James Stroud Creationism Revisited – 2020 – A Defense of Recent Creation by an Agnostic
Surely distant starlight must prove an old universe, right? No one disputes that the stars and galaxies are millions, even billions, of light-years away. Of course, a light year is a distance measurement that indicates how far light, traveling at its presently measured speed of 186,000 miles a second, travels in one year. So, doesn’t this prove the light needed millions and billions of years to get here? This problem assumes that the speed of light has always been the same, and that clocks have always measured time passing at the same rate in all times and places in the history of the universe. It may seem like an open and shut case, but explaining distant starlight is a task for all cosmologies, including the conventional Big Bang model. I have worked with several who have put forth scientifically sound alternative cosmological models that indicate, or at least accommodate, a young universe on the order of 6,000–10,000 years old. These models question the underlying assumptions of conventional models, such as Big Bang theories. The Big Bang theory has a light time travel problem: First of all, it should be shown at the outset that even the conventional models have to solve a distant starlight problem. The problem is called the “horizon” problem. The unavoidable singularity poses serious problems for cosmologists. In particular, it sits uneasily with the high degree of homogeneity and isotropy that the universe exhibits on large scales. For the cosmos to look broadly the same everywhere, some kind of communication had to pass among distant regions of space, coordinating their properties. But the idea of such communication contradicts the old cosmological paradigm. In the big bang model, the universe began with a small point called a singularity, which then expands rapidly. Before expansion, this model requires that different regions of the universe started with very different temperatures, yet today we can detect electromagnetic radiation coming from great distances all over the known universe, and this radiation shows that the temperature is very uniform in all places. But how did this happen between regions that are now billions of light years apart? This could happen only by these regions exchanging electromagnetic heat and light energy until the temperature is uniform. This is what happens when an ice-cold glass of water comes to room temperature if we wait long enough. Electromagnetic energy traveling at the current speed of light would not have had time to even out the temperature for points billions of light years apart, since they would have to have exchanged light and heat energy many times. This is why inflation theory was brought in to save the big bang model from this horizon problem. Inflation theory, which actually has no convincing supporting evidence, has the universe expanding slower at first, which supposedly allowed the temperature differences to smooth out before a rapid, explosive inflation after that. As of 2020, there is no known cause for inflation, nor a mechanism to stop it. Therefore, the Big Bang’s starlight travel time problem remains, so one cannot dismiss a YEC biblical chronology a priori.
Sciencedan “If the Universe is 13 Billion Years Old, why is its Temperature Uniform?” October 10, 2011
So what did Big Bang theorists do when confronted with this problem? Well, they were forced to propose an explanation that was not based on any observations and cannot be fully explained in our current understanding of physics: inflation. Inflation is the hypothesis that at 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang, the universe expanded in size by a factor of about 10^78 (that’s 10 million billion billion billion…[8 “billions” total]) in only about 10^-33 seconds! Before the inflation occurred (i.e., when the universe was very small and heat had less distance to cover), the temperature of the universe became uniform. Thus, when inflation stopped, all of the regions were already in thermal equilibrium. Alan Guth, a cosmologist from MIT, is perhaps the foremost pioneer of this concept, which he outlines in his book The Inflationary Universe. If this hypothesis is correct, it would solve the “horizon problem.” However, inflation has some problems of its own. Not only do we not understand the physical mechanism that would start the inflation, but we also do not know how inflation would stop (known as the “graceful exit” problem). To solve some of the problems introduced by the horizon problem, cosmologists have even proposed radical ideas such as a drastic change in the speed of light (also see here). The point is, the horizon problem is still a problem for the Big Bang, and its supposed solution, “inflation,” is also poorly understood.
The Big Bang Theory (based on an old age for the universe) has the problem of how to even out the temperature of the universe in the time available. Thus, the Big Bang (which most people accept) has the same problem that most people seem to think the young-earth creation model has! So how can those who accept an old universe/Earth criticize young-earth Biblical creationists for the same problem that their own model has? It is neither scientific nor honest to do so. If someone asks you, “How can we see light from distant stars if the earth is young?”, then ask, “If the Big Bang is true, how did the temperature of the universe become uniform in 13.7 billion years?” So what about the fact that we can see stars that are billions of light-years away? Is that a valid objection against a young earth and the Bible?
Andreas Albrecht A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles 2 Nov 1998
Stuart Clark Cosmic uncertainty: Is the speed of light really constant? 1 March 2017
The universe's ultimate speed limit seems set in stone. But there's good reason to believe it might once have been faster – and may still be changing now The speed of light in a vacuum is the ultimate cosmic speed limit. Just getting close to it causes problems: the weird distortions of Einstein’s relativity kick in, so time slows down, lengths go up, masses balloon and everything you thought was fixed changes. Only things that have no mass in the first place can reach light speed – photons of light being the classic example. Absolutely nothing can exceed this cosmic max. We have known about the special nature of light speed since an experiment by US physicists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley in the 1880s. They set two beams of light racing off, one parallel and one at right angles to the direction of Earth’s rotation, assuming the different relative motions would mean the light beams would travel at different speeds – only to find the speed was always the same.
