More Hints at Early Origin of Stars, Galaxies (Not an April Fool's)

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 3/31/06 | Creation-Evolution Headlines Staff

[Strategerist]

Spitzer Clusters: JPL issued a press release stating that the Spitzer Space Telescope, on a “cosmic safari,” found evidence for clusters of galaxies 9 billion years old. In the standard dating scheme, this was when the universe was a “mere” 4.5 billion years old.

And Creation-Evolution Headlines pulls back into the lead in the "Most idiotic crap regularly posted to FR" category.

They either misunderstood the article they link to or are deliberately misrepresenting it.

[Alter Kaker]

If we are viewing the light, from the center of the universe from a big-bang event that happened billions of years ago,

We're not seeing the big bang itself. What we can see is microwave background radiation, which can be thought of as the afterglow from the Big Bang.

[bondserv]

See post #20 for scriptural possibilities.

[jimbergin]

and what did the article mean since you seem to understand it?

[Alter Kaker]

How long will it take for man to stop blaming his silliness on God and accept the idea that maybe the joker in the deck is man and his inability to make right choices ?

I'm not blaming anything on God. It's these creationists who are calling Him a liar -- who needs to trick his people by making the world look older than it is.

[dhs12345]

But microwave is the same and light isn't it -- em wave? Visible light, microwave -- same thing just different wavelength. Both travel at the same speed -- c.

[SteveMcKing]

"Matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Unless of course, there is such a thing as "warp" and space-time was compressed before the big-bang event."

http://www.physorg.com/news12084.html

Although they have become staples of science fiction, tachyons, worm holes and warp drives remain speculation, and many physicists dismiss their significance. There is, however, at least one real-world example of superluminal (i.e., faster-than-light) travel. It occurs when light passes through water.

In this dense medium, Schneider explained, light is slowed to three-fourths of its speed in a vacuum. In a nuclear reactor, charged particles flying off the radioactive rods through the water they are submerged in exceed this reduced speed.

Because these particles contain an electric charge, they emit energy, called Cherenkov radiation. Any particles they bump into become radioactive, giving the water a characteristic blue glow.

"It's not at all exotic," Schneider said. "Every time you look at the water in a nuclear reactor, the bluish glow you see is radiation produced by charged particles moving faster than the speed of light in the water."

There is also a simple cheating observation that one can mistake for superluminal velocity, basically: from the earth, wave a powerful laser back and forth across the sky. If it hits a surface and is reflected (say, on the moon), it will appear to an observer that a laser dot is "travelling" faster than light (about perpendicular to the direction you aim it).

Of course there is no single "laser dot", but rather a series of them spread out...

[RobbyS]

What we see with the Hubble suggests that we are a place not unlike Galileo was when he looked out with HIS telescope. Maybe our theories are no more correct than were Ptolemy's.

[Alter Kaker]

Consider for a moment that we know nothing about creating matter out of nothing.

I'm not sure what there is to consider: you're flat-out wrong. I'm a little rusty on my quantum mechanics (any physicists here?) but I seem to recall vacuum fluctuations as well as a number of other ways to create matter out of "nothing." I guess in at least some respects, e=mc^2 is creating matter out of "nothing."

It's the elitists who seem to forget the concept of humility!

If you say so. I don't know who you're calling "elitist," but I don't think there's anybody more arrogant than those who think that they can understand the universe and how it came to be from two chapters of Genesis alone.

[Alter Kaker]

But microwave is the same and light isn't it -- em wave? Visible light, microwave -- same thing just different wavelength. Both travel at the same speed -- c.

I'm not sure I understand your question. CMB does travel at the speed of light, and it is slowly dissipating -- think of it as the left over heat of the "explosion" (to use a rather inadequate analogy).

[I see my hands]

"Open minded people are always aware how little they understand. It's the elitists who seem to forget the concept of humility! "

And yet you claim to know the existence of god, his nature, and workings.

[satchmodog9]

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

[Lunatic Fringe]

Unless of course, there is such a thing as "warp" and space-time was compressed before the big-bang event.

If space formed out of a Big Bang, then the massive gravity and energy created at that moment could have warped the growing expanse of space, and matter on its edges could have traveled at sublight speed as the compressed space-time in which it occupied expanded at a speed faster than light.

[Lunatic Fringe]

I look around and think, "If God exists, he's either a sick, twisted genius, or he posesses an infinitely ironic sense of humor."

[dhs12345]

Interesting.

My question: how do you get matter to move across the universe so quickly? Unless, as you point out, the em waves emanating from the big-bang were slowed because they traveled through dense matter.

However, that means that matter would have be present for the em wave to travel through to be slowed down. Isn't this the classic chicken-egg situation?

The problem: even if matter is traveling at a fraction of C, that is still a lot of energy.

However, what would happen to space-time if all matter in the universe were concentrated in one spot? Seems like space-time would be severely "warped."

[LZ_Bayonet]

The answer is not complicated. They were "conceived" 9 billion years ago but only "born" 4.5 billion years ago. - It's late and I don't have time to explain this any further, sorry. Good night.

[dhs12345]

We are viewing an event that happened at the beginning of the Universe. We are seeing em waves from this event. These em waves have been traveling across the universe for billions of years (since beginning of the universe) and billions of light years.

This means the matter in our solar system, that originated from the big-bang and event that the above em wave was produced, arrived at this location before the em wave.

Think you are saying: we are seeing the afterglow of an event and not actually the event itself. Still it would have to be a race in which you have to move a huge amount of matter across space in a very short period of time (relatively speaking).

[metmom]

Origins ping

[Alter Kaker]

My question: how do you get matter to move across the universe so quickly? Unless, as you point out, the em waves emanating from the big-bang were slowed because they traveled through dense matter. However, that means that matter would have be present for the em wave to travel through to be slowed down. Isn't this the classic chicken-egg situation? The problem: even if matter is traveling at a fraction of C, that is still a lot of energy. However, what would happen to space-time if all matter in the universe were concentrated in one spot? Seems like space-time would be severely "warped."

That's not one question, that's about 19 different questions. You're not thinking of the Big Bang correctly. It wasn't all the matter contained in a tiny area, it was the entire universe. Matter didn't exist until some time after the Big Bang. Of course "space time" was warped, because at the moment of the Big Bang it didn't exist. Quarks didn't appear until 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang, protons and neutrons until 10^-12 seconds, the simplest atoms for 300,000 years.

[dhs12345]

Makes sense. A warp.