Astronomy Creationism Physics

Distant Starlight, the thorn in the side of YEC — can there be a middle ground?

Spread the love

There are many devout Jews and Christians who believe the universe is old. Unlike Darwinism, the presumption of an old universe has real support from science. Philosophically, something as grand and as powerful as the entire universe would reasonably seem to be eternal. Standard thermodynamics and the Big Bang hypothesis changed all that, and the age of the universe is no longer viewed as eternal. Perhaps God did not want us to believe the Cosmos is all powerful and eternal, but rather transient and passing. Thermodynamics tells us the stars cannot burn forever, and thus thermodynamics has left us evidence that the known cosmos is not eternal…

As much as Young Earth Creationists (YECs) hate the Big Bang, the Big Bang was a step in the YEC direction in that the universe became a lot younger in the view of mainstream science (from eternal to finite age). But to this day, YEC cannot be believed with the same level of conviction as other creationist ideas. Old Earth Creationists (OECs) would gladly accept YEC if science supported it, but the problem is the evidence in hand does not make a convincing case. The ID community has a very large OEC component.

So how is distant starlight a thorn in the side of YEC? The farthest we can use parallax to estimate the distance to stars is on the order of 400 light years. Beyond parallax, we can estimate distances based on the apparent brightness of stars. Dimmer stars are presumed farther away, and using some math and distances estimated using this method, we estimate some stars are on the order of several million light years away. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

If the speed of light is constant over the age of the universe and constant at every location in the universe, then a straight forward calculation says the universe must be several million years old at least (if not billions).

Some will say, “the speed of light might have been faster in the past or have different speeds in various locations in the universe or both.” That’s all well and good, but where is the convincing evidence of this? There are only small threads of evidence for this. Here are some:

1. distant galaxies structurally look about the same age as galaxies close to us. If the speed of light were constant, we should see an evolutionary sequence of galaxies as we compare the farthest ones to the closest ones. The evolutionary sequence is missing. The distant galaxies look a little bluer, but structurally they look distressingly fully formed! This anomaly helps the YEC case but is not a slam dunk by any means.

2. The galaxies have preserved spirals that should have been erased by now because of rotation based on standard gravitational dynamics. Exotic solutions like dark matter and modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) and even Carmeli cosmology have tried to resolve this, but they all suffer from difficulties of direct testability. Many YECs accept dark matter, but if the dark matter isn’t properly distributed, it won’t solve the erasure problem of spiral galaxies. This anomaly also helps the YEC case but is not a slam dunk by any means.

So, based purely on empirical observations, the YECs have a faint hope of resolving the distant starlight problem. But to have credibility, they will have to re-write the equations that govern the behavior of light. These equations were assembled by a creationist physicist, James Clerk Maxwell. These equations are called Maxwell’s equations which provide a classical description of the relation of light to magnetism and electricity.

Of these equations, Feynman said:

From a long view of the history of mankind – seen from, say, ten thousand years from now – there can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell’s discovery of the laws of electrodynamics. The American Civil War will pale into provincial insignificance in comparison with this important scientific event of the same decade.

If God said, “let there be light” it also implies God must have said something like “let there be Maxwell’s equations”:

euclidean maxwell

or the updated version where Maxwell’s equations are incorporated into Quantum Electro Dynamics:

qed maxwell

or the updated version where Maxwell’s equations are incorporated into non-Euclidean spacetime under General Relativity:

maxwell 1
mawxwell 2
maxwell 3

maxwell 4

These equations define the ability to build generators, motors, radars, radios, microwave ovens, fiber optic cables, cell phones, televisions, GPS, computers, space probes, satellites,… One might ask, “what devices don’t owe some debt to the above equations?” But these equations, combined with the fact of distant stars, imply the universe is old. The irony then is that it is the work of a creationist that has been the source of major rejection of YEC not just by the mainstream, but by other creationists.