Joshua Sokol Weird energy beam seems to travel five times the speed of light 22 May 2017
Please welcome to the stage a master illusionist. An energy beam that stabs out of galaxy M87 like a toothpick in a cocktail olive is pulling off the ultimate magic trick: seeming to move faster than the speed of light. Almost five times faster, in fact, as measured by the Hubble Space Telescope. This feat was first observed in 1995 in galaxy M87, and has been seen in many other galaxies since. It might have you questioning your entire reality. Nothing can break the cosmic speed limit, right? You can’t just flaunt the laws of physics… can you?
Stephen Battersby Faster-than-light 'tachyons' might be impossible after all 18 March 2009
Faster-than-light particles, or “tachyons”, may be fundamentally impossible, according to two mathematical physicists. If they’re right, their new theory would also imply that time – seemingly one of the most fundamental facets of nature – is no more than a mirage. Although it is commonly believed that Einstein’s theory of relativity says nothing can go faster than light, that is not quite true. Relativity does forbid ordinary matter from ever reaching the speed of light, because it would require infinite energy. But the theory does not rule out a realm of particles that can only travel faster than light. Named “tachyons” by physicists in the 1960s, these subatomic speedsters would actually need an infinite amount of energy to slow down to the crawl of light-speed. Tachyons crop up as possibilities in several speculative physical theories, such as some versions of string theory. Physicists have searched for their expected signatures. If they are among the high-energy particles that hit Earth from space, tachyons would produce a signal similar to cosmic rays – except that they would reach ground-based detectors ahead of the secondary particles they created in the atmosphere. No tachyons have ever been detected, however, and now James Wheeler and Joseph Spencer of Utah State University think they know why.
Their line of reasoning is subtle. “We’ve been embroiled in this calculation for one-and-a-half years,” says Wheeler. The pair wanted to understand how physical models are related to the measurements we make. They started by imagining a universe that only has distances, with no time dimension. The simplest measurement in this universe is to compare two distances: and a one-metre stick should be half the length of a two-metre stick, no matter what your point of view, whether you look from a different angle or a different place. All these points of view form a more complex abstract space, the “space of measurement symmetries”.
Mathematically, this turns out to look a lot like “phase space”, which is at the heart of quantum mechanics and other physical theories. Phase space describes not only the position of an object, but also its momentum – loosely, the object’s trajectory. In their model, all the trajectories get bundled up into two cones meeting at a point. It looks like one set of trajectories coming in from the past, passing through a point at the present, and heading out again into the future. Something equivalent to time has emerged. In fact, this bundle of trajectories mimics the “light cone” of relativity, traced out by the paths in space-time of particles travelling up to and including the speed of light. The light cone also divides past from future. In relativity, it is possible to conceive of tachyons, travelling outside the light cone. But in Wheeler and Spencer’s model, that is inconceivable, since the cone is actually defined by the set of all possible trajectories.
Why should their complicated space of symmetries have any relevance to the “real” space and time that we inhabit? The reason is that it links timeless space to something like our familiar space-time, meaning that these two descriptions are equivalent. Any events that can be described in the space-time picture can be modelled just as well by a structure in timeless space. The consequences could be profound. The timeless space can’t change, so that could mean that our universe is deterministic, with the future set in stone. Wheeler suspects that our perceived “time” corresponds to the distance from a special point in the four-dimensional timeless space he modelled. If so, that point might mark the apparent beginning of time at the big bang. Mathematician Shahn Majid of Queen Mary, University of London, also works on the question of how time could emerge from timelessness. He believes that Wheeler and Spencer’s result is limited, because it depends on a particular mathematical approach. But he doesn’t dismiss the work. “It’s suggestive, and gives the right answer [that time emerges],” he told New Scientist. “And there are now several approaches to this question, which could all tie up. There seems to be an emerging theory of emerging time.”
James T. Wheeler The Existence of Time October 26, 2018
As modern astronomers now know, pretty much all galaxies have a central black hole that periodically draws in stars and gas clouds. When gas begins to swirl down the drain, it heats up and magnetic fields focus some of it into jets of hot plasma. These jets shoot out at velocities near to – but not faster than – the speed of light.
Light’s constant, finite speed is a brake on our ambitions of interstellar colonisation. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years across, and it is more than four years’ light travelling time even to Proxima Centauri, the closest star to the sun and home, possibly, to a habitable planet rather like Earth. Then again, if the speed of light were infinite, massless particles and the information they carry would move from A to B instantaneously, cause would sit on top of effect and everything would happen at once. The universe would have no history and no future, and time as we understand it would disappear. We wouldn’t like a universe like that.
The horizon problem - why does the universe look the same in all directions?
