Just curious. . . . size of other galaxies.

[Magnetic]

While on another (christian) board, the topic of "the distances of other galaxies from earth" was being discussed. I had mentioned the Hubble Deep Field photo and a YEC-er basically said that "those hundreds of billions of stars doesn't mean that they're all huge like our sun. And as far as the galaxies, the same goes, . . . that no one knows how large or small these other galaxies may be".

I suppose the premise here is that, when the YEC-er looks at the Hubble Deep Field photo and sees all those distant galaxies, they could STILL be within 6,000 - 10,000 light years away, . . They're just a lot smaller than ours, . . . .they just SEEM to be far away, but they could just be really small.

I'm sure they denign the idea that our galaxy is ~ 100,000 light years across, too.

My question is, . . . . . . .could the person be right? . . . . . No, of course I don't think he/she is.. . . . but what do YOU think?

[Nephtys]

Um. How can all those stars be notably smaller than ours? We can distinctively tell the class of star from telescope, and there's no mechanism that'd indicate our galaxy is special compared to any other.

[petesampras]

While on another (christian) board, the topic of "the distances of other galaxies from earth" was being discussed. I had mentioned the Hubble Deep Field photo and a YEC-er basically said that "those hundreds of billions of stars doesn't mean that they're all huge like our sun. And as far as the galaxies, the same goes, . . . that no one knows how large or small these other galaxies may be".

I suppose the premise here is that, when the YEC-er looks at the Hubble Deep Field photo and sees all those distant galaxies, they could STILL be within 6,000 - 10,000 light years away, . . They're just a lot smaller than ours, . . . .they just SEEM to be far away, but they could just be really small.

I'm sure they denign the idea that our galaxy is ~ 100,000 light years across, too.

My question is, . . . . . . .could the person be right? . . . . . No, of course I don't think he/she is.. . . . but what do YOU think?

I'm not a physics man, but, aren't the distances of galaxies from ours determined by redshift (which is independant of size).

[Thinkmarble]

That is not the only method.
Another is the utilization of standart candles.
Click here for a list of other methods and a short explanation how each works.

[SirNitram]

My question is, . . . . . . .could the person be right? . . . . . No, of course I don't think he/she is.. . . . but what do YOU think?

Absolutely, positively not. How would the stars be that small? Are we proposing the last few decades of fusion research are all wrong, and you can do it with a trivial fraction of the pressure and heat we've needed so far?

Is the speed of light in that much of a flux? Is gravitational lensing that out of whack? How can black holes and neutron stars form from these microstars?

In short, unless these retards have suddenly uncovered some truth which contradicts decades of findings, they're full of shit.

Rule of Thumb: If someone ever says 'We have no way of knowing...' in regards to most science, a red flag should raise. There are very few 'We have no f'ing clue' things left, and they're not things these kiddies with egos would talk about.

Questions like 'Where's the other 95% of the mass of the universe?' don't occour to them, because they would refuse to listen to the idea that the mass is so godsdamned high.

[Lord Zentei]

While on another (christian) board, the topic of "the distances of other galaxies from earth" was being discussed. I had mentioned the Hubble Deep Field photo and a YEC-er basically said that "those hundreds of billions of stars doesn't mean that they're all huge like our sun. And as far as the galaxies, the same goes, . . . that no one knows how large or small these other galaxies may be".

Complete and utter bullshit. We have numerous ways of determining the distances of stars and galaxies, some of which are good at long range, others are good at short range, and where their ranges of application overlap, they corroborate one another. These include, but are not limited to, Chepheid variables, supernova observations, interstellar extinction (i.e. the level to which high frequency light scatters as it moves through interstellar dust), parallax observations and redshift observations. Moreover, we have ways of determining the mass of stars and galaxies by observing how they interact gravitationally with other objects.

There is no way that stars could generate nuclear fusion at their cores if they were not of a certain mass. Stellar power generation models are quite precise, especially now that the Solar neutrino problem has been licked. This "argument" is nothing but an appeal to ignorance by an ignorant moron.

I suppose the premise here is that, when the YEC-er looks at the Hubble Deep Field photo and sees all those distant galaxies, they could STILL be within 6,000 - 10,000 light years away, . . They're just a lot smaller than ours, . . . .they just SEEM to be far away, but they could just be really small.

I'm sure they denign the idea that our galaxy is ~ 100,000 light years across, too.

Of course that is what they are going for. If the science does not support your position, attack the science. The same tactic used by Trektards.

My question is, . . . . . . .could the person be right? . . . . . No, of course I don't think he/she is.. . . . but what do YOU think?

Absolutely no chance in hell is this fool right.

[kheegster]

"those hundreds of billions of stars doesn't mean that they're all huge like our sun. And as far as the galaxies, the same goes, . . . that no one knows how large or small these other galaxies may be".

