ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my library, where I collect information and present arguments developed by myself that lead, in my view, to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation for the origin of the physical world.


You are not connected. Please login or register

The starlight problem - The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Otangelo


Admin

The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ? 

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1524-the-starlight-problem-the-starlight-distance-a-problem-for-a-young-universe-interpretation

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? 
https://scienceandevidence.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/horizon/

Andreas Albrecht A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles 2 Nov 1998
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9811018

Stuart Clark Cosmic uncertainty: Is the speed of light really constant? 1 March 2017
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331150-200-cosmic-uncertainty-is-the-speed-of-light-really-constant/#ixzz6zguV1pE5

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
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2131889-weird-energy-beam-seems-to-travel-five-times-the-speed-of-light/#ixzz6zgvWYrLQ

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.

Abstract space
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”.

Light cone
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.

Emerging time
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.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16796-faster-than-light-tachyons-might-be-impossible-after-all/#ixzz6zgw7Joji

James T. Wheeler The Existence of Time  October 26, 2018
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.0112.pdf

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?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axrbSOFIdnk

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.
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/is-the-speed-of-light-slowing-down

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
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331150-200-cosmic-uncertainty-is-the-speed-of-light-really-constant/#ixzz6zguV1pE5

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
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/distant-starlight-thesis/

Let’s look at a quick diagram from the same article that may help clarify.

The starlight problem - The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?  Asynch10

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
https://3lib.net/book/16474854/86c629

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.
https://scienceandevidence.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/magnetic/

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.
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/time-dilation-cosmological-models-exegetical-and-theological-considerations

Russell Humphreys’ Cosmological Model

The starlight problem - The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?  Humphr10
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.
https://earthsky.org/space/have-we-seen-a-white-hole/

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
https://sci-hub.ren/10.1038/nature05376

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. 

The starlight problem - The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?  D_russ11
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
https://creation.com/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
https://www.icr.org/article/hugh-ross-avoids-debating-russ-humphreys-again/

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

The starlight problem - The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?  White_10
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
http://bigbangbitbang.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-big-bangbit-bang.html

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

https://3lib.net/book/2345750/97c29c

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
https://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.php

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.
https://creation.com/a-new-cosmology-solution-to-the-starlight-travel-time-problem

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?

The starlight problem - The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?  Gravit11
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.

The starlight problem - The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?  Gravit12
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.

The starlight problem - The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?  White_11
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
https://creation.com/a-new-cosmology-solution-to-the-starlight-travel-time-problem

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. 

The starlight problem - The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?  Scient12
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
https://creation.com/pioneer-anomaly-heat

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

The starlight problem - The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?  Cosmic10
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
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.
http://creationwiki.org/Cosmological_relativity

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.

The starlight problem - The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?  Scient11
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.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332470-500-what-is-space-time-the-true-origins-of-the-fabric-of-reality/#ixzz6zlXPskOL

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

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Does Distant Starlight prove a billions-of-years-old universe? part 6 of series
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 ,{1} 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, there is no know 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.

The Dasha Theory by Dr. Dan Faulkner:
Astronomer Dr. Dan Faulkner has come up with one alternative model which he calls the “Dasha Theory” named after the Hebrew word used in Genesis meaning “to grow” or to “bring forth” as in Genesis 1:11.  God “brought forth” the stars and their light so Adam could see them on Day 4 of creation.  Remember, creation is said to be a miraculous process, like the virgin birth of Christ, or the resurrection.  So this is a model that accommodates the supernatural.

In this model, the current laws of physics don’t come into existence until after the creation period.  The Bible speaks many times of the heavens being stretched out during creation (see Isaiah 40:22, Job 9:8,  Psalm 104:2, and over a dozen other verses).  The light from the stars could have been brought forward (dasha)  abnormally fast by a process that is undescribed, enabling it to be seen on Day 4.

Some have objected to this by pointing out that we can see supernovas-star explosions in distant galaxies and so they say this couldn’t have happened during the  creation period, since everything was pronounced “very good”.  Faulkner defends his theory by pointing out that “very good” sometimes doesn’t necessarily mean perfection-and there is no life lost in a supernova explosion.  “Very good” could simply mean fulfillment of moral good, and things doing what they are designed to do.  For more on this, Faulkner has put out a video called “The Dasha Theory”,
Does Distant Starlight prove a billions-of-years-old universe? part 6 of series

https://www.amazon.com.br/Creationism-Revisited-Defense-Creation-Agnostic-ebook/dp/B08L44VRHR

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.
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/time-dilation-cosmological-models-exegetical-and-theological-considerations/?fbclid=IwAR0DP2aAKCy2hjJgUKHT9MUvpxLDYIFaB_gKf4oXOKEyvg0F-YrY1zPWkJI

The idea of starlight created in transit is that it unavoidably requires that the vast majority of what we see in the heavens is not real. The starlight we see is not just a pretty pinpoint of light, but appears to show us events that have happened to that star. If those events did not actually happen because the light was created in transit, then we can't actually study the heavens at all. I think the best explanation we have for distant starlight is some form of time dilation. This is a natural result of certain types of situations that could have happened during creation. We measure time dilation all the time. It is an observed phenomenon. Larger amounts of time dilation could easily happen during the creation period. One factor that could certainly produce time dilation is a stretching of the fabric of space (i.e. stretching out the heavens). 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!!!!!!

Ian Sample Faster than light particles found, claim scientists 22 Sep 2011
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.
https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos

David Caldarola  
I have seen some videos reporting tests in the lab that shows fossilization can at least begin to occur in as little as six month. But here's a "kick-in -the-groin-" just for fun. A scientist calculated the quantum physics of an expanding universe to determine the fluctuations in the duration of time. Science will tell you that time is affected by gravity, and a minute on the moon is faster than on earth, and a minute on the sun is slower. So, making whatever calculations were needed, he came up with the notion that to "someone" outside of our time and space looking into the expanding universe, a process of almost 16 billion years to us, would seem like.... wait for it..... 6 days to him.

David Wilson 
Distant starlight, as you say, is not worth a thing in establishing an old earth, because gravity distorts time, and there is plenty of it in and between the island galaxies. And it is not just "how times is perceived", atomic clocks, as I mentioned, exposed to different degrees of gravitational force fall out of sync. Therefore, to know, or even have a reasonable suspicion that distant starlight can be used as a barometer for the age of the earth, you need at least two points of reference at enough of a distance, like between hundreds of galaxies, to even make a guess. But that does not mean that the mainstream scientific community won;t keep trying to have it their own way regardless of the facts-----> http://www.creationdino.blogspot.com.br/2015/09/why-culture-of-mainstream-scientific.html

Charlie Wolcott 
You mentioned star light distance. That's a problem for Old Earth as well, not just YEC. That tells me there is something wrong with the measuring tools. There's no accuracy to any of those models. You can get precision, but no accuracy.