Natural or Supernatural? There are underlying assumptions in conventional models that the processes and rates observed today were always in operation in the past based on uniformitarianism. There is also an upfront exclusion of the possibility of a supernatural creation event, where different processes and rates were brought into play. If we assume instead that a creation event really happened, then there would have been processes that don’t happen today, operating at much faster rates than we see today. We can’t argue that a supernatural explanation is wrong because something can’t be explained by natural means. This is faulty reasoning and exclusion of the supernatural on philosophical grounds, as I meticulously break down in The Philosophy of History, so I find it question-begging when OEC theorists criticize YEC cosmologies for not being scientific enough. If one is a Christian, then they would agree with a supernatural beginning; the OEC must be careful to not just be an OE (old earth “non” creationist) or they will simply be a naturalist. See my point? Let’s look at alternative cosmological models that have been proposed to deal with the distant starlight problem.
Does Distant Starlight prove a billions-of-years-old universe? part 6 of series
How about this one: Surely distant starlight must prove an old universe. No one disputes that the stars and galaxies are very distant, millions and even billions of light-years away. Of course, a light-year is a distance measurement that indicates how far light, traveling at its presently measured speed of 186,000 miles a second, travels in one year. So doesn’t this prove the light needed millions and billions of years to get here?
This problem assumes that the speed of light has always been the same and that clocks have always measured time passing at the same rate in all times and places in the history of the universe. It may seem like an open and shut case, but actually, as we shall see, explaining distant starlight is a task for all cosmologies, including the conventional Big Bang model. I want to make everyone aware of the work of many physicists and astronomers who have put forth scientifically sound alternative cosmological models that indicate or at least accommodate a young universe, on the order of 6,000-10,000 years old. These models question some of the underlying assumptions of the conventional models such as the big bang theory.
The Big Bang theory has a light time travel problem:
It should be shown at the outset that even the conventional models have to solve a distant starlight problem. The problem is called the “horizon” problem. In the big bang model, the universe began with a small point called a singularity, which then expands rapidly. Before expansion, this model requires that different regions of the universe started with very different temperatures, yet today we can detect electromagnetic radiation coming from great distances all over the known universe, and this radiation shows that the temperature is very uniform in all places. But how did this happen between regions that are now billions of light years apart? This could happen only by these regions exchanging electromagnetic heat and light energy until the temperature is uniform. This is what happens when an ice-cold glass of water comes to room temperature if we wait long enough. Electromagnetic energy traveling at the current speed of light would not have had time to even out the temperature for points billions of light-years apart since they would have to have exchanged light and heat energy many times. This is why inflation theory was brought in to save the big bang model from this horizon problem. Inflation theory, which actually has no convincing supporting evidence, has the universe expanding slower at first, which supposedly allows the temperature differences to smooth out before there is a rapid, explosive inflation after that. As can be seen in the referenced articles, in 2020, there is no known cause for this inflation, nor a mechanism for stopping it, as well as other problems. Therefore, the big bang’s starlight travel time problem remains, and so one cannot dismiss the Biblical chronology in favor of the conventional one.
Natural or Supernatural?:
There are underlying assumptions in conventional models that the processes and rates observed today were always in operation in the past-called uniformitarianism. There is also an upfront exclusion of the possibility of a supernatural creation event, where different processes and rates were brought into play. If we assume instead that a creation event really happened, then there would have been processes that don’t happen today, operating at much faster rates than we see today. We can’t argue that a supernatural explanation is wrong because something can’t be explained by natural means. This is simply circular reasoning and exclusion of the supernatural on philosophical grounds.
Is the speed of light constant?
Modern physics rests on the foundational notion that the speed of light is a constant, which in a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second (299,792 km/s). Einstein established this within his theory of general relativity, first developed in 1906 when he was just 26 years old. But what if it doesn’t? A few albeit controversial incidents in recent years challenge the idea that light always travels at a constant speed. And in fact, we’ve known for a long time that there are several phenomena that travel faster than light, without violating the theory of relativity. For instance, whereas traveling faster than sound creates a sonic boom, traveling faster than light creates a “luminal boom.” Russian scientist Pavel Alekseyevich Cherenkov discovered this in 1934, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1958. Cherenkov radiation can be observed in the core of a nuclear reactor. When the core is submerged in water to cool it, electrons move through the water faster than the speed of light, causing a luminal boom. On another front, while no particle with mass can travel faster than light, the fabric of space can and does. According to Inflation Theory, immediately after the Big Bang, the universe doubled in size and then doubled again, in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, much faster than the speed of light. More recently, astronomers have discovered that some galaxies, the distant ones anyway, move away from us faster than light speed, supposedly, pushed along by dark energy. The best estimate for the rate of acceleration for the universe is 68 kilometers per second per megaparsec. By now, instrumentation had improved to the point where the CMB can be successfully probed. As such, in 2016 João Magueijo and Niayesh Afshordi published another paper, this time in the journal Physical Review D. They are currently measuring different areas of the CMB, and studying the distribution of galaxies, seeking clues to support their claim that light in the universe’s earliest moments broke free of its presumed speed limit. Again, this is a fringe theory. And yet, the implications are astounding. “The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light,” Magueijo told Vice’s Motherboard. “So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing.” Their calculations should be complete by 2021.
