by definition isnt science. At least he's honest. With regards to his theory about gravitational time dilation, it's easily debunked on two counts. First, the universe wouldnt generate a gravitational field in the way he suggests even if the Earth were at the center. The closer you get to a massive body, the stronger its gravitational field is. However, once you get inside the body, it starts getting weaker because the mass isnt pulling at you from the same direction anymore. Theoretically, there would be no gravity at the center of the earth because the mass would be equally distributed around you. The same principle applies to the universe. If the earth were at the center, there would be no gravitational field because mass would be equally distributed around us. For time dilation to occur, you need mass to be concentrated. For the universe to appear about 6000 years old based on star light, you would need to be standing inside the event horizon of a black hole with a mass of about 3 times the Local Group.

Second, time dilation means that everything happens faster. That includes things like energy output, meaning that far away objects should appear much brighter than they do. Galaxies 10 billion light years away, which are the farthest galaxies, would appear about 1.67 million times brighter. Moving them farther away doesnt help, because the farther away they get, the faster they move, and the more energy they appear to produce. It's inconsistent with pretty much all of astronomy.

#14 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 05 September 2010 - 06:41 PM

I noticed You didn't mention anything about the horizon problem. Any answers for that?

#15 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 05 September 2010 - 07:21 PM

I noticed You didn't mention anything about the horizon problem. Any answers for that?

View Post


Oh sorry, I didnt bother watching the entire video. The horizon problem is solved by inflation, along with a couple other annoying problems. We dont know exactly how or why inflation occurred yet, but the evidence suggests that it did occur. The cosmic background radiation is consistent with quantum variations in a hot plasma that is rapidly expanded to the size of the observable universe.

#16 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 September 2010 - 09:59 PM

Oh sorry, I didnt bother watching the entire video. The horizon problem is solved by inflation, along with a couple other annoying problems. We dont know exactly how or why inflation occurred yet, but the evidence suggests that it did occur. The cosmic background radiation is consistent with quantum variations in a hot plasma that is rapidly expanded to the size of the observable universe.

View Post


I thought the current hypothesis of inflation was due to the separation of the strong and electroweak interactions.

#17 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 05 September 2010 - 10:55 PM

I thought the current hypothesis of inflation was due to the separation of the strong and electroweak interactions.

View Post


Dont think so. That's just something that happened naturally as the universe cooled. Inflation requires the presence of some kind of negative gravitational energy field, which is also likely the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe. That's where the dark energy hypothesis comes from, although it seems kind of tacked on to me.

#18 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 September 2010 - 08:35 PM

My theory is that stars were once far closer to the earth, and over time moved further away. I don't know if anyone has theorised this before, but i'm developing it and collecting many interesting sources.

View Post


If the hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way were initially within a radius of only a few thousand light years the night sky would have been ablaze with stellar light thus confounding the distinction between night and day described in Genesis.

Were other galaxies also as close? If so, the night sky would have been dazzling to say the least. If not, the question of why they appear to have emitted their light more than 10,000 years ago would remain.

#19 falcone

falcone

    Member

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

Posted 07 September 2010 - 01:32 AM

I'm saying that stars were once far closer to earth (only a few thousand miles), and so their light reached more quickly to us.

View Post

There are an estimated 9 billion trillion stars in the universe (source:wiki). How would you fit all of them just a few thousand miles away from earth?

#20 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

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

Posted 07 September 2010 - 09:57 AM

I'm saying that stars were once far closer to earth (only a few thousand miles), and so their light reached more quickly to us.

View Post


Our star (the sun) is farther than a few thousand miles away from us. Unless you consider 93,000 thousand miles just a few. :lol:

Distance from Earth to sun = 1 AU ~ 93 Million miles




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users