The Universe was stretched out.
The OP assumes the Big Bang is true. Peter Berean has done a wonderful job of detailing the points of why it is logical to conclude that the Universe came into being created by a entity outside of the existing universe. The failure of the OP is to understand the very fundamental understanding that IF God used the miraculous (outside of the laws of nature as they are now known) to create the universe, then why has OEC restricted God to the miraculous only at the initial beginning, and restricted Him to the CURRENT set of physical laws from all points past the initial Big Bang event? Such logic is fundamentally flawed. He COULD have done it that way, or He COULD have chosen to CREATE beyond the INITIAL start. The bible tells us that God STRETCHED out the heavens. Thus indicating, as science seems to have confirmed that there was an initial point and time in which the creation event BEGAN. The bible indicates that God did not CREATE just in one moment, but that there were different DAYS of creation (not epochs), thus the creation was accomplished over a period of TIME. That creation would have been MIRACULOUS at each stage. When GOD created the heavens, the bible clearly tells us this was a miraculous event, that the stars themselves were set in place, "for signs, for seasons, for day, and for years". The bible also says that He named each one. The bible also says that LIGHT itself was CREATED. IF God stretched out the heavens, that would indicate that it was NOT done at a natural speed. IF God placed stars Billions of light years away, It would not make sense to create them so they would NOT be seen by His primary creation. The bible clearly says they were created to be seen. The light for those stars was “stretched” out at the same time as the rest of the universe, cleanly, elegantly, smoothly.
P1 The OP agrees that the Big Bang was a special miraculous creation by God
P2 The bible tells us this miraculous creation was accomplished not at one moment of time, but over multiple moments of time.
P3 The OP suggests that God only did the miraculous at the Big Bang Beginning, but restricted Himself to the Natural laws after that initial beginning.
P4 P3 is illogical as it affirms the miraculous in P1 and denies it in P2
P5 If the OP is true, then God would have done the initial creation 15 Billion years ago, and then sat around listening to an endless loop of the Jeopardy Tune for the last 14.99 billion years while He was waiting for the universe to unstretch itself, which is inherently illogical.
________________________________________
JOB 9:8 NKJV He alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea;
JOB 37:18 NKJV With Him, have you spread out the skies, Strong as a cast metal mirror?
PSALM 104:2 NKJV Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment, Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.
PSALM 146:6 NKJV Who made heaven and earth, The sea, and all that is in them; Who keeps truth forever,
ISAIAH 40:21-22 NKJV 21 Have you not known? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
ISAIAH 42:5 NKJV Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it:
ISAIAH 44:24 NKJV Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: "I am the Lord, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;
ISAIAH 45:12 NKJV I have made the earth, And created man on it. It was I- My hands that stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.
JEREMIAH 10:12 NKJV He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
JEREMIAH 51:15 NKJV He has made the earth by His power; He has established the world by His wisdom, And stretched out the heaven by His understanding.
ZECHARIAH 12:1 NKJV The burden of the word of the Lord against Israel. Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:
COLOSSIANS 1:16-17 NKJV For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
HEBREWS 1:2-3 NKJV 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged out sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
HEBREWS 11:3 NKJV By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Solutions to the starlight problem (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 a 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. (cf. Matt. 22:29)
2. The Bible says that God STRETCHED OUT the Heavens. This is interesting. I don't recall 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 -- the astronomical environment 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:
Job 9:8,
Is. 42:5,
Is. 44:24,
Is 45:12,
Is 51:13,
Jer 10:12,
Jer. 51:15,
Zec. 12:1
I think perhaps God is telling us, and is 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".
------
Matthew 22:29 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1 NOVEMBER 01, 2010
Introduction
One of the issues that concern many people who wish to adopt young-earth creationism as a valid view of earth history is the question of how stars can be seen many millions of light-years away if only a few thousand years have passed since they were created. Dr. Russell Humphreys, a previous researcher at ICR, spent years working on this problem and has developed a creationist cosmology that seems to resolve this question. On the fourth day of creation, how long did it take God to make the stars and bring their light to earth? No time at all, according to clocks here on earth. That is what Humphreys concludes from his new creationist cosmology research. The cosmology presented in his 1994 book, Starlight and Time,1 had the light getting to earth in a finite amount of time, not instantaneously. The general features of that cosmology—a universe centered upon our galaxy, expansion of space, and gravitational time dilation—still appear to be correct. But Humphreys was never fully satisfied with its details because a) the solution did not provide enough time dilation for nearby stars and galaxies, and b) it was based on a metric—a solution of Einstein’s gravity equations—that was too complex to analyze fully. A referee for a subsequent relativity paper Humphreys wrote insisted that he derive a new metric to support the paper’s conclusions. After several months of mathematical work, Humphreys found the solution and the Journal of Creation published his results. The article’s appendix contains the new metric and derivation. In a series of Acts & Facts articles, we will describe qualitatively the implications of this new metric and how it explains the cosmology of the creation events.

Russ Humphreys New time dilation helps creation cosmology December 2008

The starlight problem - The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?  6792waters-heavens
The waters above the heavens, mentioned in Psalm 148:4.

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. I have examined the effect only for essentially motionless bodies (having velocities very much less than that of light). In a later paper, I hope to explore some of the interesting and possibly useful effects of achronicity for non-negligible particle velocities. The speculative scenario in the previous two sections shows how useful achronicity could be in creation cosmology. Other scenarios are easily possible, and I hope that other creationists making alternative cosmologies will find timelessness a good tool.
https://creation.com/new-time-dilation-helps-creation-cosmology

My comment: I look at this proposal, that around the universe is a mantle of water, based on one versicle in Psalms in the Bible, with incredulity and skepticism.

Time Stands Still
The new metric is not complicated, compared to many modern ones. Because it is simple and yet rigorous, it shows a feature of gravitational time dilation that nobody had noticed before. The feature was implicit in many previous metrics, but it had been obscured by the effects of motion. Humphreys calls this feature of time dilation achronicity, or “timelessness.” It causes clocks and all physical processes—hence, time itself—to be completely stopped in a region that could be very large. This is in contrast to the time dilation around a black hole, in which time is completely stopped only at a certain exact distance from its center, at the “event horizon.”3 In his 2008 article, Humphreys showed how this new metric led straightforwardly to achronicity. In the last five pages of the paper, he applied the time dilation achronicity to develop a new creationist cosmology.
https://www.icr.org/article/new-creationist-cosmology-no-time-at

D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 2 JANUARY 01, 2011
https://www.icr.org/article/5830

D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 3 JANUARY 31, 2011
https://www.icr.org/article/5870/

LINDSAY HAROLD DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN APPARENT AGE AND MATURE CREATION 2017
There is an important difference between a mature creation and apparent age. God is not deceptive and would not create things with a false appearance of age. But he did create the universe functionally mature.
https://thecreationclub.com/distinguishing-between-apparent-age-and-mature-creation/?fbclid=IwAR3f1AsjIqJqAovYpiCrK0HHugDaNiT_VStWri90zICrn-x0ZngyHcTsVcg

GENESIS APOLOGETICS MUST THE UNIVERSE BE OLD FOR US TO SEE STARLIGHT? 2019
Distant starlight is very explainable, both biblically and technically. Let’s start with the short answer based on the Bible. First, humans were not present when God created light, space, speed, time, gravity, and the stars. These were all formed during the first five days of creation, miraculously (Hebrews 11:3). This means that the natural confines, measurements, and relationships between these things were not the same as they are today. The way God spoke to Job about this still applies today. He said, “Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you set their dominion over the earth?” God—almost sarcastically—asks Job if He knows how the rules and laws of the heavens work. Today, we still cannot answer this question.
https://genesisapologetics.com/faqs/starlight-doesnt-distant-starlight-prove-creation-is-billions-of-years-old/

Further literature:
OPERA Collaboration  Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam 12 Jul 2012
https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

STEVE HENDRICKSON STARLIGHT AND TIME: THE ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE PROVIDES AN ANSWER, PART 1 2021
https://thecreationclub.com/starlight-and-time-the-engineering-perspective-provides-an-answer-part-1/

STEVE HENDRICKSON STARLIGHT AND TIME: THE ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE PROVIDES AN ANSWER, PART 2 2021
https://thecreationclub.com/starlight-and-time-the-engineering-perspective-provides-an-answer-part-2/

Dr. Jason Lisle  Distant Starlight—The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention September 22, 2010
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/distant-starlight-thesis/

Dr. Jason Lisle Distant Starlight in a Young Universe: Concepts of Simultaneity  Oct 30, 2020
Einstein states, “That light requires the same time to traverse the path A to M as for the path B to M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.”[13] (emphasis in the original)

So, the one-way speed of light is not a property of nature at all.  Rather, it is a humanly-stipulated convention that enables us to define what constitutes synchronized clocks for a given observer.  This principle is called the conventionality thesis (or the conventionality of distant simultaneity), and it follows logically and inevitably from the relativity of simultaneity.  The conventionality thesis means that we are free to choose the one-way speed of light in a particular direction for a particular observer, and this constitutes a definition of simultaneous for that observer.  (Note that the speed in the opposite direction will then be determined by the requirement that the round-trip time-averaged speed of light in vacuum must always be c.)[14]  As a definition, it cannot be refuted by any experiment or observation.

Under that convention, there is no distant starlight problem because the creation of the stars is concurrent with the arrival of their first light on earth.  No time is required to traverse the distance, and we see the universe as it is now.  The perception of starlight problem arose from the assumption that the visual synchrony convention is wrong, and the Einstein synchrony convention is correct.  But such an assumption is not compatible with modern physics.
https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/distant-starlight-in-a-young-universe/?fbclid=IwAR3f1AsjIqJqAovYpiCrK0HHugDaNiT_VStWri90zICrn-x0ZngyHcTsVcg

Tichomir G. Tenev A Solution for the Distant Starlight Problem Using Creation Time Coordinates 2018
In this paper, we have described a solution for the Distant Starlight Problem that is based on the synchrony convention implied by God’s numbering of the days in Genesis 1 plus a proposed set of initial conditions that constrain how we infer God arranged stellar creation events in spacetime. In its essence, our solution, based on the notion of Creation Time Coordinates (CTC) is similar to Lisle’s Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) model (Newton, 2001; Lisle, 2010). Our CTC-based solution’s explicit initial conditions adds clarity and points to the same falsifiable predictions, namely that the cosmos should appear young and that the first light from all stars, near and far, appeared on Earth on Day Four. We showed that these predictions are supported both by Scripture and by observations.
https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=icc_proceedings

Jason Lisle Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old Jan 16, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83brK_yohRA

Veritasium Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light Oct 31, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k

DIOGENES Happy Jason Lisle Day! Celebrating Creationists' Inability to Solve the "Starlight Problem" (and Willigness to Lie About It) SEPTEMBER 11, 2014
http://lamp-of-diogenes.blogspot.com/2014/09/happy-jason-lisle-day-celebrating.html

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Distant Starlight: Does it Disprove Biblical Creation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JEFy-ZtEzg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5OLXBQKaIk

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k



How do we explain instantaneous communication when looking at the wave/particle duality of photons?