PHILIP PERRY Is the speed of light slowing down? 25 March, 2018
Several things in nature go faster than the speed of light, without challenging general relativity. We've known for a long time that there are several phenomena that travel faster than light, without violating the theory of relativity. On another front, while no particle with mass can travel faster than light, the fabric of space can and does. According to Inflation Theory, immediately after the Big Bang, the universe doubled in size and then doubled again, in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, much faster than the speed of light. Another breakthrough study in 2015 further challenged this staple of science. Scottish physicists from Glasgow and Heriot-Watt universities successfully slowed a photon at room temperature, without refraction. They basically built a racetrack for photons. It was made so that two photons raced side-by-side. One track was unencumbered. The other held a “mask” which resembled a target with a bullseye. In the center was a passageway so narrow, the photon had to change shape to squeeze through. It slowed that photon down about one micron (micrometer), not a lot, but enough to prove that light doesn’t always travel at a constant speed.
New Scientist ran an article in 2017 titled, “Is the Speed of Light really constant?”
Stuart Clark Cosmic uncertainty: Is the speed of light really constant? 1 March 2017
They discussed in great detail why there was reason to believe the speed of light may have been faster in the past. Some of the research is interesting, but I have not seen anything convincing yet for the YEC position. Perhaps when they finish their calculations next year we will know more, but it seems that trying to build a case based on the change of light speed is a like building a foundation uponsand; therefore, I am compelled to believe that the speed of light is constant until it is shown to be otherwise. Let’s look at YEC models that have taken this problem more seriously to see if they are viable
Dr. Jason Lisle – The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention Model:
Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle (whom we referenced earlier) has refined, or redefined another way to potentially explain the distant starlight problem. He acknowledges the value of the previous models but also suggests that the time for starlight to get to Earth depends on the convention one uses to measure time. His model is called the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) over that of the Einstein Synchrony Convention (ESC) which is the standard use in most physics’ textbooks today. In a nutshell, the standards ESC defines the occurrence of an event at a past moment in time allowing for the finite speed of light; ASC in contrast is saying the ESC is an unprovable assumption so the ASC instead defines the occurrence of an event at the moment it is observed. To keep it simple, a Synchrony convention is a procedure used for synchronizing clocks that are separated by a distance. This theory is based on the fact that the speed of light in one direction, that is the one-way speed of light, actually cannot be objectively measured. What is measured in experiments is the round-trip speed of light, using mirrors to reflect the light back. So, it is possible that the one-way speed of light could actually be instantaneous, even though the round-trip two-way speed of light is constant. Lisle explains why we can’t measure one-way speed of light in: “In order to avoid assuming the time for one-way speed of light, we need to be able to measure the one-way trip. But it is impossible because moving a clock to the mirror may change the time on the clock.”
Dr. Jason Lisle Distant Starlight—The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention January 1, 2010
Let’s look at a quick diagram from the same article that may help clarify.
In other words, we are free to choose what the speed of light will be in one direction, though the “round-trip” time averaged speed is always constant. The reason that the one-way speed of light cannot be objectively measured is that you need a way to synchronize two clocks separated by a distance. But in order to synchronize two clocks separated by some distance, you have to already know the one-way speed of light. So, it cannot be done without circular reasoning. We need to have a way of synchronizing clocks to know the one-way speed of light. But we need to know the one-way speed of light in order to synchronize clocks. Einstein was well aware of this dilemma. He said, “It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.” Einstein’s resolution to this dilemma was to suggest that the one-way speed of light is not actually a property of nature but is instead a convention— something that we may choose.”
So, we can actually choose a convention, similar to choosing Local Time over Universal Time on Earth. Anisotropic refers to light having different speeds in different directions, as opposed to the convention Einstein used, isotropic the same speed of light in all directions. Genesis may imply the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC), since starlight was made available immediately. So, in this convention the one-way speed of light from the distant galaxies to Earth was instantaneous. It may seem unlikely that light would not have the same speed in all directions. But even though we may assume for everyday use that light speed is constant in all directions as measured by our clocks, in a relativistic universe, as we approach the speed of light, time and space no longer have absolute values independent of the observer. In his more technical article, Lisle shows that using the Einsteinian convention, with light speed in all directions the same, leads to some interesting results when we have one observer in motion relative to the other. In fact, they will get different answers as to whether some events happened at the same time, or in what order they happened. With ASC we find that two observers see the same events as simultaneous, regardless of their velocity. Lisle makes the case also that since we can choose a convention, it makes sense to see which one fits the Bible (if we are Christians especially). As we said above, light traveling very fast from the stars to Earth would fit the ASC. Also, people in most of history would not know anything about the speed of light, or lookback time and with ASC, it is not required to know the distance to an object, so ASC best preserves the clarity of Scripture. Things in space would be seen as they happen.
Think about it – astronomers seem to use ASC when they name a supernova after the year they saw it, rather than the year they believe the light left the source. ASC is just one more possible model that depends on one’s starting assumptions rather than the observations.
Lisle dedicates a large portion of his 2018 book The Physics of Einstein to answering the various objections to his ASC model, which shows he is not ignoring the critics, but meeting them head on, which is exactly what healthy science should necessitate.
