"Creation Science" on astrophysics?

[QUOTE][b]I know that you can decrease the speed of light, but I dont' know about its increase. I have also heard that they use a light speed mechenism to measure light, so it would be in measuring constant anyways.[/QUOTE][/b]Yes, as Joe pointed out, you cannot change the value of c, either slowing it or increasing it. You can slow light down by forcing it to pass through something (like glass, which is the basis of refraction)
but you cannot change the speed of light in a vacuum.

My point is that creationism doesn't propose any theories (scientific or otherwise) to explain even the most simple and observable evidence for a vast and ancient universe, the stars themselves. Is there a creationist theory to explain even the most basic cosmological events?

"So, astrophysics seems to be a stumbling block for creationism."
--In this forum, I guess so.------------------

Thanks for being honest. The reason I ask is that astrophyics is one of the most solid pieces of evidence for an old universe. If creationism is to maintain an YEC model, it needs to address this issue. Well, on to other threads. Peace.

Bumpage

"Thanks for being honest. The reason I ask is that astrophyics is one of the most solid pieces of evidence for an old universe."
--In my own personal view, which is nothing less of a straw-man, it seems it is, though the reason I don't see it as a stumbling block is that, I have no room to come to any conclusion on a subject that I have insufficient knowledge upon. Possibly when I run out of geology material, or its interest starts straying, cosmology will come to mind and astrophysics/cosmogony and all will be an interest. Not to mention my positive/negative interest/speculation in quantum mechanics."If creationism is to maintain an YEC model, it needs to address this issue."
--Certainly does.------------------

Tunnelling is one possible way of increasing the speed of light, but as far as I know it is not very reliable. It involves sending a photon through a barrier, like a mirror. Occasionally the photon will pass through and arrive at a target much faster than a photon which did not pass through a barrier.

photon1-------->(BARRIER)------->receptor (2 seconds)
photon2------------------------->receptor (4 seconds)

(I'm trying to remember this from an article I read in Scientific American a couple years ago, so if I got anything wrong, please let me know.)As far as I can tell, this would not have any application to the problem at hand (old light, young universe). Who can say that God did not just make the light in transit (inserting light in space as if it had been there for millions of years) so as to give humans something to look at rather than a blank night sky? (or is that too much deus ex machina for you non-YECs?) I'm no expert, just speculating wildly.

[QUOTE][b]Who can say that God did not just make the light in transit (inserting light in space as if it had been there for millions of years) so as to give humans something to look at rather than a blank night sky?[/QUOTE][/b]It's dishonest and deliberately misleading. Also, non-falsifiable. You see, when we start talking about God making the universe to deliberately mislead us we start getting into interesting conundrums like, "The universe was made 15 minutes ago and all memories before that were planted so it would look old!" That is the same logic as what you're using and it is just as probable.Plus if belief in YECism is necessary for salvation (as many YECs seem to believe) then God is deliberately setting us up for failure. God doesn't *want* us to go to Hell and deliberately misleading us in that way constitutes Him going out of his way to make salvation more difficult than it would be otherwise. So we have two possibilities, (1) My position - What you see is what you get (2) There is no real difference between a YEC Christian and OEE Christian in the probability of their salvation so the point is moot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
So, astrophysics seems to be a stumbling block for creationism. Are there any creationist who are able to adress the issue of light, space, and the eons it would take for much of the distant starlight to reach us?

---

Let me begin with just a single, simple question. How do you know that it would take eons for much of the distant starlight to reach us?

Honk, Honk!Without resorting to Barry Setterfield's and the YEC’s odious ‘last-stage’ deceleration of the speed of light (which is comparable to the ToE’s odious ‘last-stage’ of man’s failure to beneficially ‘mutate’ anymore)‘Shortly’ after the initial 'Bang'/universal expansion, E=MC(squared)...
Simple relativistic physics must be shouted:
'EONS' OF 'LIGHT YEARS/ATOMIC TIME' = 'SECONDS' OF 'SOLAR' TIME
(i.e., 1-4 creation days maximum for all the stars to appear -- you do the math).Thus, where did the ID’er ever violate relativistic physics, i.e., to "mislead" us with light-trails?
Why do both YECs and ToE’s continue with obsolete 'Newtonian physics’ and not realize that ‘(special-) relativity’ invalidates atomic time for ‘origin’ purposes?
(General relativity is also involved, but need not be cited yet, as we seem unable to swallow this 'strong meat')Note that radio-dating uses atomic time only and therefore has little to no bearing on time as we know it! Sorry to break the news that all radiometric clocks are thus invalid for ‘origin’ purposes! If ToE’s-R-US, I’m afraid we will need to redo the math, using geological and/or solar clocks, and not the stellar/atomic ones that have been erroneously used to measure light-years, Cambrian ages, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Let me begin with just a single, simple question. How do you know that it would take eons for much of the distant starlight to reach us?