This is extraordinarily misleading.
We can do experiments where we split a photon and send it in different directions and measure at what time different things happen over extraordinarily short intervals something like 0.00000 1 of a second.
This requires that the speed of light being known and consistent speed.
There's also entire loss of the universe that require the speed of light to be precisely what it is such as the fine structure constant.
I think the problem that Dr Lyle has is that he's confusing the velocity of light with the stretching of SpaceTime.
What I mean by that is that if like covers a certain distance of a certain amount of time but you stretch that same distance out and you stretch the time out even though the light traverses that same distance in the same amount of time the distance in time have been stretched and therefore light would appear to be traveling at different speeds.
This is something that is known and directly measured but does not violate the speed of light at all.
This is known as time bias and your GPS on your cell phone has to use it to tell you where you're at.
There's also a measurable bladder of photon energies that we receive from distant galaxies which tell us exactly how much space time has been stretched between here and there.
The absolutely remarkable thing is that if you apply this Hubble constant and stretching of SpaceTime to the universe and then run the clock backwards you wind up with a literal 6-day creation that looks like 13 or 14 billion years.

How Old is the Universe?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

https://thecreationclub.com/author/steven-hendrickson/?fbclid=IwAR1FtDD0apgw9sd_BQyzt1BAByJL6A9FU5eUSjAM0TniBfbJvN0hri2RJ0k

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

May 12, 2021, 7:23 am

The Encounter (With a Creationist Engineer) It was a complete showstopper; utter nonsense. I was having lunch with a colleague on faculty with me at the Air Force Institute of Technology. It was in January 1993, and he had mentioned that he believed in the Bible and that he thought the earth was 6 to 10 thousand years old!

Advertisement Below:

I told him, “Rob, nobody believes that!” And he said that I may be right, but had I “considered the science found in the Bible?” After that, though NOT a Christian, I became mildly interested, but I knew—I KNEW—that many stars and galaxies were millions and even billions of lightyears far distant from our little planet due to a constant speed of light, so the earth could NOT be young. The science was settled… and, at best, the Bible was questionable… I hadn’t darkened the door of a church more than five times since leaving high school. So began my journey into the creation science paradigm (a worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific subject). I became a Christian within 9 months and stood ready to defend the faith and the Bible, including a YOUNG Earth! Figure 1 But that day in January 1993 with my friend Rob, I went home from work and, as soon as I arrived I checked my two old textbooks to confirm my thought that Rob was wrong, and, indeed, they said he was. Both textbooks indicated the Andromeda Galaxy was 2.2 million lightyears distant, and “c” is the recognized physics constant for the speed of light. Another more current source I checked, a public library astronomy book, said the Andromeda Galaxy was 2.4 MLY distant. Thus, I was assured that Rob was wrong, and I was right. Obviously, when we look at the Andromeda Galaxy, we see it as it was 2.4 million years ago. So, I decided to “help” Rob get into the 20th century because we weren’t going anywhere toward scientific consensus when he rejected repeatable measurements and established physical constants like the speed of light (SOL). Plus, I was sure of myself because my passion for astronomy during junior high and high school directed my original desire to become an astrophysicist. I had gone to the University of Oregon following high school graduation in 1973, and my original studies were done in 1973 and 1974 under the direct tutelage of Dr. E. G. Ebbighausen, head astrophysicist in the Northwest at that time and the man who got me the job of Deputy Director of the Planetarium at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry—South, in Eugene, Oregon. So, knowing that much about astronomy/cosmology, and the pride all of that entailed, how did I end up agreeing with Rob just several months later?

Advertisement Below:

Engineers Follow the Known Data Data is the key. Assumptions are often hidden and forgotten. Engineers are very sensitive to this fact because some famous engineering disasters have happened like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse. Engineers DO NOT want their designs to fail! Over several months, Rob and I talked a lot. He gave me videotapes to watch and he introduced me to literature by Drs. Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and Gary Parker. Their books and articles for a group called ICR (the Institute for Creation Research) provided arguments I had never heard about in science fields such as

Geology: floodwaters, erosion, radiometric dating assumptions/errors, polonium radiohalos Biochemistry: origin of life, chemical evolution, the Miller-Urey Experiment, fossils, and Biology: transitional forms, embryology, homology.

Wrong dates on recent rock formations—KNOWN DATA—were likely the results of faulty assumptions, assumptions regarding radioactive decay rates and constants. Constants?! Yes, and that really got my attention, especially when I realized radioactivity had only been known about for less than 100 years (began in 1895, Wilhelm Roentgen, Madame Marie Curie). Then I was introduced to another colleague of theirs, Dr. Donald DeYoung, PhD, Physics, who had written Astronomy and the Bible: Questions & Answers in 1989. I bought and read his book in 1993, and it was foundational to my thought about a “constant” SOL not actually being a constant for all time (I told him so when I met him on 5 OCT ’96 and he signed my copy). His book reminded me that Adam and Eve had an appearance of age as did God’s finished creation (see end of article for more). Furthermore, in thinking about the SOL constant, the actual measurement data for the SOL had to have a starting point, and the most useful one is from the experiments performed by Leon Foucault in 1862. He calculated a SOL of 298,000,000 meters/second, and that was pretty accurate to today’s accepted value of c = 299,792,458 meters/second. Graphing the Known Data Engineers like graphs that focus on actual data truths. Forensic investigators like timeline analysis, as witnessed by modern detective TV shows, where the detectives piece together the known events as they analyze the timeline of the crime being investigated. My goal was to determine the timeline of what we know about the measurement of the SOL. We’ve had an accurate, scientific value of the SOL confirmed by experiments for 159 years now as of 2021. But the cosmological assumption is that “c,” the mathematical sign for SOL, has been constant for 13.8 billion years. Is this a problem? Short answer: YES.

Advertisement Below:

Figure 2 If you graph this on a classroom whiteboard you get what is shown in Figure 2. Note the x-axis represents time and the y-axis the SOL as a constant speed. With 1-foot equal to 100 years for the x-axis, you have 1.59 feet to represent the 159 years we have to get back to Foucault’s experiment date in 1862. Then the backward extrapolations begin (dashed lines) and must end at 13.8 billion years ago, which is the current assumed age of the universe. You can see this assumption results in a huge, massive backward extrapolation, more than 26,000 miles, which is even farther than the circumference of the earth—it certainly won’t fit on your whiteboard! No measurement data is available for this extrapolation. Engineers are not Amused In engineering, it is rare to extrapolate data beyond about 10% of the actual empirical data before getting worried about failure in the design of the system. Because of this, engineers work diligently to get the system design right and robust without any extrapolation. This graph in Figure 2 would be absolutely unacceptable in their circles. And that’s what did it for me! I realized when working with actual data, we do not get a true picture of a constant SOL over billions of years or even thousands. My old textbooks were accepting assumption as fact. And even my textbooks were out-of-date with regards to the distance of the Andromeda Galaxy—today it is another tenth of a million farther distant from earth, at 2.54 MLY. The simple fact is that a constant SOL is only empirically verified for a short period of 159 years within the scientific fields of cosmology and astronomy. (For geology that uses radiometric dating it’s even less… like 100 years.) In addition, this engineer solution aligns well with the exegetically driven “Dasha Theory” spoken of by Dr. Danny Faulkner in his, “The Created Cosmos” 2016 book, ISBN 9780890519738, pp. 216-220. Dasha was also recently written about by Drs. Stuart Burgess and Andy McIntosh, both engineers, in their, “Wonders of Creation” 2018 book, ISBN 9781683441663, pp. 128-129. To be continued…

Continued from Part 1 Science Book Discrepancies Based on a reference from Dr. Don DeYoung’s book (mentioned earlier, p. 115), I added a used book to my library around 1994. To this day I use quotations pulled from God and the Astronomers regarding modern scientists with a “Pro-Creation View” of the universe (or at least an acceptance of that possibility). Figure 3. Robert Jastrow’s 1980 Book With Science Errors First of all, Dr. Robert Jastrow had a famous quote (pp. 105-106) reflected on the back cover of his book.