Dr. Jason Lisle The Physics of Einstein: Black holes, time travel, distant starlight, E=mc2 2018
While the above YEC models are consistent with what we know of light-time and fit with an omnipotent God as described in Genesis, I prefer one that utilizes the secular presupposition that the speed of light is constant and still returns a solid model of the universe as well as being acceptable by either ASC or ESC. Time-dilation modeling is one of my favorites. It could be wrong, but the math and physics behind it are strong, and the theories show how far YEC has come since the 1980s, even if some YEC groups (and most OEC ones) don’t like it. Within this vein, I found nuclear physicist Russell Humphreys’ model the most intriguing. Though his theory has had some modifications since his original book Starlight and Time in 1994, he was the first to take both the Bible and physics seriously while thinking outside the box. He teamed up with Australian physicist John Hartnett, and they helped mold a model of cosmology from a YEC perspective that continues to grow and be refined today.
Humphreys has made scientific predictions (against NASA scientists) based on his recent creation model, and his predictions were verified when Voyager II measured Uranus and Neptune’s magnetic field in 1990. In 2008, and 2011, when probes measured Mercury’s magnetic field, they were able to confirm Humphreys’ YEC modeling. The predictions dealt with (1) the magnitude and dynamics of planetary magnetic fields, (2) the existence of a cosmic rotation axis, and (3) diffusion of helium through zircons. These predictions are in accord with a young earth interpretation of Genesis 1. In each case, subsequent studies showed the predictions were correct.
Sciencedan Earth’s Magnetic Field: More Successful Predictions of the Young-Earth Model November 24, 2015
The young-earth model of planetary magnetic fields based on the Bible and developed by Humphreys is consistent with current observations of the moon and planets’ magnetic fields. In addition, it has predicted certain data accurately before they were measured. In contrast, the old-earth dynamo model has incorrectly predicted the existence/non-existence and strength of some of the planets’ magnetic fields. Clearly, the young-earth model for planetary magnetic fields is a much stronger scientific hypothesis than the old-earth model. Once again, the data fit the young-earth view better than the old-earth view.
I admit that OEC views seem stronger from a naturalistic understanding of starlight and time, but since a growing number of secularists reject naturalism, I believe Christians are free to use the Bible as a litmus test before swallowing everything a concordist view offers. Either way, YEC theory is growing quickly in scope and plausibility. AIG’s Danny Faulkner was made to look outdated by Hugh Ross and other cosmologists in their debate several years ago, yet AIG still criticizes time-dilation models for not being orthodox enough.
Lee Anderson, Jr. Time Dilation Cosmological Models: Exegetical and Theological Considerations September 6, 2017
Concerning time dilation cosmological models, the foregoing considerations of the exegetical and theological evidence suggests they should be discarded. If they are promoted, it should be with open admission of their exegetical and theological shortcomings.
Russell Humphreys’ Cosmological Model
In late May 2011, Physorg reported on a paper by Alon Retter and Shlomo Heller, suggesting that a known gamma-ray burst GRB 060614 might have been a white hole (which are the theoretical opposite of black holes)…. Nature publication even commented, “This is brand new territory; we have no theories to guide us.” …If indeed the gamma-ray burst GRB 060614 can be shown to be associated with a white hole, the universe has just become became a more interesting place. A whitehole/blackhole relationship could act as a type of wormhole or be one-directional
Deborah Byrd Have We Seen A White Hole? May 27, 2011
White holes are the theoretical opposite of black holes. As black holes draw in surrounding stars, dust, passing spaceships – whatever comes too near – so white holes, by definition, would radiate light.
I reviewed various theories over the years, including fellow Logos Research Associate Russell Humphreys’ White Hole Cosmology, and though I feel YEC theory is moving in the right direction, with some great research paralleled off Genesis, there is still more work needed. My own interest in astronomy, coupled with the gamma-ray burst 060614 (GRB) of 2006, led to my increased interest in white hole cosmological models, including parallels with the concepts of cosmological relativity of the late Moshe Carmeli.
N. Gehrels A new γ-ray burst classification scheme from GRB 060614 21 December 2006
A recent physics lecture by Sam Gralla at the University of Arizona substantiated much of Humphreys’ cosmology and admitted that current Big Bang cosmology cannot show where the heavy elements came from, what powers gamma-ray bursts, how matter at nuclear density behaves, or how fast black holes can spin, all of which OEC theorists and secularists often falsely claimed are solved. I look forward to hosting Dr. Humphreys’ speaking engagements at several universities in the Summer of 2020, where we will invite physics and astronomy departments to critique our work.
Since 1979, Humphreys worked for Sandia National Laboratories…in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. Since 1985, he has been working with Sandia’s Particle Beam Fusion Project, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered “Rimfire” high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use. [The last decade at Sandia saw] greater emphasis on theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help produce the world’s first lab-scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides gaining [two other U.S. patents, Dr Humphreys] has been given two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion fusion target theory.
