The problem of Old Light

[jason]

Hi all,

To any young earthers in this forum, how do you deal with the problem of ancient star light in the universe ?

It seems that this is going to be a fatal stumbling block for an usherite chronology.

In case anybody is wondering I am an Old Earth Creationist with a strong leaning towards the reasonstobelieve testable creation model, which I really like :D

Anyway, just wondering how the young earthers here deal with this problem.

Jason

[TheFiveSolas]

Jason,

I'd suggest you pick up a copy of Dr. Russell Humphreys' book, "Starlight and Time, Solving the problem of distant starlight in a young universe". In it he uses Einstein's general theory but with the assumptions of a bounded rather than an unbounded universe showing how distant starlight can indeed be accounted for in a young universe.

In addition, you can read his replies to the criticisms of his work at the following link.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

Also, he's been attempting (for a few years now) to set up a formal debate on the topic with Dr. Ross, but Ross seems to not want a debate to happen in front of an audience of scientists from the relevant disciplines.

[jason]

I'd suggest you pick up a copy of Dr. Russell Humphreys' book, "Starlight and Time, Solving the problem of distant starlight in a young universe". In it he uses Einstein's general theory but with the assumptions of a bounded rather than an unbounded universe showing how distant starlight can indeed be accounted for in a young universe.

Does it agree with what we observe ? In his reply to Hugh Ross, he doesn't actually answer the question on distant astronomical clocks and the lack of the appropriate amount of time dialation.

Also, he's been attempting (for a few years now) to set up a formal debate on the topic with Dr. Ross, but Ross seems to not want a debate to happen in front of an audience of scientists from the relevant disciplines.

Ross has stated repeatedly that he wants to debate to happen in front of a group of astrophyscists only. Which is fair enough given the topic and the details of the idea.

Jason

[AtheistArchon]

Solving the problem of distant starlight in a young universe". In it he uses Einstein's general theory but with the assumptions of a bounded rather than an unbounded universe showing how distant starlight can indeed be accounted for in a young universe.

- There are only a few ways I can think of to get around this.

1. Postulate that the speed of light was much, much, MUCH faster 6k years ago than it is now.

2. Postulate that distant stars are not, in reality, millions or billions of light-years away from us, but rather very, VERY much closer.

3. Postulate that time did not always proceed at the same rate as we experience it now.

- All are, IMO, impossible:

And that brings us to the true purpose of the article, to play up the new creationist cosmology developed by D. Russell Humphreys (PhD in physics from LSU, retired from Sandia National Laboratories, where most of his work was in the nuclear engineering area, and classified). He published the book Starlight and Time - Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe in 1994 (Master Books, ISBN 0-89051-202-7). He uses general relativity theory, in a bounded universe with a definite center in 3 dimensions, and uses time dilation to account for the discrepency between 6 literal days, and the appearance that those 6 days lasted several billion years. It is not at all obvious that he has used general relativity properly, and he has been criticized along those lines (see references 5 & 6 in the article).

The major problem I see with Humphreys' cosmology is that it is impossible, if one sticks to the laws of physics as we know them. This weakness Humphreys readily acknowledges, although to him it is a strength. Humphreys refers to Isaiah 40:22, Who stretches out the heavans like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to Dwell in. To Humphreys, this is an indication that God side-stepped the laws of physics, to drag space-time out of its own black hole and force the universe to expand, in what Humphreys calls a "white hole cosmology". The need for devine intervention comes about because Humphrey's assumes a bounded universe with a distinct center, both of which are aspects absent from standard cosmology. Standard Big Bang cosmology does not violate the laws of physics, simply because it is unbounded. Humphreys' cosmology does violate the laws of physics, simply because it is bounded. It's a clever idea that relies on direct, devine intervention, in order for the universe as we know it to exist at all.

I suppose if one is a creationist, it makes pretty good sense to rely on devine intervention for your cosmology to work. But, to me, the idea looks exactly the same as the idea that the light was created "in flight", and suffers from exactly the same criticism, namely a deceptive God. At best, assuming there is no other error in the white hole cosmology, it is impossible to tell the difference between it, and standard cosmology, just as it is impossible to tell the difference between real age, and the mere appearance of age. God's violation of the laws of physics to force the "impossible" expansion hides the true age of the universe behind a false cosmology. So, despite the title of his book, Humphreys never really solved the basic problem of a universe that is young, looks old, and how that encourages the notion of a deceptive God.

[TheFiveSolas]

Jason:
Does it agree with what we observe ?