Advertisement Below:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. Second, he makes an error! “Proven,” he says? You don’t do that in science, which is well known and well explained by another astronomer, Dr. Charles Bennett: And we can see why, since the “twenty billion years ago” and 15 or 20 “billion years ago” phrases are being used in Jastrow’s book for the age of the universe and are incorrect by 1994 standards (13 BYA per “Realm of the Universe” 1994, ISBN 0030016649, p. 489) and today’s (13.8 BYA). A Recent Application: “Fact” as Opposed to Empirical Data True Story: This question was posted in early 2021 to a Facebook friend of mine, a well-known creationist. Doesn’t the fact it takes starlight millions of years to reach earth prove the Bible’s wrong? But what do we now know? As we learned in Part 1, there is no “fact” as stated in that question since it has a hidden assumption that “c” is constant over 13.8 BY. We only know “c” for 159 years, the rest is an assumption relying on a huge, massive extrapolation of the SOL empirical data that we certainly do not know is actually true! In fact, even in secular science circles, where light speed has been experimentally varied (slower or faster than the “constant” SOL), the view that the SOL has always been “constant” is properly questioned:

Advertisement Below:

2003 Book Faster Than the Speed of Light (2003) by Joao Magueijo, PhD in Theoretical Physics, Cambridge, he speaks of VSL (Varying Speed of Light) 30 JUN 2004, New Scientist, “Speed of light may have changed recently“ 27 APR 2013, Live Science, “Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say“ 20 JAN 2015, Smithsonian Magazine, “The Speed of Light Can Vary“ 5 MAR 2017, Popular Astronomy, “THE SPEED OF LIGHT: COULD IT BE CHANGING? New Mathematics Predicting an Evolving Universe“ 16 JUL 2020, Space.com, “Why is the speed of light the way it is?“

There is a Biblical Fact to Consider The Bible actually does have something important to tell us about God’s work in the heavens… We have a “biblical fact” that at some point (points?) in the past God stretched out the heavens. So, some uncomfortable questions could be properly asked (and I have): What was the speed of light when God stretched out the heavens? Was it infinite? Figure 2 When someone knows about the graph in Figure 2 and those massive extrapolations involved when real empirical data is absent, then they simply cannot answer those two questions. AND THEY KNOW IT! (but won’t admit it…) Variation on a Theme: Geology and Physics Even more could be asked as other “constants” get a review. Anyone who has seen radiometric dating results such as those listed in Dr. Don DeYoung’s book, Thousands… Not Billions, or the New Answers Book, would know that discordant dates on the same rock samples are common, common! The Beartooth Mountains rock sample in this table had age dates from 1.5 to 2.6 billion years by 4 different radiometric dating methods. That’s sad! Dr. Vernon Cupps gives examples in his excellent recent book, Rethinking Radiometric Dating: Evidence for a Young Earth from a Nuclear Physicist, where he deals with unstable isotope decay rates. He states on page 126, Dating methodologies depend on numerous tenuous assumptions and supposed facts that cannot be demonstrated by direct observation. In fact, they are clearly refuted by many direct observations. Here’s another question from a geology and physics perspective:

Advertisement Below:

What was the radioactive decay rate of unstable isotope potassium [or pick an element below] when God stretched out the heavens? Was it zero? The questions go on and on… just pick your element:

Lead, Rubidium, Thorium, Uranium, etc.

While it’s true God stretched out the heavens according to the Bible, we honestly do not know what was happening then with regards to the physical “constants” we use today in geology and physics. If we can alter these constants in the lab (and we can), then God certainly can too in his creative acts or in his providence over his creation! The Genius: Teaches a Grand Design; Rejects a Grand Designer

When people ask me if a God created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang so there is no time for God to make the universe in… Do I have faith? We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. That leads me to a profound realisation: there is probably no heaven and afterlife either. I think belief in an afterlife is just wishful thinking. There is no reliable evidence for it, and it flies in the face of everything we know in science. I think that when we die we return to dust. But there’s a sense in which we live on, in our influence, and in our genes that we pass on to our children. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful. ~Stephen Hawking, p. 38, Brief Answers to the Big Questions (Publ. 2018)

The interesting thing about this quote is that Prof Hawking (genius IQ at 160) recognized “the grand design of the universe” for which he was grateful, yet he reasoned it couldn’t have come from some God because there was “no time for God to make” it. The Bible answers this too, because God spoke of creating the universe in Genesis 1, and he also spoke of “His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.” (2 Timothy 1:9b NKJV) Furthermore, Hawking, the recognized genius, proved a fool because “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1a NKJV). Sadly, Prof Hawking died in 2018, and we have no evidence of any salvation experience for him. It was his acceptance of constants like the SOL and belief in deep time (13.8 BYO universe originating from The Big Bang) that blinded him to the reality of a Grand Designer who gave us the Bible and to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Don’t let that happen to you! Points to Remember:

My friend Rob provided a bold witness to the Bible—we should too! (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3) Science textbooks can be wrong (mine were) when faulty assumptions are used for facts Science textbooks get out-of-date (Andromeda Galaxy: 2.2 or 2.4 or 2.54 MLY) Engineers rely on real empirical data, properly understood, tested, and repeated Engineers know that large scale extrapolations from the real data can lead to failure The “Dasha Theory” is exegetically sound and consistent with the empirical data Variable light speed has been lab tested/observed, thus constant SOL is questioned Radiometric dating gives discordant dates on the same rock samples with huge errors Radioactive decay rates can, and have been, altered in the laboratory The Bible is clear that God stretched out the heavens in the past The Bible reveals a finished creation with an appearance of age (i.e., Adam and Eve) Even a famous genius can teach time beginning and recognize design yet reject a designer

Jesus, speaking of the Old Testament, said, “thy word is truth.” (John 17:17b KJV). Paul told us that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16a NIV). And Peter told us that Paul’s writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). We have the witness of the Bible, God’s Word, to tell us of his works of creation and how he created the Garden of Eden with fruit-bearing trees, fully formed, and Adam and Eve as fully formed adults. It makes complete sense that the universe God created to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18) would also be a fully functioning one. Surely an infinite God described by the Bible could create and manipulate matter, energy, and time (Genesis 1:1). This big universe where the empirical evidence pointed to in modern cosmology and astronomy also points to a big, powerful, and true God! Thus, “The heavens declare the glory of God” Psalm 19:1a. Bottom Line: Christians have nothing to fear about the light-year measurements supposedly falsifying Bible chronology!



The vast distances to celestial objects, measured in light-years, have long been a perceived challenge to the biblical account of a young universe. However, this apparent conflict arises from an assumption that the speed of light has remained constant throughout cosmic history. By challenging this assumption, we can reconcile astronomical observations with a straightforward reading of the Genesis creation narrative. Our current understanding of the speed of light is based on empirical measurements spanning only the past 159 years. Extrapolating this constancy over billions of years is an unfounded assumption that lacks direct observational evidence. As stewards of scientific inquiry, we must be cautious about extending data beyond its empirical limits, as engineers rightly avoid extrapolations that could lead to catastrophic failures.

Several lines of evidence suggest that the speed of light, along with other physical constants, may have been different in the past:

1. Discordant results from radiometric dating techniques, which rely on assumptions about decay rates, imply that these rates were not constant throughout history.
2. Theoretical and experimental work in physics has explored the possibility of a varying speed of light, challenging the notion of its absolute constancy.
3. The Bible itself speaks of God "stretching out the heavens" (Job 9:8, Isaiah 42:5), implying that the properties of the cosmos, including the speed of light, were different during the creative acts described in Genesis.