How can we revise these sets of equations in a way that can be reconciled with current observations while simultaneously accounting for the ability to see distant stars in only six-thousand years? Unlike Darwinism, or paleontological ages, the problem of distant starlight is several orders of magnitude more difficult to deal with. The above equations were provided to give the reader an idea of the magnitude of difficulties YECs face with the distant starlight problem. One should not take the problem lightly! Hence, I’ve said I don’t find the YEC case convincing even though privately I hope it is true…

With such problems in mind, is there a scientific (not theological) middle ground for the YECs. I’ve suggested, YECs can make a good case by accepting for the sake of argument the universe is old, but arguing vigorously the geological timescales for the Phanerzoic era (about the last 500 million years) are wrong, and that emergence of life is relatively recent. Mainstream science can support such a view without re-writing Maxwell’s equations (and other theories tied to it, like special relativity). In fact mainstream physics and chemistry would support the view that the fossil record is recent if institutional imperatives were not causing such prejudicial interpretations. But too many mortgages rely on the old fossil narrative.

But unlike Darwinist paleontology which is supported by an institutional imperative, the distant starlight problem is rooted in data and some of the most solid theories in physics which make the modern high-tech world possible. YECs only have some sporadic anomalies like those mentioned above to cling to. Hence, I suggest there can be middle ground of accepting irresolution on some topics (like distant starlight) while vigorously arguing other topics like ID, criticism of evolution from population genetics, criticism of OOL, criticism of evolution from irreducible complexity, and criticism of the mainstream paleontological dates. At this time, however, the distant starlight problem remains a thorn in the side of YEC.

NOTES

1. There is some controversy over supposed 12% error in parallax measurements. See Pleiades controversy.

2. YEC have proposed solutions to the distant starlight problem. There are about 5 cosmologies proposed.

A. Last Thursday solution. Light was created in transit to make the universe look old even though it is young. Advocated by Duane Gish and Josh McDowell. I find this solution the most revolting, even though I revere Gish, I think he was wrong on this one.

B. Decaying speed of light, suggested by Barry Setterfield. The problem is then we have to vary Planck’s constant to agree with the famous formula for energy of a photon

E = h ν

Varying planck’s constant? Planck’s constant governs thing like the atomic radius, so maybe we don’t want to go there! Changing the speed of light over time — affects atomic processes like radioactivity and stellar fusion. The Earth could be incinerated as a result of fast decay. Painful for me to say all this because Setterfield is a dear friend, but this is tough love criticism…

There are modern secular cosmologies that invoke decaying speed of light, but that won’t necessarily help YEC at this time.

C. White hole solution to General Relativity by Humphrey’s. No comment, yet.

D. Carmeli cosmology by Hartnett. No comment yet, save to say Hartnett is very sharp, is a professional physicist, and is highly respected in his field.

E. Revised Maxwell’s equations by Lucas. Lucas cites Hooper’s experiments which are refuted, and then he referred me to developments by Lutec as “proof” of his new electromagnetism.

But Lutec looks like a fraud! 😯
http://beforeitsnews.com/free-energy/2011/08/lutec-waning-in-free-energy-drive-961089.html

As you are aware there are still question marks over Lutec who are still advertising for investors with no discernible or proven results of their device despite 11 years having passed since they first announced their “success” with their magnetic motor.

A friend of a close colleague of mine who is an electronics expert, visits them from time to time but despite their claims, has so far has been unable to verify the capability of the device. They have attracted a few investors but after 12 years, there is no confirmation that it actually works.

They are still advertising for money and one of our friends was approached to put in $100,000 and he said he would, if they will allow him to test it but they won’t allow him to use independent witnesses with their own instruments.

😯

Lucas then criticized the photoelectric effect, and then I countered with, “what about the Balmer an Lyman series or any other observation that suggests quantized energy levels in atoms?”

After Lucas’ referral to Lutec, I promptly ceased seriously considering anything he’s had to say. Neither Lucas nor his followers appeared at ICC 2013. Creationist Danny Faulkner and John Hartnett went ballistic at ICC 2008 when Lucas work was presented. Anyway, for what it’s worth here is Lucas’ ideas:
http://www.commonsensescience.org/survey/popups/universal_force_law.html

for constant velocity frames

constant velocity

and for accelerating frames

accelerating frames

3. photo credits
http://scitechdaily.com/images/new-view-of-spiral-galaxy-IC-342.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/e/f/0ef7214b5093dbe29546f6ae93f97e51.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/e/f/0ef7214b5093dbe29546f6ae93f97e51.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/3/a/d3a412c7fdfe97360840f4d1a90ba478.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/8/7/08700e68e7624be4a3d99d01f8c7610c.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/5/b/05b356cc7d3b744a83d437d76b428d0a.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/e/5/0e5c19ac003480b6a55d4aa1e385165d.png

http://www.commonsensescience.org/survey/images/force_relativistic(verysmall).jpg
http://www.commonsensescience.org/survey/images/force_radiation(verysmall).jpg

130 Replies to “Distant Starlight, the thorn in the side of YEC — can there be a middle ground?

  1. 1
    Barb says:

    Good post. For anyone that’s interested, I believe the Perseid meteor shower is coming up. Hopefully, we have clear skies for that.

