Why do we see light from stars that are millions of light years away?, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 19-4-2012 @ 11:31 AM by chizeled

interesting discussion...the Christian perspective suggests that the universe is only 10 thousand or so years old...in which case, if true, then the light year theory, and everything based on it, is false simply because light hasn't had the chance to travel for millions of years. ICR.org has discussions and research about the problems with the idea of light years. For example:

Has Einstein's Limit on the Speed of Light Been Broken?
Has the Speed of Light Decayed?

reply posted on 19-4-2012 @ 01:15 PM by NewAgeMan

reply to post by AllIsOne

The amount of space between stars is even more mind-boggling than the number of them, just in our galaxy alone (500 billion approx). The local stars, the ones you can see are for the most part within a 300 light year distance or something like that (I may be off).

reply posted on 19-4-2012 @ 01:17 PM by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by chizeled
interesting discussion...the Christian perspective suggests that the universe is only 10 thousand or so years old...

That's not true, and not even the Vatican in Rome maintains that.

That's the Biblical Literalist Evangelical Conservative Christian view, but not the view of most Christians, myself included as an Evolutionary Christian Mystic.

reply posted on 19-4-2012 @ 10:14 PM by chizeled

Originally posted by NewAgeMan Small Somebody

Originally posted by chizeled
interesting discussion...the Christian perspective suggests that the universe is only 10 thousand or so years old...
That's not true, and not even the Vatican in Rome maintains that.

That's the Biblical Literalist Evangelical Conservative Christian view, but not the view of most Christians, myself included as an Evolutionary Christian Mystic.

I don't consider the Vatican to be Christian but that's another discussion. I don't know what the Vatican bases their propaganda on but I do know that ICR.org bases their theories on the Bible. Like I said, the "Christian perspective" which typically means that it is based on the Bible "suggests that the universe is 10k years old." I don't know if your version of Christianity is based on the Bible or not but ICR.org does base their research on the Bible. I was simply offering the op a different perspective to consider irregardless of your personal beliefs and disbeliefs. I also don't believe that anybody considers your opinion of 'that's not true' to be very scientific, "Small Somebody."

edit on 19-4-2012 by chizeled because: Explaining Christianity to the "NewAgeMan"

reply posted on 19-4-2012 @ 11:23 PM by Astyanax

reply to post by Illustronic

If the Universe is infinite then what is the reason light cannot reach us beyond ~14 billion light years, it would have the time originating from before then. Which is why I reject dispersion also.

Fair enough. In fact, the universe is almost certainly finite. But you must understand that the universe we observe is far bigger than 14 billion light-years in radius. It's about four times that, thanks to cosmic expansion since the Big bang.

I suggest that a finite Universe answers the inadequacy of enough sources to obliterate dark.

But unfortunately it does not, because

Originally posted by nataylor
the very early universe as described by the Big Bang theory was extremely luminous (since all the matter in the universe was condensed into a very hot, bright space). And since looking deeper into space is like looking back in time, it would seem that even with the Big Bang, the sky should be bathed in the early light of the universe.

Nataylor is right. Which brings us to...

The source of emitted photon stream and the detection source (us) are receding from each other at a speed greater than c combined, at that point photons emitted never reach us.

This is, in fact, the reason why we do not see all of the universe. However, it does not eliminate the problem raised by nataylor.

Would that mean; red shift ultimate regression is black?

Of course not – not unless the wavelength were increased to ∞. But you are now closing upon the correct answer.

If we assume that energy is lost by gravitational forces, radiation energy transfer, or transfer to particle, we now have a finite distance a photon can traverse. If so, we can define a universal average attenuation length.

Photons, being massless, do not lose energy in a gravity field. Energy transfer 'by radiation' is the same as energy transfer by particle interaction; the same phenomenon viewed classically and through quantum spectacles. But a photon is never destroyed no matter how much energy it loses; something else happens to it. And in that something else lies the answer to the riddle. You are very, very close.

edit on 19/4/12 by Astyanax because: I left the 'reply to' line out the first time.

reply posted on 19-4-2012 @ 11:46 PM by SplitInfinity

When the Hubble Space Telescope looked at a specific point in space and many other specific points...it will see distant Galaxies all the way to what is the WMAP or Background Radiation Barrier....beyond this....about 14 Billion Light Years...it can see no further.

We are basicaly looking at a Radiation Barrier as it was about 14 Billion years ago so our Universe has expanded much further than that since that time...however there is some dispute on wether the Hubbles data calculation of 13.75 plus or minus.11 Light Years has taken proper estimates of expansion into account or if the Universe is much Older as a Light Year represents the the Distance that Light travels in one year...about 6 Trillion Miles. Thus a Galaxy that is 11 Billion Light Years away means we are looking at that Galaxy as how it was 11 Billion Years ago. So basically we are looking back through Time.

Split Infinity

reply posted on 19-4-2012 @ 11:59 PM by yourmaker

Thus a Galaxy that is 11 Billion Light Years away means we are looking at that Galaxy as how it was 11 Billion Years ago.

how can we begin to predict anything about what's happening out there if it's happened 11 billion years ago??

there could be a billion different things in the process of affecting us and we would have no clue?

reply posted on 20-4-2012 @ 09:55 AM by chizeled

Originally posted by yourmaker

Thus a Galaxy that is 11 Billion Light Years away means we are looking at that Galaxy as how it was 11 Billion Years ago.

how can we begin to predict anything about what's happening out there if it's happened 11 billion years ago??

there could be a billion different things in the process of affecting us and we would have no clue?

exactly right, we don't have a clue, especially considering the science behind the light year theory has been proven to be flawed. The light year theory has not been proven, as is indicated by the word theory, but has rather been proven to be flawed. People like to make themselves seem intelligent and superior by saying things like the universe is millions or even billions of years old but, as hard as they try, they just can't prove it. They come up with all kinds of official sounding jargon and documentation in order to make themselves believe that they know what they are talking about but they don't. However, the reasoning behind the light year theory has been proven to be deeply flawed: ICR.org

I mean me saying that the universe is gazillions upon trillions upon mega millions of years old is just as credible as saying that its "11 billion years old" or any other variation thereof +- eternity.

edit on 20-4-2012 by chizeled because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-4-2012 @ 11:10 PM by AllIsOne

reply to post by chizeled

Do you think icr.org is about empirical science?

reply posted on 21-4-2012 @ 11:45 PM by Astyanax

reply to post by chizeled

the science behind the light year theory has been proven to be flawed. The light year theory has not been proven, as is indicated by the word theory, but has rather been proven to be flawed.

There is no 'light year theory'. A light-year is simply a measure of distance.

Please explain what you think the 'light year theory' is.

reply posted on 22-4-2012 @ 07:24 AM by stumason

reply to post by Astyanax

Hehe, indeed. The speed of light is a known quantity, albeit it varies depending upon the medium, so it is simple maths to extrapolate that out to how far light can go in any given timeframe, ie; a year.

Also, he would appear to be of the sort that sees the word "theory" and thinks it just means "a guess". I know there is no "light year theory" itself, but I will just clarify for his sake that a Scientific theory is actually something backed up with empirical evidence and is something testable. If there was no evidence, or if it was just an idea waiting to be tested, it would be a hypothesis...

reply posted on 23-4-2012 @ 04:02 PM by AllIsOne

reply to post by Astyanax

Some fundamental Christian "scientists" cannot accept the current measurable speed of light. The biblical age of the earth and universe wouldn't compute, so they say that the speed of light was different at the beginning of creation ...