---

http://www.er.doe.gov/feature_articles_2001/June/Decades/44.html

quote:

---

An unassuming speck of red light assumed gargantuan proportions in 2000, when scientists at the Sloan Digital Sky Survey used detection and computational techniques borrowed from particle physics to find the most distant object ever observed. This quasar had the highest redshift ever seen, corresponding to a distance of 27 billion light years from Earth. Redshift (meaning the light appears shifted to the red end of the spectrum) is used as a measure of the distance of celestial objects. Because the universe is expanding, the quasar was only about 4 billion light years from Earth when the light seen now was emitted-at a time when the universe was very young, less than 1 billion years old.

---

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 05-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Honk, Honk!

​

Simple relativistic physics must be shouted:
'EONS' OF 'LIGHT YEARS/ATOMIC TIME' = 'SECONDS' OF 'SOLAR' TIME
(i.e., 1-4 creation days maximum for all the stars to appear -- you do the math.

---

I can only assume you are honking because you are a clown....Even simpler physics must be shouted in big letters:If you divide a distance by a time you get a velocity not a time....

​

If you divide a time by a time you do not get a time you get a dimensionless number....

​

Light years are the distance something moving at c covers in one year...

​

Thus your seconds of solar time is a velocity....Here endeth the lesson...

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Here endeth the lesson...

---

Thanks Joz;
Correctomundo, I'm sorry; I phrased the equation wrong (I'm a clown):'EONS' OF 'LIGHT YEARS OF ‘ATOMIC TIME' = 'SECONDS' OF 'SOLAR' TIME(I did not mean this to be a division of atomic time; again sorry for the confusion)
'EONS' OF 'LIGHT YEARS/‘ATOMIC TIME' = 'SECONDS' OF 'SOLAR' TIMEAgain, the correction for all to discuss: The theory of special relativity (E=mc(squared)) infers:
'EONS' OF 'LIGHT YEARS OF ‘ATOMIC TIME' ARE EQUIVALENT TO 'SECONDS' OF 'SOLAR' TIME after the 'Bang'

E = m.c² Is only applicable to a body at rest...It is the special case of E² = m².c⁴ + p².c²....The equation you want is t = gamma.t` where gamma = 1/root(1 - v²/c²)....Anisotropy of CBR shows that we are moving at 370 Km.s^-1 relative to the universe...Without numbers all your equation means is that time = time....Plugging v = 370,000 m.s^-1 in gives a gamma of 1.006224301 (not very big)....(Of course thats just the Gamma for something at rest relative to the universe gamma for actual objects depends on their speed relative to us)....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 05-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
E = m.c² Is only applicable to a body at rest...
Anisotropy of CBR shows that we are moving at 370 Km.s^-1 relative to the universe...

​

(Of course thats just the Gamma for something at rest relative to the universe gamma for actual objects depends on their speed relative to us)....

​

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 05-12-2002]

---

--Thank you for your relativistic insight.--Now consider:--The first instant after the 'Bang', the initial speed of universal expansion (with negative acceleration forth-coming), would be great: perhaps the speed of light for the outer portions of the ‘primal’ universe (assuming an infinitely powerful ID that would account for nearly infinite mass effects in the universe’s outer circumference).--The gamma in this case would become incrementally great for those outer visible realms of the universe?--Now gamma would of course shrink rapidly once the natural laws of the universe commenced to rule (perhaps an instant or 2 later, I don’t know), i.e., the effects of gravity on mass. By the 4th solar day, all ‘stellar lengthening’ (from the earth’s perspective) may have shortened to become visible as stars are today.--Thus, the 2 clocks of time (atomic and solar) would be ‘set’ as significantly different at the ‘outset’ of the ‘Bang’ expansion.--Now if the initial outer universal expansion of the ‘Bang’ did not commence at (or very nearly at) the speed of light, the gamma effects would indeed be minute, and my relativistic hypothesis would be ‘forced’ and hoaxing.

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-12-2002]