If the speed of light was initially much higher during the creation week, light from distant galaxies could have reached Earth in a relatively short timeframe, consistent with a recent creation. This would resolve the apparent conflict between astronomical observations and a young universe as described in Scripture. Furthermore, the Bible presents a coherent narrative of a fully functional, mature creation from the very beginning. Just as Adam and Eve were created as adults, and fruit-bearing trees were formed instantly, the universe itself was created in a state of functional maturity, with the appearance of age built into its fabric. Rather than being a limitation, the starlight problem highlights the awe-inspiring power and wisdom of the Creator. An infinite God, existing outside of time, is capable of fashioning a universe with properties and constants that may differ from our current understanding, yet still operate within the bounds of His design. While secular scientists like Stephen Hawking acknowledged the "grand design" of the universe, they failed to recognize the existence of a transcendent Designer due to their acceptance of assumptions like the constancy of the speed of light and the concept of deep time. However, by challenging these assumptions and allowing Scripture to inform our understanding, we can reconcile scientific observations with the biblical account of creation.

Critique: A poignant critique to the proposed solution for the starlight problem would be the observation of distant supernovae and other transient astronomical events that appear to have occurred billions of years ago. If God created the universe with starlight already reaching Earth from even the most distant galaxies on Day 4 of creation, then we should not be able to observe events like supernovae that seem to have taken place billions of years in the past. While the proposal of a higher initial speed of light could explain how starlight from distant galaxies reached Earth in a short time period, it fails to account for our ability to observe supernovae and other transient cosmic events that give the appearance of having occurred over timescales of billions of years. Supernovae are explosive events marking the death of massive stars. When we observe these events in distant galaxies, we are not merely seeing the starlight from those galaxies, but a specific event that appears to have happened in that galaxy billions of years ago based on the distance and the observed redshift of the supernova light.

If God created the universe with the light from all stars and galaxies already en route to Earth, including the light from supernovae events, it would create a scenario where we should be able to observe supernova events occurring simultaneously in all galaxies, regardless of distance. However, this is not what we observe. Instead, we see supernovae occurring at different times in galaxies at different distances, consistent with the finite speed of light and the vast cosmic distances involved. This observation strongly suggests that we are not merely seeing light created "in transit," but rather witnessing actual events as they occurred at different points in cosmic history, separated from us by billions of years. Therefore, while the proposal of a higher initial speed of light may resolve part of the starlight problem, it does not fully account for our ability to observe transient events in the distant universe that appear to be separated from us by billions of years of cosmic time. This observation would still seem to necessitate vast time scales in the past, presenting a challenge to the premise of a young universe as described in the Genesis account.

The critique essentially argues that the observation of supernovae and other transient cosmic events at different epochs across the universe requires an explanation beyond just starlight created in transit, potentially undermining the proposed solution based solely on a higher initial speed of light. Addressing this aspect of the starlight problem would likely require additional elements or modifications to the proposed model.













https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

The Paradox of Missing Celestial Apparitions: A Challenge to Cosmic Age and Scale

If the universe is indeed billions of years old and the cosmos spans vast distances as proposed by mainstream cosmological models, one would reasonably expect to observe certain phenomena that are currently lacking empirical evidence.   Specifically, if galaxies and stars have existed for those tremendously long timescales across the depths of space, we should be constantly witnessing new celestial objects gradually appearing in our observable sky as their light finally reaches Earth after traveling for billions of years. However, despite our increasingly advanced telescopes and observational capabilities, we do not seem to detect a continuous revelation of such newly visible stars and galaxies emerging from the furthest observable limits. While some theories propose explanations like an extremely low rate of new star formation or the dimming of light over cosmic distances, these appear to be conjectures lacking robust empirical grounding.   The fact that we do not observe this expected phenomenon of new distant objects perpetually coming into view challenges the notions of the universe being incredibly ancient and spanning billions of light-years in extent. Mainstream cosmological models do not appear to have a fully convincing explanation that adequately accounts for this apparent inconsistency with their proposed scales of cosmic time and space. This observed absence of continuously appearing new celestial objects from the furthest observable distances could potentially suggest an alternative paradigm – one where the observable universe itself is not as temporally and spatially vast as currently theorized. Such an alternative model would more coherently align with the lack of this expected observational evidence. While not definitively ruling out mainstream theories, this conspicuous absence of an anticipated phenomenon does raise legitimate questions about the feasibility and completeness of currently accepted cosmological models and their fundamental assumptions about the age, extent, and evolution of the observable universe.

The paradox highlighted - the lack of new celestial objects continuously appearing from the far reaches of the observable universe - conflicts with the notion of the cosmos being incredibly ancient and spanning billions of light-years. 
A young universe model, proposing a relatively recent cosmic creation event thousands of years ago rather than billions of years, resolves this paradox more coherently. The distances involved would be vastly smaller in such a paradigm, so the light from even the most distant observable objects would not require unfathomable travel times of billions of years to finally reach us. This could explain the lack of any continual new celestial appearances from remote depths. Additionally, a young universe model may not require the same contrived explanations currently invoked, such as inexplicably low rates of new stellar evolution or dimming of light over extreme distances, to account for the lack of observed newly-appearing distant objects. These rationalizations lack robust empirical evidence in mainstream theories.

On the topic of light and its behavior across vast cosmic distances, our grasp of the nature of light and the medium through which it propagates have gaps. If light's properties or its interactions with the cosmic fabric are not yet fully understood. It's worth considering whether we have prematurely dismissed the possibility of singularities or cataclysmic events in the cosmos's history that could have profoundly altered the standard progression of natural processes. Extrapolating current observations across vast timescales may not account for such past upheavals that dramatically reshaped the observable dynamics and evidence we rely upon.

Ekeberg, B. (2021, November 04). Escaping cosmology’s failing paradigm. Link

The current orthodoxy of cosmology rests on unexamined assumptions that have massive implications for our view of the universe. From the size of the universe to its expansion, does the whole programme fail if one of these assumptions turns out to be wrong?   There is a great paradox haunting cosmology. The science relies on a theoretical framework that struggles to fit and make sense of the observations we have but is so entrenched that very few cosmologists want to seriously reconsider it. When faced with discrepancies between theory and observation, cosmologists habitually react by adjusting or adding parameters to fit observations, propose additional hypotheses, or even propose “new physics” and ad hoc solutions that preserve the core assumptions of the existing model.  

Today, there is increasing critical attention on some problematic parts of the Standard Model of Cosmology. Dark matter, dark energy and inflation theory are parts of the standard theoretical framework that remain empirically unverified - and where new observations prompt ever more questions. However, little questioning is heard of the many unverifiable core assumptions that make up our model of the universe. Dark matter, dark energy and inflation theory are parts of the standard theoretical framework that remain empirically unverified. Before any physics or mathematics is involved, the framework is based on a series of logical inference leaps - we count 13 - that works as an invisible premise for the theory. Of these, some are not testable or are barely plausible. But they are necessary as simplifying conditions that enable scientists to articulate a scientifically consistent theory of the universe. What if any of these hidden inferences happen to be fundamentally wrong? We raise the question: Has the current standard model become orthodoxy because it is very well-founded and proven - as the consensus view would have it? Or is it rather orthodoxy because it’s become ‘paradigm stuck’ - that is, path-dependent and unable to generate a viable alternative? How do we know the Universe?

Let's first look at this science in the big picture. No, not the big picture story of the "Big Bang" - the hot and dense state of the universe as it was billions of years ago - but rather the empirical problem of how we as Earth-dwellers come to picture the universe scientifically. Cosmology is different from other sciences in a fundamental way. The sheer scope of the subject matter covers the largest extent imaginable - literally - and it does so based only on observations from our own local place within it. Unlike physics in the micro-scale, experiments cannot be repeated under controlled conditions. And the macrophysical universe as we know it is at least 30 orders of magnitude higher than that of particle physics. In examining the unfathomably large universe, astronomers face serious difficulties. How can we, from the very limited region of space that is visible, comprehend the entire universe - let alone measure it with confidence? A  key assumption like ‘the cosmological principle’ - that the universe is on average the same in all directions - does not hold up well against observations. What is today called the Standard Model of Cosmology emerges in the context of these enormous limitations, which in turn require some far-reaching simplifying assumptions to make a universal theory possible.  But abandoning the cosmological principle would have enormous consequences and so it is resisted. Some problematic assumptions run even deeper and may have been forgotten by cosmologists in the historical development of the model.