    I’ve heard that viewing starlight, either with the naked eye or with a telescope is like looking back in time. Take as an example the Andromeda galaxy. On a clear night, its light may be visible to the naked eye. The sky has to be very clear: I saw it in 2005, following Hurricanes Rita and Wilma, because when they hit South Florida, they knocked out all the electricity for a time. My friends and I had an impromptu astronomy night!

    Now, knowing how far away that island universe of stars is from the earth and that light travels at 186,282 miles a second, scientists have determined that the light you see coming from the Andromeda galaxy is 1.5 million years old!

    One group of scientists said: “It is interesting to note that by declaring the universe had a beginning, the Bible anticipated modern science by some thousands of years.” [Recent Theories of the Origin and Nature of the Universe, W. E. Filmer, p. 32. (Booklet issued on 919th Ordinary General Meeting of the Victoria Institute at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, England, December 7, 1953.)]

  2. 2
    cantor says:

    Somewhat off-topic, but might be of interest to some readers:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9811018

  3. 3
    Johnnymack says:

    I’m not a physicist, but I appreciate this article. It is well written. From a theological perspective, the tension between the YECs and the OECs is the idea that a Creator could create in six days, or six thousand years, or six billion years. The Creator is, as everyone agrees, All-powerful. The YECs have the Bible and religious tradition on their side while the OECs have a preponderance of science on theirs. The “middle ground”, though tempting, is not always satisfying. Perhaps over the next two centuries science will contribute as much, or if not, even more toward our grasp of the cosmos and make the idea of a middle ground seem unnecessary.

  4. 4
    scordova says:

    Somewhat off-topic, but might be of interest to some readers:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9811018

    Actually that is on topic. I indirectly referred to it above when I said:

    There are modern secular cosmologies that invoke decaying speed of light, but that won’t necessarily help YEC at this time.

    The reason I said it may not be of help now is that if we speed up light it will (without attendant changes in other physcis) affect:

    1. nuclear decay rates
    2. plank’s constant
    3. stellar fusion processes

    All of which could incinerate the Earth or dismantle atoms or whatever. The VSL cosmologies apply in Big Bang cosmologies especially prior to star systems forming.

    I’m sympathetic to YEC. I studied General Relativity, Cosmology, Space (Plasma) Physics and Astrophysics to get a better handle on all the issues of YEC physics, and came away thinking what an enormous difficulty the distant starlight problem is for YECs. I’m not a scientist, I’m a former engineer and presently a financeer.

    It’s not all bad for YECs. Sanford has shown humanity is likely young thus affirming the genealogy of Christ. The secular world appears to have uncovered evidence that fossils are young and the mainstream are kicking and screaming to deny the evidence that they themselves have found, and last but not least, the ID movement has delivered devastating critiques of evolutionary theory and OOL and highlighted the fine-tuning of the universe.

    The secular world has a persistent minority of scientist critical of the Big Bang.

    Despite all these favorable indications for the YEC model, the distant starlight problem and radioactive decay are major hurdles.

    At a personal level, I believe in a Creator. I had much doubt about the Creator 10 years ago, but I no longer have such doubts. Belief in a Creator is plenty good for me, a young universe is icing on the cake…

  5. 5
    Blue_Savannah says:

    I think there’s still so much to discover about the universe, that it would be premature to proclaim it’s age is absolutely known. As a YEC, I believe the universe is young, and there are things that help support that theory.