There are many ways of measuring distances to stars, but none is as simple or intuitive as parallax measurements, in which the apparent motion of the star when the Earth is on different points of its orbit is measured and a distance calculated from that. This is as simple as determining the distance of a mountain as you drive past it, by seeing how fast it moves by. And guess what, tens of thousands of stars have had their distances measured by parallax, and they are certainly very very far away. Even the most brain-dead YEC should be able to see the logic in this method even if they pretend no other method exists.

In any case, the evolution (:lol:) and structure of stars is one of the most well-understood parts of modern science...in fact we know far more about how stars work than the human body. The Sun is in fact a distinctively small star when compared with other stars, so his statement is just more evidence of what a dumbass he is.

I suppose the premise here is that, when the YEC-er looks at the Hubble Deep Field photo and sees all those distant galaxies, they could STILL be within 6,000 - 10,000 light years away, . . They're just a lot smaller than ours, . . . .they just SEEM to be far away, but they could just be really small.

Funnily enough, there was a scientific debate on this in the early part of the 20th century, on whether 'nebulae' were separate galaxies or blobs of gas within our own galaxy. Edwin Hubble settled this in the 20's when he succesfully measure the distance to Andromeda to be 2 million light years, which puts it well beyond our galaxy. Look at Thinkmarble's link for the list of methods by which distances can be measured.

Although I suspect that the YECer's will take the usual route of dismissing anything they're too blockheaded to understand or accept.

[wolveraptor]

If such galaxies were 6000-10000 lightyears away, I'm pretty sure they'd have to be about the size of blue or red giants (I think). That's 1 star. If it's 1 star, it's not a galaxy.

[Zero]

The sun isn't a particularly large star. It's not small as some stars, either, but despite what stupid people believe, the sun isn't that large. Larger stars tend to fizzle out faster, since the energy required to combat the gravitational forces is greater, and there's only so much energy to be gained from fusion of what begins as hydrogen atoms. Smaller stars have less material to use, so they fizzle out faster too. Our sun is a more moderate size, so it lasts long. Long enough for life to be created from abiotic processes and to evolve to the level of diversity we have today.

The simplest method used to figure out the distance to any diven star is the parallax method, as was stated before. This method is done by watching the change in an object's (in this case a star's) position in the sky shift as the earth orbits around the sun. Using the distance to the sun (approximately 93,000,000 miles), we can calculate the distance to an object using basic trig.



This method is only even close to accurate at short distances. Objects beyond a certain distance won't be measurable by this method. That's why we have other methods, like redshift observations and whatnot.

The parallax method is simple enough that it should be sufficient for most fundie morons to understand that those galaxies aren't just really small, and not so distant.

[Magnetic]

It was statement that (paraphrased) "we can only know for SURE (through parallex, the most prefered method) the distances out to 1,000 light years . . . . . . . . and that in 2012 the GAIA satallite will raise that to 3,200 light years of certainty."

[SirNitram]

It was statement that (paraphrased) "we can only know for SURE (through parallex, the most prefered method) the distances out to 1,000 light years . . . . . . . . and that in 2012 the GAIA satallite will raise that to 3,200 light years of certainty."

The phrase 'Bald, outright lie, unsupported by anything but his own authority' leaps into the mind and starts playing cymbals.

[Lord Zentei]

It was statement that (paraphrased) "we can only know for SURE (through parallex, the most prefered method) the distances out to 1,000 light years . . . . . . . . and that in 2012 the GAIA satallite will raise that to 3,200 light years of certainty."

The phrase 'Bald, outright lie, unsupported by anything but his own authority' leaps into the mind and starts playing cymbals.

It is a lie promoted by that dipshit dr Dino.

[Magnetic]

OOOhhhh, . . . . . . . ."Dr." Dino. I see.

You know, it IS understandable as to why they defend their YEC so staunchly. To them, if a literal 6 day creation didn't take place, then NONE of the Bible can be said to be true. Their follie, of course, is that they rest TOO much on the "infallible word of God" idea (as stated somewhere in the Bible, 2 Timothy, or such) that states that "all scripture is God breathed and inspired . . . ". Yet, when such a thing was actually WRITTEN by that writer, . . . the Bible wasn't even a cannon. The men in Constantine's day that decided which books would be allowed, and which ones were to be left out were just . . . . men. Religious leaders who made up their own minds with debates.

[SirNitram]

OOOhhhh, . . . . . . . ."Dr." Dino. I see.

You know, it IS understandable as to why they defend their YEC so staunchly. To them, if a literal 6 day creation didn't take place, then NONE of the Bible can be said to be true. Their follie, of course, is that they rest TOO much on the "infallible word of God" idea (as stated somewhere in the Bible, 2 Timothy, or such) that states that "all scripture is God breathed and inspired . . . ". Yet, when such a thing was actually WRITTEN by that writer, . . . the Bible wasn't even a cannon. The men in Constantine's day that decided which books would be allowed, and which ones were to be left out were just . . . . men. Religious leaders who made up their own minds with debates.