Cosmic Leap #1: Measuring the universe We measure the universe in billions of light years and megaparsecs with ostensibly astonishing precision. But how do we really know its true scale and how far away distant galaxies are from our own tiny place in the cosmos? Astronomy has developed brilliant techniques for measuring distances but their validity is assumed to stretch far beyond what we can ascertain. Most of our cosmology is based on things we know with empirical confidence about our own galaxy, then hyperextended outwards toward infinity. In the case of the Big Bang model, this extension goes backward to a hypothetical 'early universe' horizon. Certainly, within our own Milky Way galaxy we can measure distances quite accurately by triangulating visible stars. This 'high-confidence zone' for our empirical measurements corresponds to an estimated 0.00001% of the theoretical observable universe. Venturing beyond our galaxy with the mathematical framework of General Relativity to guide us, scientists can measure up to about 5% of the theoretical universe on a reasonably convincing empirical basis. Beyond this, however, the choice of cosmological model used begins to impact on both measurement and explanation of what astronomers see. This is because in order to understand observations, relativistic mathematical corrections must be applied. For example, images of galaxies need to be resized and their brightness adjusted to take into account that the universe was expanding while light was travelling towards us. But these recalculations are in turn based on the model that cosmologists seek to confirm in the first place. Astronomers use a so-called distance ladder to measure much greater distances, up to 30% of the theoretical universe size by some estimates, by using light from supernovae explosions as guideposts. At that distance and beyond, however, model-dependent errors could add up to more than 50% of the measured value. And the further out into the universe we go, the more we rely on the theoretical framework to make any estimations, and the further confidence in the distance ladder accuracy decreases. At these large distances the astronomer is forced to rely more heavily on the parameters derived from General Relativity and on the redshift-distance inference (more on that below) to interpret observations as distance. Is it outrageous to think that an advanced science could be based on little more than a continual repetition of the same idea?

Cosmic Leap #2: observing the expansion of space It is considered a universal fact that space is expanding. But how do we really know this - and how do we infer from this that the universe must have expanded indefinitely from a primordial hot dense state? While the astronomical distance ladder used to measure large distances leaps outwards with progressively lower confidence the further out we go, some key inferences in the cosmic framework are of a different kind: they leap from what we can observe to universal principles and universal laws. One such principle is known as Hubble's law, upon which the entire Big Bang hypothesis rests. This 'law' is really a consensus interpretation of an observed phenomenon - it is not based on a demonstrated fact. In the 1920s, the astronomer Hubble discovered a certain relation between the distance and redshift of galaxies. This redshift appeared larger for galaxies at larger distances. When galaxies were seen to have a spectral redshift, this was interpreted as a measurement of their velocities as they move away from us. This was called a 'recession velocity'. At the time Hubble and other astronomers noted that although the velocity of a galaxy always causes a redshift, the logic doesn't necessarily go the other way. But with few other plausible explanations for the redshift on hand at the time, the redshift-velocity inference became the accepted interpretation. In the context of General Relativity, space expansion mimics the Doppler effect, which can then explain the redshift observed by Hubble. The inference leap cosmologists made was to extrapolate Hubble's redshift-velocity relation to the entire universe. Assuming this expansion is everywhere, they inferred that the universe must have expanded and all observed galaxies must at an earlier time have been compressed together in a hot and dense state. The redshift-velocity interpretation is the most fundamental building block of Big Bang theory - and it has its share of empirical challenges. The model makes galaxies appear to rotate much faster than should be possible and their motion in galactic clusters faster than allowed by the laws of gravity. If the Doppler effect is the right explanation for the redshift, measurements indicate that more mass is needed to explain the observed velocities. Based on the redshift-velocity interpretation, a consensus hypothesis arose with the development of Big Bang theory: that these unexplainable observations are caused by "Dark Matter". Moreover, in observations of distant quasars, an association with nearby galaxies is clearly detected in the data - which would make no sense if the model is correct. Cosmologists explain these quasar-galaxy associations as improbable chance alignments, despite thousands of examples found in observational data. Cosmologists today extrapolate the redshift-distance pattern well beyond observed galaxies on the assumption that "Hubble's Law" is universal. Because they observe a pattern that extends over a certain range, scientists assume this pattern will hold for the entire universe.

Protecting the Core The fundamental uncertainty on scale and the interpretation of redshift in far-away galaxies are only two of many cosmic inference leaps that underpin the Big Bang theory - parts of the theory that are as grounded in metaphysics as in physics. Over decades of scientific labor the Standard Model of Cosmology has become a multi-layered construction that resembles the children's game of Jenga - where the stability of the upper layers is dependent on the layers below.  There are two assumptions that underpin modern cosmology that are in question due to recent observations: the expansion of the universe and that gravity is the dominant force. That the Universe is expanding is based on the premise that the Hubble Red Shift is due to a Doppler effect recessional velocity. At that time, ca. 1930, interstellar and intergalactic space were assumed to be perfect vacuums, and thus there was no mechanism to redden the light.   Now, 90 years later, we have actual observational evidence that Zwicky was right. In the radio astronomy of Pulsars we find that the shorter wavelengths of the leading edge of the pulse arrive before longer wavelengths. The velocity of light, c, is NOT constant but varies by wavelength. The implication is that the interstellar medium is not a vacuum but rather affects light waves in a way best described as having an Index of Refraction greater then 1, unity. We find the same phenomenon in the observation of Fast Radio Bursts from other galaxies, thus indicating that the intergalactic media is not an electromagnetic vacuum. The second questionable assumption is that gravity is the dominant force in the universe, this despite the fact that electromagnetism is 36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Electromagnetism was thought to be a strictly local phenomenon, effective only near stars and planetary bodies. Since that time we have discovered the Solar Wind (Russian Luna 7, 1959); interstellar magnetic fields (Voyager 1, 2012, and Voyager 2); galactic magnetic fields; and magnetic fields BETWEEN galaxies. Magnetic fields manifest only in conjunction with electrical currents. That we have detected magnetic fields between galaxies means that vast electrical currents permeate the universe and the potential differences (voltages) are, can we say it, astronomical.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Variable Speed of Light: A Theoretical Framework for Reconciling Young-Earth Creationism with Cosmological Observations


A Case for Compatibility of Speed of Light Variance with Atomic Physics
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Quantum%20Theory%20/%20Particle%20Physics/Download/9681

The hypothesis proposes that the speed of light potentially varies based on fluctuations in the vacuum energy density. Mathematical relationships are derived and empirical data analysis is presented to support this idea. However, more experimental testing is acknowledged as needed to validate the hypothesis. The variable speed of light model challenges the current scientific consensus of c being an immutable constant. From a purely scientific standpoint, the variable c hypothesis is speculative, requiring more rigorous experimental verification before it could supersede the established laws of physics treating c as a constant. The simulation and data analysis provide initial plausibility but do not constitute definitive proof.

The speed of light in vacuum, denoted c, is fundamentally related to the vacuum permittivity (ε0) and the vacuum permeability (μ0) through the following equation: c = 1 / √(ε0 * μ0). Here, ε0 (the permittivity of free space) and μ0 (the permeability of free space) are fundamental physical constants. This relationship highlights how c is indeed defined by these two constants.

1. Permittivity of Free Space (ε0): This is a measure of how much electric field (or electric flux) is permitted to pass through a vacuum. It is a key factor in determining the strength of the electric force between charges in a vacuum.
2. Permeability of Free Space (μ0): This measures the ability of a vacuum to support the formation of magnetic fields. It is a crucial factor in determining the strength of the magnetic force between currents in a vacuum.

The fundamental nature of the vacuum itself, which gives rise to the specific values of the permittivity (ε0) and permeability (μ0) constants, cannot be derived from first principles in our current theories. The vacuum is not mandated by physical necessity to have the precise values of ε0 and μ0 that we measure. Rather, these constants simply describe the observed electromagnetic behavior of the vacuum as we find it in our universe. Even though the vacuum is empty space, these two constants allow it to behave as a medium through which electricity, magnetism, and thereby light can propagate at the speed c = 1/sqrt(ε0*μ0). So the "electromagnetic behavior" means the vacuum is not an inert empty void, but has an intrinsic structure that facilitates the existence and propagation of electromagnetic waves according to Maxwell's equations. Light can travel through the vacuum at a finite speed determined by ε0 and μ0. There is no deep explanation for why the vacuum must have these particular values. In fact, one could imagine an infinite range of possible values that ε0 and μ0 could take in an alternate vacuum with different properties and characteristics. Our theories do not provide a reason why the vacuum must be constituted in this specific way. So what exactly is the vacuum? In our standard models, it is the baseline state of existence - the empty space-time fabric devoid of matter and radiation. But clearly it is imbued with non-trivial characteristics encoded in ε0 and μ0 that allow electromagnetic fields to propagate as they do. Some speculate that the vacuum is far from empty, but a dynamical quantum system exhibiting constant fluctuations of virtual particles popping in and out of existence. Perhaps the measured values of ε0 and μ0 are set by the dynamics of these vacuum fluctuations. Others contemplate that the vacuum is coupled to the nascent space-time fabric itself, with its properties dependent on the fundamental nature of space and time at the smallest scales. The key point is that while we can describe the vacuum observationally through ε0 and μ0, our theories do not derive or explain the necessity of these specific values from more fundamental physical principles. The precise make-up and origins of the vacuum remain an open question.