  6. 6
    Robert Byers says:

    No problem for YEC.
    If you were god what would you do?
    If the stars have a function then God would make them instantly useful and seeable.
    I don’t know if theres any problem as i jave no interest in cosmology however I’m reading einsteins stuff and he talks about light speed and how its understanding was changed by new ideas.
    More ideas needed.
    God could make it in place with no problem if he wanted.
    They have a purpose.
    God doesn’t need to wait.

  7. 7
    tjguy says:

    Sal, good post. At least you gave some evidence for the YEC side. It is true that we don’t have all the answers, but neither do the OECs.

    There are a LOT of problems with planet formation theory. And cosmology itself is not really in very good shape. What we claim to “know” is not necessarily the case as even the recent post on this site about the discovery of a pink planet shows. And oddly enough, many times we are faced with things that seem much younger than we think possible.

    Concerning the discovery of this pink planet, we read the following:

    The relative youth of the planet and its solar system are also of interest to NASA, according to Michael McElwain, a member of the discovery team.

    There is plenty of evidence that does not fit into the billions of years age for the universe. For just some recent examples, search for these titles on crev.info:

    Major Cosmic Questions Remain Unanswered (2 quotes from the article:)

    Another observation supports the surprising finding that the universe underwent extraordinary periods of star formation in its infancy. Big bang theory posits that the universe began in a highly smooth state, but Science Daily wrote, “Astronomers using a world-wide collection of telescopes have discovered the most prolific star factory in the Universe, surprisingly in a galaxy so distant that they see as it was when the Universe was only six percent of its current age.”

    Back in January, in Live Science, Joel Shurkin asked, “Where did the universe’s magnetism come from?” That question is rarely addressed. The big bang would have begun with no magnetism, he says: “In the beginning there was no magnetism.” Today, though, it is one of the most powerful forces in stars and galaxies. Any incipient fields after the big bang should have cancelled each other out. Shurkin entertained a theory by one German physicist, Reinhard Schlickeiser, who thinks it began very weak until iron evolved in stars, then current flows magnified it. “You have to have something to start from,” his partner said, but that begs the question of where the something came from.

    Other recent articles giving evidence for a young earth on crev.info:

    Mystery Moon (and Meteorites, and Stars)

    Extrasolar Planets: Bigger and MORE MORTAL

    Scientists Dodge Youthfulness of Saturn Moon Enceladus

    Fresh Impacts Viewed on Mars, Moon

    Moon Water and Magnetism Mystifies Astronomers

    Saturn’s Rings Impacted by Meteoroids

    Titan’s Methane Still Puzzles Scientists

    Titan and Mercury: Challenges to Billions of Years

    Many of these issues have to do with relatively nearby observable universe – our neighborhood in the universe and still we are stumped! For instance, no one knows how the moon was formed(or how the oceans were formed either for that matter.) There is no lack of ad hoc explanations for it, but nothing works.

    So, if we can’t even understand the solar system and stars that we can see, why would we ever think that our ideas about the distant barely observable universe would hold true?

    Anyway, we may not ever be able to solve the riddle or find conclusive evidence for either side, but we’ll keep trying.

    And, like it or not, creation was a supernatural event. It isto be expected that there will be some things that cannot be tested scientifically. Sure, it doesn’t hold up as scientific proof and we can never know if we are right or not, but there is no reason why God could not have use miracles when He created the universe. We take the creation of the cosmos as a supernatural event, the creation of man, the creation of life, the creation of the original animal pairs, birds, fish, plants as a miracle. Even the creation of the earth itself, the sun, moon, and stars. Did God use natural processes to create these things? I guess that is the question. It is probably hard to say one way or another conclusively.

  8. 8
    Querius says:

    Most cosmologists currently believe in the “big bang” theory of the origin of the universe, which includes space, time, mass-energy, and anything else that exists in our universe. A better term for it would be the “big stretch,” because the “fabric of space-time inflated from a tiny point to what we have now.

    One interesting question then is how fast did space-time inflate. The answer is surprising. It is now believed that near the beginning, the inflation was extremely fast, much faster than the speed of light! It’s slowed considerably since then.

    Let’s imagine the results of rapid inflation . . .

    The light from a star that’s 100 million light years away may have taken only a few thousand years to reach us! How can this be?