In 1994, Russell Humphreys applied the principle of time-dilation to propose a creationist cosmology that would replace the Big Bang. Humphreys derived his new cosmology from the equations of general relativity, replacing the secular assumptions of Big Bang theory with more biblically based ones. A finite universe without boundaries can be represented in two dimensions by the surface of a balloon. An insect crawling on its surface would never encounter a center or an edge, even though the surface is not infinitely large. The quantization of red shifts suggests that distance galaxies are arranged in concentric shells around the Milky Way. In reality, the situation is more complex than this because several different distance intervals exist between the galaxies. Humphreys’ theory not only provides the first outline of a creationist cosmology, but also, in principle at least, a solution to the long-standing puzzle of how light from distant stars and galaxies reached the Earth within the biblical time frame.
Consider the beginning of the universe (space/time/matter). At the center point, time could theoretically travel much slower, almost at a standstill. If our galaxy was near this center point, it would be plausible for the distant universe to be billions of years old while the equivalent of just days passed on the earth. Time has never been a constant or an absolute, as Einstein discovered a century ago. Time would in essence stand-still below the event horizon as the universe/space/time came into being
Dr Humphreys responds to criticism of his book Starlight and Time
Humphreys’ white-hole cosmology shows that gravitational effects in the early universe could have allowed starlight to travel the required distances while only a short time passed as measured by Earth-based clocks. As with any new theory, Humphreys’ cosmology has come in for criticism and modification, and it is unclear whether his version of the theory will survive the challenge of scientific and biblical analysis. Other creationists have been developing their own time-dilation theories to deal with some of the perceived weaknesses in Humphreys’ initial work, while at the same time Hugh Ross declined to debate Humphreys.
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics Hugh Ross Avoids Debating Russ Humphreys … Again MARCH 20, 2003
This area of origins research is where creationist contributions are being formulated and debated. Such research shows that it is possible to develop new theories of the universe that incorporate information from both Scripture and our scientific observations. They demonstrate that the Bible can guide our scientific thinking and suggest innovative avenues of enquiry
Whether the beginning of our universe was a white-hole or simply acted like a white-hole (mathematically), this would show the time dilation models that Humphreys has spent the last 30 years on are going in the right direction. Moreover, they are mathematically sound and completely YEC based
The BIG Bang-Bit Bang - Supermassive White Hole
White hole cosmology is more than a solution to the problem of distant star light; it can serve as a respectable creation cosmology. In this cosmology, the universe would only be thousands of years old, according to a clock on Earth, but according to a clock at the edge of the universe, it would be billions of years old.
Danny Faulkner Universe by Design
The key to this model is the idea that time ran slower on Earth than in distant parts of the universe on Day 4 of Creation. Likewise, it relies on presuppositions from the Big Bang, which are based in current scientific trends, but most importantly, are purely biblical in nature, which is vital to provide for a model based on recent creationism. Essentially, God used relativity to let us see a young universe. This solution to the distant starlight problem is both scientifically and biblically sound. The main problem is that it is difficult to test, as are all cosmological models.
D. Russell Humphreys Russell Humphreys answers Various Critics 2021
Standard big bang cosmology assumes that the universe has no center and no edge, with matter filling all of space, and since there would be no boundary and empty space around the matter, there would be no unique center or center of mass, and no net gravitational force since all galaxies would be surrounded by an even distribution of other galaxies. What many people don’t realize is that this is a purely arbitrary assumption, not required by the scientific evidence, but based on the idea that Earth has no special place in the cosmos such as in or near the center (Copernican Principle). What’s ironic is that the standard model is always shown to be both bounded and with a center and edge (as the above diagrams show); but this is denied by both big bang theorist as well as OEC (or they simply do not understand this point). Ironic that Humphreys’ model more accurately describes what we see anytime we look at these various big bang models in diagram form.
Hawking and Ellis comment on the reason for it: “…we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology. In the earliest cosmologies, man placed himself at the center of the universe. Since the time of Copernicus, we have been demoted to a medium sized planet going around a medium sized star on the outer edge of a fairly average galaxy…. We would not claim our position in space is specially distinguished in any way.”
John G. Hartnett A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem August 2003
A new model, of a type similar to Humphreys’, has been described that allows billions of years to pass in the cosmos but only 24 hours on Earth during Day 4. In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress and enormous time dilation occurs between Earth clocks and astronomical clocks. This solves the light-travel-time problem faced by creationist cosmology and makes all astronomical evidence fit the Genesis account. No non-physical requirements are placed on the model.
Notice that they call this principle an “admixture of ideology”. That is, they start up front with the idea that the creation account is false, and that man has no special place in the cosmos. This does not come from observable evidence but from a philosophical conclusion that we are the result of random processes and not from a Creator with a special purpose and place for us. The only physical evidence secularists point out is that the universe is isotropic, that is, it looks about the same in every direction. On the other hand, the creation account in Genesis implies that the universe does have a center (Gen 1:2) from which God causes the expansion of the universe outward from the center of a large mass. And there is good scientific data that indicates the universe may have a center of mass after all. We also get from relativity theory that gravity affects clocks. A clock at high altitude runs faster than a clock at a lower elevation. This has been verified experimentally many times. This is because the clock at the lower altitude is deeper into the “gravitational well” of the Earth. The deeper into a gravitational well, the more the clocks slow down. So, when someone asks, how long did it take starlight to get here, we need to ask, “whose clocks?” Although this time dilation effect, as it is called, is not much today even for clocks far out into space, there is evidence that the universe has expanded greatly, and when it was much smaller time would have run much faster at the edge of the universe than in the center, which would be deep into the universe’s “gravitational well.” All these effects fall out using the same equations for General Relativity as the standard model. In this model light from distant stars would have plenty of time to reach earth where clocks would have been running slower. So, what effect makes this possible?