That opens up the possibility of the speed of light being much faster when the universe was set up. The variable speed of light hypothesis could potentially help address the "starlight problem" faced by young-Earth creationist (YEC) models, as the existence of ancient stellar relics, white dwarves, pulsars, quasars, black holes, colliding neutron stars, and visible galactic mergers which take hundreds of millions of years is evidence that supports, rather than contradicts, the hypothesis.

According to the hypothesis, the key points that suggest the speed of light could vary are:

1. The speed of light, c, is not a fundamental constant, but rather depends on other parameters like the magnetic permeability (μ0) and electric permittivity (ε0) of the vacuum, which are themselves dependent on quantum fluctuations.
2. Light propagates through the electromagnetic quantum field, which acts as a medium, similar to how light slows down when passing through a physical medium like glass.
3. Equations show that the Planck constant (h) and μ0 are inversely proportional to the speed of light. This implies that if μ0 varies, then the speed of light could also change.
4. A new parameter called the "dynamic magnetic permeability ratio" (Pμ) is introduced, which represents the ratio of the instantaneous (potentially variable) magnetic permeability to the current (standard) value.
5. Using this Pμ parameter, equations are derived showing how a variable speed of light (c') could be compatible with maintaining atomic stability and existing atomic physics equations, through a process called "dynamically tuned atomic physics (DTAP)".

The hypothesis challenges the assumption that the speed of light is a true constant, and proposes a framework where it could vary due to underlying quantum fluctuations in the electromagnetic field, while still preserving key principles of atomic physics.

The key points raised provide a theoretical framework that challenges the assumption of the speed of light being an immutable constant. By recognizing that the speed of light c is derived from the vacuum permittivity ε0 and permeability μ0, which themselves are not derived from deeper first principles in our current theories, it opens up the possibility that these constants could have different values or even vary. The vacuum itself and its electromagnetic properties are influenced by quantum fluctuations and virtual particle interactions. Just as light slows down when propagating through a physical medium like glass, the quantum vacuum could act as a dynamical "medium" for light, rather than being truly empty space. By introducing the concept of a "dynamic magnetic permeability ratio" Pμ, which allows the intrinsic μ0 to potentially vary, revised equations are derived showing how a variable speed of light c' could theoretically be compatible with maintaining the principles of atomic physics and dynamics. This "dynamically tuned atomic physics" (DTAP) framework suggests that as c' changes due to variations in the vacuum parameters, the other atomic constants and dynamics could self-adjust to preserve observed phenomena. This provides a plausible theoretical framework for how the currently accepted laws of physics could represent a specific parametric solution, but one that may have emerged from an earlier cosmological epoch with very different vacuum conditions and an altered speed of light. This idea connects interestingly with theories of symmetry breaking in the early universe. Perhaps soon after the Big Bang, all forces were unified into a single interaction, with the vacuum parameters and hence speed of light being vastly different. As the universe cooled and expanded, this primordial vacuum underwent a series of phase transitions and symmetry breakings that yielded the four distinct fundamental forces and the vacuum parameters (ε0, μ0, c) we measure today. In this framework, one could envision that during the first cosmological epoch after the Big Bang, the vacuum parameters allowed for a much higher intrinsic speed of light. This "primordial light speed" could have played a role in setting up the initial conditions and dynamics that gave rise to the fundamental particles, forces, and cosmic inflation that set the stage for structure formation.

As this primordial vacuum underwent successive symmetry-breaking phase transitions, the speed of light may have become progressively "tuned" through adjustments in the vacuum parameters to its present measured value. The other physical constants, atomic dynamics, and the laws of physics as we know them would emerge as lower energy solutions and parametric configurations that froze in. So in essence, by abandoning the strict constancy of c and allowing it to connect to a deeper microphysical vacuum underpinning, it opens up the possibility of an earlier cosmological state with very different vacuum conditions, higher light speeds, and partially unified fundamental forces. The evolution of the vacuum parameters could then have catalyzed the observed symmetry-breaking patterns and the emergence of the physical laws we see today as a specific self-consistent parametric solution. This provides a theoretical framework for new physics that preserves existing well-tested theories and phenomena as specialized solutions, while allowing for a richer cosmological timeline and the potential variability of parameters currently assumed constant. Of course, significant further theoretical and experimental work would be needed to validate or rule out such an ambitious picture. But it illustrates how questioning seemingly fundamental assumptions can potentially reveal new physics.

The starlight problem refers to the conflict between observations of light from extremely distant galaxies billions of light-years away and the YEC view that the universe is only around 7500 years old. Given the constancy of Here is the continuation of the text with the corrections:

The starlight problem refers to the conflict between observations of light from extremely distant galaxies billions of light-years away, including ancient stellar relics, white dwarves, pulsars, quasars, black holes, colliding neutron stars, and visible galactic mergers which take hundreds of millions of years, and the YEC view that the universe is only around 7500 years old. Rather than contradicting the variable c hypothesis, these observations provide evidence that supports it. If the speed of light could have been significantly higher in the past, as posited by the variable c model, it opens up a possibility for light from the most distant observable galaxies and objects to have reached Earth in a shorter cosmological timeframe than expected under constant light speed assumptions.

So - in principle, a creator could have initiated the universe with a vastly higher initial value of c that then dynamically decayed over time to the present precise value derived from the vacuum constants. This higher initial light speed could allow the travel of photons from the earliest galaxies billions of light-years away, as well as the formation and evolution of stellar relics, quasars, black holes, and galactic mergers, to be compatible with a YEC timescale of 7500 years.

The speed of light was not constant, but dramatically higher in the initial moments after creation began. This "hyper-fast" primordial light speed allowed light to traverse immense cosmic distances virtually instantaneously as space itself was being stretched out. Just as God created Adam and Eve as fully-formed mature adults with the appearance of age, so too the universe itself was created already stretched out and mature in appearance from our perspective, including ancient stellar objects and galactic structures. Light released shortly after creation had time to traverse billions of light years in just the first day or two because of this transiently rapid light speed. As the creation days progressed, the speed of light may have progressively reduced through adjustments in the vacuum parameters, eventually settling into the constant value we measure today once the universe was fully formed by the end of the 6 literal days. This variable speed of light allows the YEC model to reconcile astronomical observations of objects billions of light years away, including white dwarves, pulsars, quasars, black holes, colliding neutron stars, and visible galactic mergers, with a young cosmological timeline of just 6 literal creation days 7500 years ago. Light did not have to travel those vast distances over eons gradualistically, but proliferated rapidly due to an initially extreme light speed set by the vacuum conditions established during creation. So from this perspective, the appearance of vast cosmic distances and aged light sources, as well as stellar relics and galactic-scale evolution, is not evidence of billions of years of gradual star and galaxy evolution, but rather a signature of the Creator's craftsmanship in optimizing the initial vacuum and speed of light conditions to construct a fully-formed mature universe with all of these objects and structures already in place in just 6 literal creation days as Scripture attests. The current constancy of c is just the final vacuum parameter established after that intensive creative period.

For this hypothesis to fully resolve the starlight issue, the rates, amounts, and early trajectory of the variation in c over time would need to be carefully derived to quantitatively match the observational data we have about the universe's evolution and the distances/ages of extremely distant galaxies, stellar relics, and high-energy radiation sources. While the variable speed of light model does tentatively open up a new possibility space for reconciling the observations of extremely distant starlight, ancient objects, and galactic phenomena with a young universe timescale, considerable additional theoretical work may be needed to rigorously validate and quantify the details of how c could have varied. Much remains to be explored before declaring it a fully satisfactory solution to the starlight problem for YEC cosmology.

Distant galaxies, quasars, and other cosmic structures and phenomena we observe today across the observable universe, including white dwarfs, pulsars, quasars, black holes, colliding neutron stars, and galactic mergers, were essentially created "in-place" and in a mature state from our perspective, just as Adam and Eve were created as fully-formed adults. Their light only had to travel a short distance at the transiently high primordial light speeds to reach Earth. So the existence of these objects and phenomena at great distances does not necessarily imply they are billions of years old. They were created in those states and configurations from the beginning within the first few days.