If the Bible's infallible, how come the Gospel of Mary and Thomas aren't in there? It's madness, a very deep rooted madness. What baffles the fuck out of me is how they get there in the first place.. The book contradicts itself in places, just as you'd expect if it was a collection of old stories passed down orally and then transcribed.

[kheegster]

It was statement that (paraphrased) "we can only know for SURE (through parallex, the most prefered method) the distances out to 1,000 light years . . . . . . . . and that in 2012 the GAIA satallite will raise that to 3,200 light years of certainty."

It's interesting that they demand such strong evidence for cosmic distances and yet this doesn't need to be applied to the Bible.

That sort of argument is in the same league as saying that just because they've never seen Michael Jackson in person, he doesn't really exist.

[Ariphaos]

It was statement that (paraphrased) "we can only know for SURE (through parallex, the most prefered method) the distances out to 1,000 light years . . . . . . . . and that in 2012 the GAIA satallite will raise that to 3,200 light years of certainty."

I wonder what they'll hang to in several decades when parallax measurement can actually resolve these galaxies.

[kheegster]

It was statement that (paraphrased) "we can only know for SURE (through parallex, the most prefered method) the distances out to 1,000 light years . . . . . . . . and that in 2012 the GAIA satallite will raise that to 3,200 light years of certainty."

I wonder what they'll hang to in several decades when parallax measurement can actually resolve these galaxies.

Apart from the Magellanic clouds (~50 kpc for the LMC), the nearest galaxies is M31 which is about 2.1 ly away, since 1pc ~3ly, for an order of magnitude let's say M31 is 1 Mpc away. The nice thing about quoting distances in parsecs is that the inverse of the distance gives you the angular displacement for a (hypothetical) parallax measurement in arcseconds.

So 1Mpc -> 10^-6 arcseconds. IIRC the diffraction limit of the Hubble is of the order 0.05 arcsec, while the 10m Keck scopes have a (diffraction) limit of 0.01 arcsec. To resolve a displacement from the parallax of M31 requires a telescope with an aperture about 10km wide, which is conceivable with ground-based or space-based interferometry I suppose, but I expect that there are greater priorities for such techniques than measuring parallaxes for objects whose distances are already well-known.

Incidentally, GAIA is intended to measure parallaxes up to ~8kpc, which is about 24,000 light years, which should remove any doubts about the universe being less than 10,000 years ago. Interesting that Dr. Dino probably lied about the capability of GAIA, to support his own position.

[Sriad]

It baffels my mind that there are fundies who believe such tortured lies as "all those galaxies are really tiny and 6,000 light years away" when it would be SO MUCH EASIER to just believe that their sky fairy created the universe with photons pre-placed en-route from distant galaxies...

...But then, who ever accused fundies of being clever?

(seriously though, admitting the size of the universe probably scares the shit out of them. It's much easier to think of man as God's Own Image/Chosen Species/etc if the universe doesn't have 10^19 or so Earth-like planets in it.)

[Magnetic]

It baffels my mind that there are fundies who believe such tortured lies as "all those galaxies are really tiny and 6,000 light years away" when it would be SO MUCH EASIER to just believe that their sky fairy created the universe with photons pre-placed en-route from distant galaxies...

...But then, who ever accused fundies of being clever?

(seriously though, admitting the size of the universe probably scares the shit out of them. It's much easier to think of man as God's Own Image/Chosen Species/etc if the universe doesn't have 10^19 or so Earth-like planets in it.)

Sriad, many fundies DO believe what you just said. They believe that God created the light already in transit on the first day when God said, "Let there be light", . . . . but didn't actually place the star there until the forth day.

Where the trouble comes is, not that God COULDN'T do that, but IF it happened that way, it would be akin to creating a fictitious past, events that never actually occured. . . . . . for example, . . the blown out ring of a star that exploaded several million years ago (based upon the size of the ring and the distance to it) wouldn't have ACTUALLY occured at all, but made to LOOK that way. Such evidences would eventually cause people to question the Bible, . . .question God, . . . and thus they would have to choose between what they have observed, or believe a fictional event (God creating the universe with age, with the after effects of events that didn't take place).

[Lord Zentei]

the Bible wasn't even a cannon.

The Bible is not a cannon and never will be a cannon.

It has been declared canon, though.

Canon (w/o the "a") = gospel. A cannon = big gun.


(sorry, pet peeve of mine.)

[Lord Zentei]

Sriad, many fundies DO believe what you just said. They believe that God created the light already in transit on the first day when God said, "Let there be light", . . . . but didn't actually place the star there until the forth day.