Here we see an atomic clock placed at a high vs low altitude suffers enough time dilation to change time itself by about 5 microseconds. Time dilation occurs in space based on the mass of an object and its relation to space.
If the universe has a center, then there is a gravitational center of mass. If the universe has expanded, then at one time in the past there was the same amount of matter as today but packed into a smaller space. If the universe was smaller by a factor of fifty, as referenced by Humphreys…relativity allows it to either be inside a black hole or a white hole. All the matter would be contained inside what is called the event horizon of a black hole, the event horizon being where time is greatly slowed or stopped. But black holes do not expand. However, General Relativity allows for a white hole, which reverses the events, and unlike a black hole which holds everything in, the white hole requires that light and matter inside the event horizon expand out, and as they do, the event horizon shrinks in diameter. So, if you have a bounded universe, that has expanded, General Relativity indicates you have a white hole.
Since time would stand still below the event horizon, as the event horizon got smaller, it would eventually reach earth at the center, on day 4 if we go by the creation account, and while clocks were running fast in the distant universe, they would be stopped or running very slowly on Earth. So, you would see distant objects in the universe age billions of years, and light would have plenty of time to reach Earth. This may sound far-fetched, but it is theoretically sound
John G. Hartnett A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem August 2003
In 2007 Humphreys made some further modifications and came up with a modified version of the original model. He explains in this excerpt from his article referenced below:
In November of 1915 Albert Einstein published the crowning conclusion of his General Theory of Relativity: a set of sixteen differential equations describing the gravitational field. Solutions to these equations are called metrics, because they show how distance-measuring and time-measuring devices (such as rulers and clocks) behave. The equations are so difficult to solve that new metrics, giving solutions under specific conditions, now appear only once every decade or so. Metrics are foundational; they open up new ways to understand space and time. For example, the first metric after Einstein’s work, found by Karl Schwarzschild in 1916, not only explained the detailed orbits of planets, but also pointed to the possibility that black holes might exist. In the fall of 2007, I published a new metric as part of an explanation of the ‘Pioneer anomaly’, a decades-old mystery about the slowing-down of distant spacecraft. Compared to many modern metrics, the new one is rather simple. It describes space and time inside an expanding spherical shell of mass. I was interested in that problem because of the ‘waters that are above the heavens’ that Psalm 148:4 mentions as still existing today above the highest stars. The waters would be moving outward along with the expansion of space mentioned in 17 Scripture passages.
A moving clock measures the spacetime interval ds between two events.
The total mass of the shell of waters is greater than 8.8 × 10^52 kg, more than 20 times the total mass of all the stars in all the galaxies the Hubble Space Telescope can observe. However, because the area of the shell is so great, more than 2 × 10^53 m2 , the average areal density of the shell is less than 0.5 kg/m2 . By now the shell must have thinned out to a tenuous veil of ice particles, or perhaps broken up into planet-sized spheres of water with thick outer shells of ice. It is only the waters’ great total mass that has an effect on us, small but now measurable. Because of the great mass of the ‘waters above’, I could neglect the smaller mass of all the galaxies in deriving the metric. Although other distributions of mass could also solve the Pioneer mystery, this one seems more applicable to biblical cosmology. Being relatively simple, the new metric clarifies a new type of time dilation that was implicit in previous metrics but obscured by the effects of motion. This new type, which I call achronicity, or ‘timelessness’, affects not only the narrow volume of space at or just around an ‘event horizon’ (the critical radius around a black hole at which time stops), but all the volume within the horizon. Within an achronous region, we will see, time is completely stopped. I pointed out a related effect, ‘signature change,’ in an earlier paper, but all I had to go on then was an older metric, the Klein metric, which was quite complicated. The complexity obscured what that metric suggested could happen to time. The cosmology this paper outlines is a new one that does not stem from the Klein metric.”
The new metric Humphreys derived in 2007 has yielded interesting results. One is a straightforward explanation of the Pioneer anomaly
Flaw in creationist solution to the Pioneer anomaly? 11 May 2013
In this paper, it has revealed a new type of time dilation, achronicity. The fundamental cause of achronicity appears to be that gravitational potential becomes so negative that the total energy density of the fabric of space becomes negative. That stops the propagation of light, all physical processes, and all physical clocks, thus stopping time itself. Humphreys has examined the effect only for essentially motionless bodies (having velocities very much less than that of light). He hopesto explore some of the interesting and possibly useful effects of achronicity for non-negligible particle velocities in the near future. The speculative scenario in the previous two sections shows how useful achronicity could be in creation cosmology. Other scenarios are easily possible, and Humphreys hopes that other creationists making alternative cosmologies will find timelessness a good tool.”