    Imagine some additional inflation–let’s say that the space between the Sun and the Earth inflates so rapidly that it increases to one light year in a second. The light in transit, which normally takes only 8 minutes and 20 seconds to make the trip from the Sun to the Earth is now stretched to one light year, and appears instead to have taken a year to reach the Earth, and the frequency of the light has shifted to the red end of the light spectrum.

    Time also is not a constant. It varies according to velocity and gravity. Dr. Gerald Schroeder (PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences) estimates that the universe is both about 14-15 billion years old, AND that it took about a week (!) from the beginning of time to when the Earth was first inhabited, depending on your frame of reference.

  9. 9
    butifnot says:

    “regular” cosmology has as big a problem as “YEC” – Therefore ad-hoc ad-nauseum fudge factors such as inflation, hyper inflation ha ha.

  10. 10
    butifnot says:

    There is nothing as entrenched as Darwinism except asronomy/cosmology. Every other new observation is “surprising” (as in NOT predicted and in fact contradictory to theory)and then patched over into a theory that is a train of ad hoc post hocness

  11. 11
    Alan Fox says:

    Every other new observation is “surprising” (as in NOT predicted and in fact contradictory to theory)and then patched over into a theory that is a train of ad hoc post hocness

    Yes, those pesky facts, observations, measurements that get in the way of a good idea. What can you do?

  12. 12
    butifnot says:

    From OP

    but if the dark matter isn’t properly distributed, it won’t solve the erasure problem of spiral galaxies.

    Exactly. How is this taken seriously? ‘Dark matter’ where it’s needed, in the amount needed?? Dark matter because “these galaxies are not behaving the way WE say they should”

    This is one of many points at which to look objectively into a theory that has taken a long leave of reality!

  13. 13
    vh says:

    Querius makes a great point and it’s one I’m surprised isn’t brought up more often as a real possibility. Everyone on both sides seems to agree that the heavens were stretched. The question is how fast was the stretching in the past. And going back to what Robert said, if you were an all-powerful God and you wanted to both proclaim your Glory in the heavens, and make it visible from earth, wouldn’t you devise a system of physics to make it happen? Just because humans don’t know or understand the physics does not mean that they don’t (didn’t) exist. There are lots of things about existence that humans don’t know. I believe that God created this mind-blowing universe so that mystery and awe are always to be found, no matter which direction one looks. This is so humans will maintain their sense of wonder and amazement, which will ultimately help lead them to glorify and thank the only One who could have created it.

  14. 14
    scordova says:

    I’ve been part of the International Creation Conference (ICC) 2008 and 2013 where I’ve gotten to meet and interact with the world’s top YEC scientists. What I’ve conveyed in this thread are some of the problems which YECs themselves acknowledge.

    Generally every YEC feels YECs can defend the following ideas well

    1. Intelligent Design of life
    2. Origin of Life via intelligence
    3. special creation of humanity in the recent past that accords with the genealogy of Christ
    4. special creation of the planets in the solar system(that’s deep enough topic it deserves a separate thread)
    5. fine tuning
    6. special creation of the created kinds
    7. one or more global cataclysms including a great flood
    8. the tower of babel scenario for the origin of language
    9. C-14, racemization, depurination dating demonstrating the recency of the fossil record (dino tissue, insects in amber, bacteria in amber, the entire carboniferous layer!).

    So the YEC case looks at least defensible there. The YEC scientists freely acknowledge the remaining outstanding problems:

    1. Distant Starlight. I’ve talked to almost every YEC scientist working on the problem including John Hartnett who invited me to be his PhD student in Australia. The problem is not yet convincingly solved — there are at least 5 YEC cosmologies on the table and which means at least 4 have to be wrong! At ICC 2013 a sixth YEC cosmology was offered, and one I’m sympathetic to, but it needs a lot of work ( developed by Steve Miller and Mark Amunrud who are not physicists, but I think they have the right idea). More on that in a later comment.

    2. Long term radioactive isotopes and missing intermediate isotopes. C14 is friendly to YEC, but it is the other isotopes that are a thorn in YEC theories. I raised the question of the incineration of the Earth if radioactive decay is fast, and I could sense it caused discomfort and it is acknowledge as an unresolved problem (unless Humphrey’s white hole cosmology solves it, and the white hole cosmology has been criticized by Hartnett).

    3. Cratering of the Moon and Earth and planets. There was a mild argument over the question whether God created the moon and planets smooth or created it with craters at ICC 2013.