Where the trouble comes is, not that God COULDN'T do that, but IF it happened that way, it would be akin to creating a fictitious past, events that never actually occured. . . . . . for example, . . the blown out ring of a star that exploaded several million years ago (based upon the size of the ring and the distance to it) wouldn't have ACTUALLY occured at all, but made to LOOK that way. Such evidences would eventually cause people to question the Bible, . . .question God, . . . and thus they would have to choose between what they have observed, or believe a fictional event (God creating the universe with age, with the after effects of events that didn't take place).

The above skirts close to the "matrix philosophy". One wonders sometimes whether these fools beleive the evidence of their own senses.

Of course, this means de facto that God is a liar and is deliberately misleading people (as opposed to such things being the fault of the Devil).

[Magnetic]

the Bible wasn't even a cannon.

The Bible is not a cannon and never will be a cannon.

It has been declared canon, though.

Canon (w/o the "a") = gospel. A cannon = big gun.


(sorry, pet peeve of mine.)

It could be shot out BY a cannon, though. You have to give me that!!

[kheegster]

It baffels my mind that there are fundies who believe such tortured lies as "all those galaxies are really tiny and 6,000 light years away" when it would be SO MUCH EASIER to just believe that their sky fairy created the universe with photons pre-placed en-route from distant galaxies...

...But then, who ever accused fundies of being clever?

(seriously though, admitting the size of the universe probably scares the shit out of them. It's much easier to think of man as God's Own Image/Chosen Species/etc if the universe doesn't have 10^19 or so Earth-like planets in it.)

Sriad, many fundies DO believe what you just said. They believe that God created the light already in transit on the first day when God said, "Let there be light", . . . . but didn't actually place the star there until the forth day.

Where the trouble comes is, not that God COULDN'T do that, but IF it happened that way, it would be akin to creating a fictitious past, events that never actually occured. . . . . . for example, . . the blown out ring of a star that exploaded several million years ago (based upon the size of the ring and the distance to it) wouldn't have ACTUALLY occured at all, but made to LOOK that way. Such evidences would eventually cause people to question the Bible, . . .question God, . . . and thus they would have to choose between what they have observed, or believe a fictional event (God creating the universe with age, with the after effects of events that didn't take place).

Ask them how is this different from God creating the whole Universe precisely 5 minutes ago and implanting all the memories, evidence etc to make it seem as if the Universe is much older.

[Magnetic]

It baffels my mind that there are fundies who believe such tortured lies as "all those galaxies are really tiny and 6,000 light years away" when it would be SO MUCH EASIER to just believe that their sky fairy created the universe with photons pre-placed en-route from distant galaxies...

...But then, who ever accused fundies of being clever?

(seriously though, admitting the size of the universe probably scares the shit out of them. It's much easier to think of man as God's Own Image/Chosen Species/etc if the universe doesn't have 10^19 or so Earth-like planets in it.)

Sriad, many fundies DO believe what you just said. They believe that God created the light already in transit on the first day when God said, "Let there be light", . . . . but didn't actually place the star there until the forth day.

Where the trouble comes is, not that God COULDN'T do that, but IF it happened that way, it would be akin to creating a fictitious past, events that never actually occured. . . . . . for example, . . the blown out ring of a star that exploaded several million years ago (based upon the size of the ring and the distance to it) wouldn't have ACTUALLY occured at all, but made to LOOK that way. Such evidences would eventually cause people to question the Bible, . . .question God, . . . and thus they would have to choose between what they have observed, or believe a fictional event (God creating the universe with age, with the after effects of events that didn't take place).

Ask them how is this different from God creating the whole Universe precisely 5 minutes ago and implanting all the memories, evidence etc to make it seem as if the Universe is much older.

Hmmm. . . well they, . . . . . . well.. . . . . .it could be. . . . . . . . . .

Yeah, there's no way to really answer that, is there?

[Wyrm]

It baffels my mind that there are fundies who believe such tortured lies as "all those galaxies are really tiny and 6,000 light years away" when it would be SO MUCH EASIER to just believe that their sky fairy created the universe with photons pre-placed en-route from distant galaxies...

...But then, who ever accused fundies of being clever?

They confuse befuddlement for knowledge. Of course nobody can accuse them of being clever. [/obligatory fundie bashing]

Back to the science, since the lower limit for stellar ignition is around 0.1 solar masses (I forget the figure), so a galaxy of 1 billion suns is going to have a lower limit of 100 million solar masses in total mass. If the galaxies are really only about 6,000 ly away (gee, I wonder where they got that number!), then that means that the galaxies are about a thousand times smaller in length, and therefore a billion times more densely packed than we thought. But you can't cram 100 million solar masses (let alone the mass we actually think galaxies have) into a volume one billionth that of the Milky Way without some very interesting physics going on...

And keep in mind, this interesting physics is all taking place 6,000 ly away, soooo...

Crispy Earth Time!