Yes, in fact one thing that we have observed is that gravity affects time (i.e., atomic clocks at higher altitudes "tick" faster than those closer to the center of the Earth. This observation is in line with Einstein's general theory).

Jason:
In his reply to Hugh Ross, he doesn't actually answer the question on distant astronomical clocks and the lack of the appropriate amount of time dialation.

In Humphreys' book he does deal with both of the above. For instance, his model points out that if the universe is bounded and is expanding from a center point (i.e., the original starting point of creation) it follows, according to the general theory of relativity, that time will "move slower" toward the center and faster as the stars expand outward. In other words, time passing is relative to where the "clock" is located in relation to the concentration of greatest mass. As he points out, clocks on Earth could in fact record the passage of only a few thousand years where clocks on distant stars (which were being spread out from the center mass of creation) would be "ticking" faster and faster, thus allowing billions of years to pass based upon THEIR reference frame. It all depends upon WHERE you are measuring time from since time is relative to gravity/mass.

[Socratism]

Although there are some interesting possibilities in Humphrey's ideas, and John Harnett has proposed some modifications, I have a hunch that Setterfield may be closer to not only an answer to this narrow problem but also a new synthesis that includes much more of physics.

Try the following to see some interesting ideas:

http://www.setterfield.org/index.html

[jason]

As he points out, clocks on Earth could in fact record the passage of only a few thousand years where clocks on distant stars (which were being spread out from the center mass of creation) would be "ticking" faster and faster, thus allowing billions of years to pass based upon THEIR reference frame. It all depends upon WHERE you are measuring time from since time is relative to gravity/mass.

That was what I thought you meant.

But that has a serious observational difficulty.

There are many clocks out in the universe (supernova, cephid variables etc) that run at very regular rates.

Yet if time is moving faster on the otherside of the cosmos then we should see the clocks running much faster than we do. What we actually see is a 10% slow down.

I think this observational difficulty is going to kill Humphrey's model dead, if that is his observational prediction.

Jason

[jason]

1. Postulate that the speed of light was much, much, MUCH faster 6k years ago than it is now.

We know from genesis this is did not happen, although not impossible. As A & E didn't incinerate because of the increased heat from radioactive decay.

2. Postulate that distant stars are not, in reality, millions or billions of light-years away from us, but rather very, VERY much closer.

Which is possible, but does lead to a very gnostic way of looking at things, and I think would lead to making God the author of confusion.

3. Postulate that time did not always proceed at the same rate as we experience it now.

Humphreys model predicts this (at least in one sense) but the difference is not observed.

None are technically impossible, but we know 1 & 3 didn't happen, and 2 is unlikley given the character of God.

Jason

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 05:55 PM post located here
jason:
We know from genesis this is did not happen (faster speed of light), although not impossible. As A & E didn't incinerate because of the increased heat from radioactive decay.

This is a common misconception. Read Setterfield's claim, complete with equations, which shows that the energy released in radioactive decay is not affected by changes in the speed of light.

I think would lead to making God the author of confusion.

Since God told us what happened and how long it took I think you are accusing God wrongly. It is men who are the authors of confusion. They assume that all things have continued without change from the beginning (a reference to evolution by Peter?) and also deny a global flood, again condemned by Peter.

BTW, God is not the author of confusion to those who trust Him when He directly tells them the truth, but He also says that He will "confound the wisdom of the wise", who trust only in their human derived inferences and conclusions.

It might profit creationists who are interested in light to read through some of the discussions here:

http://www.setterfield.org/discussionindex.htm

[TheFiveSolas]

Jason:
That was what I thought you meant.

But that has a serious observational difficulty.

There are many clocks out in the universe (supernova, cephid variables etc) that run at very regular rates.

Yet if time is moving faster on the otherside of the cosmos then we should see the clocks running much faster than we do. What we actually see is a 10% slow down.

I think this observational difficulty is going to kill Humphrey's model dead, if that is his observational prediction.

Actually it doesn't kill his theory in the slightest. The enormous difference (billions of years) in the "tick" rate of atomic clocks was only a factor when, in the beginning (a situation VERY unlike what we observe today), the vast majority of the universe's mass was concentrated in the center (with Earth near the center). As the universe was spread out (during God's act of creation) this concentration of mass decreased (since the mass was being spread out somewhat uniformly across the cosmos), bringing the various clocks "tick rates" to what we observe now.