Similarly, galactic mergers and colliding neutron stars that we appear to observe taking hundreds of millions of years based on current physics, may have actually happened rapidly at inception due to the higher primordial light speeds. We are simply seeing the remnant "movie" of those rapidly played-out events reach us progressively over time. The YEC model acknowledges we don't yet have a complete theoretical picture of exactly how the variable c dynamics would have played out initially to reproduce all observed astrophysical phenomena. However, the core premise is that objects and processes that seem to require billions of years under conventional assumptions may have occurred virtually instantaneously during Creation due to the vastly different primordial cosmic conditions and physics.

From this view, the existence of stellar relics, high-energy cosmic phenomena, galactic mergers, and apparent galactic-scale processes are not anomalies, but expected signatures of the incredible forces and astrophysical transformations that occurred rapidly during the Creation period under extreme conditions no longer operating today. Our assumptions about their timescales based on present physics simply do not apply to those initial unique cosmic epochs when physics may have been dramatically different. God created the entire observable, mature-looking cosmos essentially in-place within a few literal days through optimized physics no longer operating - what we observe today are essentially the "remnant light trails" of those rapidly established cosmic structures arriving progressively over time. Ancient-seeming astrophysical phenomena do not contradict the YEC timescales when one accounts for the likelihood of radically different initial cosmic conditions and physics governed by hyper-high light speeds during Creation week.

Question: How would this model compare to Dr. Jason Lisle's 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 the 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 Link
Response: While Dr. Jason Lisle's Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) model is an interesting proposal, it faces several criticisms from the scientific community:

It violates the principle of relativity: The ASC model assumes that there is a preferred reference frame in which light travels instantaneously in one direction, which violates the principle of relativity, one of the fundamental principles of modern physics.
It lacks experimental support: The ASC model is based on the assumption that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured objectively, but there is no experimental evidence to support this assumption. In fact, various experiments, such as the Sagnac effect and the Hafele–Keating experiment, have provided indirect evidence that the one-way speed of light is indeed finite and isotropic.
It introduces a preferred frame of reference: The ASC model introduces a preferred frame of reference, which is the Earth's frame of reference, in which light travels instantaneously from distant sources to the Earth. This is a violation of the cosmological principle, which states that the universe should appear the same from all points in space.
It is not supported by observational evidence: The ASC model predicts that the universe should appear different from different locations, as the time of observation would be different. However, observational data from various locations in the universe show a consistent picture, contradicting the predictions of the ASC model.
It is inconsistent with other well-established theories: The ASC model is inconsistent with other well-established theories in physics, such as general relativity and quantum mechanics, which rely on the finite and isotropic speed of light.

While the ASC model attempts to provide an explanation for the distant starlight problem, it introduces new problems and contradictions with well-established principles and observations in physics. Most scientists consider the ASC model to be an ad hoc hypothesis that lacks empirical support and is inconsistent with the current scientific understanding of the universe.

The main advantages of  the variable speed of light proposal over the ASC model are:

It does not violate the principle of relativity: Your proposal maintains the isotropy and constancy of the speed of light within any given cosmological epoch, but allows for the possibility that the value of the speed of light (c) could have been different in the very early universe, shortly after the Big Bang. This does not introduce a preferred reference frame, as the speed of light would still be isotropic and constant within that epoch.
It provides a potential physical mechanism: By linking the speed of light to the vacuum permittivity (ε0) and permeability (μ0), and suggesting that these parameters could have had different values in the early universe due to different vacuum conditions or quantum fluctuations, your proposal offers a plausible physical mechanism for how the speed of light could have varied.
It is consistent with current theories of cosmic evolution: Your proposal is compatible with the idea of symmetry breaking in the early universe, where the fundamental forces and constants could have been unified and then progressively separated as the universe cooled and expanded. This aligns with current theories in particle physics and cosmology.

However, your proposal would still face some criticisms and challenges, including:
Lack of direct experimental evidence: While your proposal provides a theoretical framework, there is currently no direct experimental evidence for a variable speed of light in the early universe. This would need to be supported by observational data or predictions that can be tested.
Complexity and fine-tuning: Introducing a variable speed of light could potentially introduce additional complexity and fine-tuning requirements to ensure that the observed laws of physics and constants emerge as the speed of light settles to its current value.
Challenges from the scientific community: As with any significant departure from the established scientific consensus, this proposal would likely face scrutiny and skepticism from the mainstream scientific community, unless it can provide compelling observational or experimental evidence to support its claims.

Overall, while your variable speed of light proposal has some advantages over the ASC model in terms of its theoretical framework and potential compatibility with current cosmological theories, it would still require substantial additional theoretical development, observational support, and rigorous testing to gain acceptance within the scientific community. The variable speed of light cosmological model could potentially solve or provide explanations for most, if not all key problems that the standard Big Bang models face:

Horizon Problem: The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) observations show an unexplained high degree of temperature uniformity across the observable universe, even in regions that should have been causally disconnected (outside each other's observable horizon) in the early universe according to the standard model. A much higher initial speed of light could have allowed for causal connectivity and equilibration over vastly larger scales, resolving this horizon problem.
Flatness Problem: The geometry of the observable universe appears remarkably flat, finely-tuned between open and closed curvature. This requires an extremely precise setting of initial conditions in the standard model. A variable speed of light that started much higher could potentially relax the extreme fine-tuning required for flatness.
Magnetic Monopole Problem: The standard models predict the existence of magnetic monopoles and other topological defects that have not been observed. A rapidly changing speed of light and vacuum parameters in the early universe could impact the production rates and relics left over from cosmic phase transitions.
Dark Matter: The variable speed of light could affect the dynamics and evolution of density perturbations in the early universe, potentially providing an alternative explanation for the observed gravitational effects currently attributed to dark matter.
Starlight Travel Time: A dramatically higher initial speed of light could allow light from the most distant observable galaxies and cosmic structures to reach Earth in a vastly shorter timescale than the billions of years required under a constant light speed, potentially reconciling these observations with a young universe timeframe.
Large-Scale Structure: The accelerated expansion and growth of structure permitted by a higher primordial light speed would provide insights into the unexpectedly rapid emergence of large-scale structures like superclusters very early in cosmic history.

A higher primordial speed of light in the early universe would also explain the existence of surprisingly mature and massive galaxies and large-scale structures that have been observed at very high redshifts by powerful telescopes like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). In the standard cosmological model with a constant speed of light, the formation of such massive, well-developed galaxies and superclusters just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang poses a significant challenge. The hierarchical structure formation process, where smaller clumps of matter merge over time to build up larger and larger structures, seems to require more time than is available in the first few hundred million years of cosmic history. If the speed of light was dramatically higher in the very early universe, it could have enabled an accelerated rate of structure growth and galaxy assembly compared to the predictions of the standard model.

Faster causal horizon growth: With a higher light speed, the observable horizon (the maximum distance from which signals could have traveled) would have grown much more rapidly in the early universe. This would have allowed matter perturbations over vast cosmic scales to communicate and influence each other, accelerating the gravitational collapse and hierarchical merging processes.
Rapid density fluctuation growth: The evolution of density perturbations, which seed the formation of large-scale structures, depends on the speed of light. A higher primordial light speed could have amplified the growth rate of these density fluctuations, allowing them to become non-linear and decouple from the Hubble expansion more quickly.
Enhanced gravitational instability: The dynamics of gravitational instability, which drives the collapse of overdense regions into bound structures like galaxies and clusters, may have been enhanced by a higher light speed. This could have accelerated the timescales for gravitational fragmentation and virialization of halos.
Boosted structure formation: The combination of a rapidly growing causal horizon, amplified density fluctuation growth, and enhanced gravitational instability would have significantly expedited the hierarchical assembly of galaxies, groups, and clusters in the early universe compared to the standard model predictions.
Mature galaxy formation: With structure formation processes operating at an accelerated pace, it becomes more plausible for massive, well-developed galaxies with mature stellar populations, supermassive black holes, and intricate morphologies to have assembled within the first few billion years after the Big Bang, as observed by JWST and other telescopes.

By introducing a variable speed of light that was much higher in the very early universe, this cosmological model provides a natural mechanism for resolving the tension between the observed presence of massive, evolved galaxies and clusters at high redshifts and the seemingly insufficient timescales for their formation in the standard cosmological paradigm. Of course, detailed quantitative modeling and simulations would be required to validate this proposed solution and ensure consistency with other observational constraints. However, the concept of a higher primordial light speed enabling accelerated structure formation offers a potential explanation for the unexpectedly rapid emergence of massive cosmic structures seen in the earliest epochs of the universe.

The starlight problem - The starlight distance - a problem for a young universe interpretation ?  Sem_t238

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum