How do creationists explain stars?

No, the Sun is 93 million miles away (averaged over the year, as our elliptic orbit continually changes the distance). I'd say light, not heat, as it is the light that carries the heat (in a real bastardisation of the terminology) but yes, 8 minutes. Ok, the Sun is 93 million light years away. The next closest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4.3 light years away. Speed of light is 186,000 miles per second (don't you just love these Imperial units!). So 4.3 x 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 186,000 = number of miles = 25 trillion miles. But this is 4.3 light YEARS away, not 8 light MINUTES !! A light year is a distance remember, so you mean "100,000,000 years to reach us". 100 million light years is a long long way outside our Galaxy. Our sister galaxy, Andromeda, is only 2.2 million light years away. The stars we see at night are typically from 10s to 1000s of light years away, all contained within our own Galaxy. The Galaxy is rougly 100,000 light years across, but we can't see too far through it becasue of dust, although we can use infrared, radio and x-rays to see further. No. Despite the popularisations of these experiments, they have NOTHING to do with "c" the true speed of light. The experiments are certainly interesting, and in the latter case extremely useful, but they have nothing to do with the speed of light. They deal with the speed of phases of light, which is a wholly different thing. Not in the slightest, for the reasons mentioned above.

No, absolutely not There is no communication in quantum entanglement. It is a phenomenon based purely upon the non-local nature of wavefunctions. It is a phenomenon based purely upon the non-local nature of wavefunctions. Only in the minds of those not familiar with quantum mechanics.

because...

Hi Kinetic, welcome to EvC Not practically. If you were daft enough to take the position of star by viewing along a line of sight that grazed the Sun, then you would get an error because of the warped space-time around the Sun.The observed position of galaxies is often distorted by intervening galaxies (look up gravitational lensing), but unless your parallax base-line is the diameter of our Galaxy or bigger, the error is going to be the same for both positon measurements, so shouldn't affect things too much. We used to joke that for in-Galaxy distances, within a factor of 2 was good, and for anything else, getting the right order of magnitude was an achievement! Even back then, it was never that bad. Now things are substantially better. I'm sure you could look up some figures, but I guess in-Galaxy distances will be 1-10% error depending on distance, direction and intervening material; local group around 10%, getting steadily worse the further we go out. Much depends on our "standard candles" and there has been some dispute over their reliability recently, so maybe incresaing error bounds to 30%? I'm guessing here. As our ability to use parallax grows (have a baseline from here to Neptune's orbit, say) our accuracy will incraese dramatically.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

quote:

---

...Dr. Ross referred me to a book by Cox and Giuli, a massive, two-volume work on astrophysics published in 1968, implying that the information therein would refute my objections. After reading the relevant portions of their book, I found that they did not support his statements at all and did support my objections...

---

you think that quotes from 1968 are relevant??? Do you not think that in THIRTY NINE years, astrophysical research may have moved on a little? That obseravtions may have improved, just a little? Ever heard of the HST? It's this little telescope we have in orbit that has improved observations relevant to this study by, ooh say, a THOUSAND-FOLD!!!!Do you really think that stellar astrophysicists have sat on their arses for the past 39 years??? What do you think they've been doing for nearly half a century? Drinking their way through their grants? (well, in my experience there's a fair bit of truth there )Edited by cavediver, : trimming excess sarcasm