The "starlight problem" does not exist for me, as far as I understand the problem. (i.e., we 'know" the universe is very large - I forget the supposed size). And at that distance (assumed correct, for the sake of argument), the light could not get to us in 6000 years (or 10,000 years).
Solutions (there are more than one).
1. God created things in FUNCTIONAL MATURITY: e.g., He created chickens, not eggs. Trees, not seeds. Rivers flowing, not a tiny stream that would enlarge later. He created MAN from the dust, not a baby that would grow. Just as the river would (as it exists) flow from (whatever origin) to (whatever destination downstream), and the trees would grow and give fruit, etc., a finished star, visible from Earth, would have the "river of light" already in place, from its origin to its earthly destination.
That is another example of Functional Maturity. If we concede that God made Adam from DUST, and Eve from his rib, the rest of creation should not be too hard for Him.
2. The Bible says that God STRETCHED OUT the Heavens. This is interesting. I don't recally other things being stretched out, like a twig into a tree, a baby stretched out up to a man, and so forth.
Whatever we understand by "stretched out", it's indicating that the heavens (incl the stars) used to be closer (perhaps MUCH closer) than they are now.
They could grow, like the surface of a balloon would enlarge the size and distance of dots marked on it, if it is inflated.
That is one way to understand the "distance" problem -- it was created and then stretched out (regardless of how He did it). So the terribly long distances we see (or imagine?) of stars and galaxies, did not always exist. They were Stretched Out.
Please see the following verses where this is mentioned:
I think perhaps God is telling us, and is the wanting us to understand, that He STRETCHED OUT the heavens. The implications for us may be enormous. This is in addition to other discussions about the size of the universe (now) or the "shape" of it, and other things related to this topic.
I hope some of this helps when considering the "starlight problem".
The faster you go, the slower time takes. As you approach the speed of light, time continues to slow down, AT the speed of light...time STOPS! Which means for a photon moving at the speed of light, when it is absorbed in your retina, it is the same instant it was emitted at the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.....if you are that photon, it does not experience that delay." -Neil deGrasse Tyson << Now taking this equation or theory with Richard Dawkins "theory" that "The universe and live within it APPEARS to be designed but it's not designed". Can we also say that the Universe appears to be old but it's not really old? Maybe the age of the universe is really a delusion and there is no age at all or maybe it really is a young Universe??
Robert Webb The starlight is no problem as the galaxies were much closer and did not form later and then send light. It is a hidden presupposition which is answered by the expansion. Light was in place already from solar systems and galaxies and during an expansion the solar systems and galaxies should be thought of like pennies on a ballon that expands. The light is already in place when originated were much closer to us. The hidden false presupposition is to measure the distance now and then calculate the speed of light instead properly calculating the original position of the earth being much, much closer and then effect of speed light during an expansion and accelerating universe. As well there is evidence the speed of light was faster in the past, possibly instantaneous and slowed down subject to the decay of the fallen universe. Humphries has dealt with this and responded to the critical reviews.
1) the one directional speed of light is unknown 2) special relativity actually suggests the speed of light "adjusts" itself relative to the speed of the source 3) inflation theory/God stretches out the heavens 4) we can't measure distance accurately beyond parallax, so distance to celestial objects is largely unknown. 5) age assumptions are based on distance assumptions and assumptions about the speed of light. There is no empirical reason to believe distance and age correlate, or to believe objects are as distant as commonly assumed.
William Barney When traveling at speeds near the speed of light special relativity says that time is dilated. Thus relative to another inertial frame (where perhaps a stationary twin sits) time for the moving twin is slowing down. Hence the stationary twin is aging faster.
The moving twin is of course moving away. The stationary twin is stationary. So what happens when the moving twin stops and reverses moving back to the stationary twin? Will the stationary twin be older than the lightspeed twin? The answers is no. As the moving twin approaches the stationary twin the moving twin accelerates in aging while the stationary twin deaccelerates. So when the moving twin arrives they are in fact the same age. Now apply this to modern astronomy. As we measure distance and calculate time we measure light in one direction heading away. That is why we say that it would take 60 light years to reach a star. But light travels too us not away. So when calculating starlight we need to calculate light coming to the earth NOT going away because time is accelerated when photons travel to us and not away. This means that stars are much much younger than what modern cosmology generally believes. I hope I made something complicated simple and easy to understand. My trade is I am a space communications specialist.
Why do scientist say the universe is ~ 13 billion years old and we can see to the edge of the known universe. There are two problems here. One the edge of the universe is ~ 47 billion years away from us, making seeing light from that distance impossible. Yet we set exposers on the Hubble telescope to capture those images of those distance galaxies. The estimate of the time of the universe is off. Second the universe is transparent. Why? most of the universe is still gaseous. And all of it is ionized meaning it should be opaque. What it says in Genesis is that the light was created, then the stars on the 4th day. If this is true, then light was created to be in route like it was an eternal display. This seems to be the case if the diameter of the universe is 96 billion light years across and there is not enough time for light from the edge to get to us. Yet we see all of the universe at every angle and direction clearly.In order for this to still work they have come up with a theory to solve the problem. It is called "inflation". This explanation says that at one point in the early part of the Big Bang matter had to have expanded rapidly and I mean so rapidly it defied a law of physics. Going faster than light itself. We know that matter cannot go faster than light because the energy needed would be greater than all the energy of the entire universe. So, science doesn't know how all these things came about, yet to explain this away they come up with theories to explain theories because they are stuck. It's a theory which will fall by the wayside like Heckle's drawings (which were a fraud), the Genesis wave(featured in Star Trek), and junk DNA(which isn't junk but functioning code), and oh so much more that Darwinian evolution has predicted yet fails to answer. Your denial of the biblical account is not true to science.
remember God created light first before the stars.
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. How could this be? Well if photons can travel faster than light then they can travel faster then time. This is what was found in the experiment with the experiment done in Cern laboratories. That means that light would shine before the source became visible JUST LIKE GENESIS CLAIMS!!!!! WOW!!!!!!
Faster than light particles found, claim scientists
Particle physicists detect neutrinos travelling faster than light, a feat forbidden by Einstein's theory of special relativity
It is a concept that forms a cornerstone of our understanding of the universe and the concept of time – nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
But now it seems that researchers working in one of the world's largest physics laboratories, under a mountain in central Italy, have recorded particles travelling at a speed that is supposedly forbidden by Einstein's theory of special relativity. Scientists at the Gran Sasso facility will unveil evidence on Friday that raises the troubling possibility of a way to send information back in time, blurring the line between past and present and wreaking havoc with the fundamental principle of cause and effect. They will announce the result at a special seminar at Cern – the European particle physics laboratory – timed to coincide with the publication of a research paper (pdf) describing the experiment.
Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam
The light from stars reach us at the speed of light, right? Wrong.
The universe is expanding. (Faster now than before) so starlight is reaching us at lightspeed + expansion speed.
The bible agrees with what science now informs us regarding starlight as far as how it is possible to see starlight from so far.
Isaiah 42:5 (KJV) 5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Remember, a lightyear is a distance, not a timespan.
Distant Starlight—The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention
Happy Jason Lisle Day! Celebrating Creationists' Inability to Solve the "Starlight Problem" (and Willigness to Lie About It)
Last edited by Otangelo on Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:46 am; edited 17 times in total