[AtheistArchon]

Actually it doesn't kill his theory in the slightest. The enormous difference (billions of years) in the "tick" rate of atomic clocks was only a factor when, in the beginning (a situation VERY unlike what we observe today), the vast majority of the universe's mass was concentrated in the center (with Earth near the center). As the universe was spread out (during God's act of creation) this concentration of mass decreased (since the mass was being spread out somewhat uniformly across the cosmos), bringing the various clocks "tick rates" to what we observe now.

- What about relativity tells us that concentration of matter dictates temporal distortion?

- And correct me if I'm wrong, but this model proposes that the universe was in fact "created" in-progress and not from a big bang model, no? It simply expanded, via a miracle, from nothing, with the Earth and the moon and the stars all pre-made and close to each other?

[jason]

enormous difference (billions of years) in the "tick" rate of atomic clocks was only a factor when, in the beginning (a situation VERY unlike what we observe today), the vast majority of the universe's mass was concentrated in the center (with Earth near the center). As the universe was spread out (during God's act of creation) this concentration of mass decreased (since the mass was being spread out somewhat uniformly across the cosmos), bringing the various clocks "tick rates" to what we observe now.

Not so. As you look firther out into the universe you look further back in time. So we should be able to see the clocks speeding up as we go firther out.

Jason

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 08:52 AM post located here
jason:

But that has a serious observational difficulty.

There are many clocks out in the universe (supernova, cephid variables etc) that run at very regular rates.

Yet if time is moving faster on the otherside of the cosmos then we should see the clocks running much faster than we do. What we actually see is a 10% slow down.

I think this observational difficulty is going to kill Humphrey's model dead, if that is his observational prediction.

It would be best to read what Dr H actually says. His answer involves the timeless zone -- see How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model?

Below: Diagram of Dr Humphreys' cosmological model on the Fourth Day, illustrating the Timeless Zone.

And Jason, I have already pointed out that big-bangers have a light-travel-time difficulty of their own, called the horizon problem -- see Big bangers have their own light-travel problem--so don't point the finger at YECs.

[grmorton]

Socrates:

It would be best to read what Dr H actually says. His answer involves the timeless zone -- see How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model?

Below: Diagram of Dr Humphreys' cosmological model on the Fourth Day, illustrating the Timeless Zone.

And Jason, I have already pointed out that big-bangers have a light-travel-time difficulty of their own, called the horizon problem -- see Big bangers have their own light-travel problem--so don't point the finger at YECs.

First, off, inflation theory, which comes out of particle physics theory, and is in full agreement with particle physics, solves the horizon problem. That is precisely why Alan Guth's Inflation theory took off so big when he proposed it. Since that was about 20 years ago, you should read a bit more of the recent literature. I would suggest Alan Guth, The Inflationary Universe, (Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 1997)

Secondly, Humphreys solution is flawed because it changes the nature of the general relativisitc metric. For those who don't know, the metric is the 'distance' squared between two points. For Euclidian geometry, the metric is

D = x^2+y^2+z^2

There is nothing unusual or difficult about that. We will call this 3-sum a +++ euclidian metric.

Now, any change of coordinates in Euclidian space can not change the fundamental fact that there are pluses between the x^2, y^2 and z^2. You still get a pattern of +++. It doesn't matter if you start measuring in New York or New Zealand, the distance is the positive sum of the squares of the coordinate distances. This is an important point.

But in GR, the metric includes time and time is kind of strange.

D= -dt^2+x^2+y^2+z^2

Notice that the time part is negative with the space part positive. Without getting into it, this incorporates some really fundamental features of space-time.

But once again, a change in coordinates can't change the -+++ nature of the metric. And that is where Humphreys solution falls down. He turns that metric into a different pattern of ++++. One thing about General Relativity. It simply can't be modified and still survive. There is no tinkering which can be done. (see Martin Rees, Before the Beginning, (Reading, Mass: Helix Books, 1997), p. 111)

Thus, Humphreys solution isn't General Relativity at all and it doesn't apply to this universe.

And before someone says something about whether or not I know what I am talking about, I would point you to CENTJ.
http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_fackmcin1.pdf where two Christian relativists say the same thing, although with the math that most won't be able to follow.

[Phantym]

10-16-2003 @ 09:14 AM post located here
jason:

Ross has stated repeatedly that he wants to debate to happen in front of a group of astrophyscists only. Which is fair enough given the topic and the details of the idea.

Jason

Ross also calls the amazingly competent scientists at Los Alamos "... lay-people or non-specialists who are ill-equipped to grasp the fine details of Dr. Humphreys’s highly complex model and to spot what I believe are its glaring scientific problems..."

[Quoted from his own website by R.H.]