This new model builds on Humphrey’s previous models. As he shows, it is based on a new solution (metric) of Einstein’s General Relativity equations and allows for a new type of time dilation that is an even more powerful solution to the light time travel problem. He uses the illustration of space being stretched out like a trampoline, noting that there are many Bible verses that seem to speak of space as a kind of “material” that can be stretched, rolled, etc. And modern science has a concept of “material” for space as well. As mass of stars are added, it caused the fabric of space to drop below a critical timeless zone, and then as space is then stretched, the created stars and galaxies come out of the timeless zone, and their light follows that zone all the way back to Earth, which is the last to emerge from this timeless zone. What these models show is that there are several possibilities are viable within General Relativity, depending on your beginning assumptions, and that there are several which accommodate a young universe. This model makes use of well-tested physics (GR) using alternate boundary conditions. Has the effect been significant enough to get starlight here in less than 10,000 years as YEC maintain? That of course is still to be seen. Even if Humphreys is wrong in his scientific interpretations, he has contributed significantly to cosmological studies and encouraged many others, notably Dr. John Hartnett, to further develop time-dilation models. 305 We know that presuppositions are important for the Big Bang theory, but Humphreys has worked this through in some detail. Furthermore, he has proven that with different presuppositions, different conclusions are possible. A door has opened. Christian students of cosmology will find this research a great stimulus to their own thinking and for this, Dr. Humphreys, Hartnett, and Lisle are to be commended
While Cosmological relativity is not yet generally accepted, it is a viable theory of physics that has already been shown to naturally explain several problems in cosmology, including some it was not developed to explain. It also results in a viable young Earth cosmology when applied to a bounded universe…. Harnett has also shown that observations are consistent with a bounded universe inside a white hole with our galaxy at or near the center. This is not to be confused with Dr Humphreys’ White hole cosmology since in Hartnett's model the universe is still inside the white hole’s event horizon. However, there are obvious similarities in the two cosmologies.
Cosmological relativity is an extension of the principles of Special and General Relativity to cosmological scales. Developed by Dr Moshe Carmeli, this theory is a combination of Einstein's original special and general relativity; however its starting point is the expansion of the Universe and not the propagation of light. It has profound results for cosmology in general and in particular Young Earth Creation cosmology. So far this theory fits all experimental findings.
Let’s do a few simple calculations based on Dr. Hartnett’s own dilation based on Humphreys’ original model. The point of reviewing cosmogonies is to glimpse some of the great work done over the last twenty-five years in YEC cosmology, which is usually recognized as the biggest weakness in the YEC position. None of the OEC groups that I have talked to have a clue about the work Humphreys and others have done.
Compare the illustration of our universe from the March 2020 issue of Scientific American to a similar model from Russell Humphreys almost 15 years earlier. Both portray the universe as bounded and finite and ironically in this issue of Scientific American, they admit our current physics is insufficient to support a naturalistic model of the universe.
Ironically, the March 2020 issue of Scientific American ran a cover story on “a cosmic crisis” where Richard Panek describes the same points that Harnett has been discussing for well over a decade. Like Hartnett, Scientific American acknowledges that not only is dark energy and dark matter complete conjecture that makes up about 95% of what we know about the universe, but that we are highly in need of some type of “new physics” (or metaphysics) for us to better understand cosmology today: If the source of the Hubble tension is not in the observation of either the late universe or the early universe, then cosmologists have little choice but to pursue option three: “new physics.” For nearly a century now scientists have been talking about new physics – forces or phenomena that would fall outside our current knowledge of the universe.
Could this “new physics” fall in line with Humphreys or Hartnett’s work? Time will tell. Likewise, I recently reviewed an article by noted physicist Sean Carroll on space-time in the September 2019 edition of New Scientist, in which Carroll rightly acknowledges:
Space-time is simply the physical universe inside which we and everything else exists. And yet, even after millennia living in it, we still don’t know what space-time actually is… We have ideas, each with its own selling points and shortcomings. How in the world can space-time exist in a superposition of different possibilities? That would make it impossible to say for sure that a certain event happened at a definite location in space and time.
Sean Carroll What is space-time? The true origins of the fabric of reality 11 September 2019
A bold new perspective suggests space-time isn’t a fundamental entity but emerges from quantum entanglement, says physicist Sean Carroll. It is the idea that space-time emerges from a weird property of the quantum world that means particles and fields, those fundamental constituents of nature, can be connected even if they are at opposite ends of the universe. If that is correct, we might finally have found a bridge between the two irreconcilable totems of physics, placing us on the threshold of a theory of quantum gravity.
I see Humphreys’ white hole cosmology as a monumental first step towards the correct understanding of the universe, but as Humphreys has acknowledged, his work was just the beginning. He hoped to encourage others to look into this new direction of creation cosmology and that, too, is my hope. Humphreys is going in the right direction if YEC groups like AIG and OEC groups have ears to hear and an open, biblical mind.
Last edited by Otangelo on Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:52 pm; edited 35 times in total