    4. we can acknowledge recency of many things, including the fossil record, but there is disagreement as to whether the entire geological column formed during the great flood or whether it actually represents a sequence of events in compressed time over history. We can’t deny the fossils group together as the evolutionists say they do (i.e. we don’t find pre-Cambrian rabbits). YECs don’t agree on this. Solving the long term radio active decay problem might help.

    What was encouraging about ICC 2013 is that about 1/3 of the YEC I met were like me, they grew up accepting the mainstream view but upon examination of the evidence they changed their mind. I’m self-identify as a YEC, but I’m a Doubting Thomas YEC…

  15. 15
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    Yes, those pesky facts, observations, measurements that get in the way of a good idea. What can you do?

    Well evos just ignore them and prattle on. 😛

  16. 16
    Joe says:

    Sal, what do you think of Humphrey’s “Starlight and Time”?

  17. 17

    An interesting, informative and fair article. I’ll keep it book marked. Also, I think you are right to put Old Earth/Old Universe theory into a different category to “Darwinism”.

  18. 18
    vh says:

    scordova, I appreciate your overview of the issue. But what am I missing about the possibility that starlight’s travel time could indeed be decreased dramatically by the stretching of the heavens? Another interesting tidbit is that the ancients somehow seemed to know a whole lot about the heavens above them, despite not having high-powered telescopes…many have wondered if the heavens were more accessible to them (aka closer)…..Ancient peoples also used to talk about how the sun was closer in the “old days” then it was at the present, and how the seasons flew by, like in weeks rather than months. Venus was also considered to be a comet and was described as the brightest light in the night sky. And I realize that it’s speculation to consider these as reliable sources but it is indeed true that the further back on investigates, the stranger and weirder everything seems to get. Ancient peoples in the New World used to claim to be able to talk to communicate with animals…..anyway…….I would like your opinion on the space-stretching concept in regards to starlight.

  19. 19
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    Thanks for the post

    I curious about this statement:

    I’ve said I don’t find the YEC case convincing even though privately I hope it is true…

    Why do you hope it’s true?

  20. 20
    lifepsy says:

    To maybe help put things in perspective, here’s an interesting statement signed by hundreds of astronomers, scientists, and engineers, concerning Big-Bang cosmology.

    An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

    (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

    The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed— inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors.

    ….Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

    ….Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

    http://cosmologystatement.org/

    Bob Enyart (the YEC who called Jack Horner), interviewed atheist-priest Lawrence Krauss, and brought the above cosmology statement up in discussion, to which Krauss basically flew off the handle and started calling them all nutjobs, or something to that effect. The whole interview is very entertaining.

    http://kgov.com/lawrence-kraus.....reationist

  21. 21
    scordova says:

    Why do you hope it’s true?

    1. because that would be really cool 😎

    2. it will finally settle the proper way to interpret the Genesis account

    3. it will make the Bible even more believable to me personally…I’m a Doubting Thomas on many levels. Doubting means wanting and hoping that something is true, but yet having a part that isn’t fully trusting. My participation in UD and the creation industry is my search for and against what I profess to believe to be true. I’m skeptical by nature, and the skepticism begins with my own fallibility…I sort of identify with accounts of people in the Bible who wrestled with doubt (Gideon, John the Baptist, Thomas, the man with a son who was dying and ask the Lord to help his faith…)

    By and large over the last 11 years:

    1. believed more in ID and ID claims

    2. believed in special creation of planets in the solar system

    3. disbelieved in decaying speed of light as the best explanation for distant starlight

    4. believe more in the recent special creation of humans according to the genealogy of Christ in Luke Chapter 3, particularly because of the work of ReMine, Sanford, Carter, Brewer, Gibson, and others.

    5. rejected Duane Gish’s use of the 2nd law as an argument in favor of ID or creation, my dissent from the traditional line got me in some hot water, but those are my views to this day…

    6. recommended simpler approaches to CSI

    7. convinced the problem of distant starlight and radio-isotopes is more difficult than I previously thought

  22. 22
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    Sal,

    Interesting. Thanks for answering.

  23. 23
    scordova says:

    Sal, what do you think of Humphrey’s “Starlight and Time”?

    Humphrey’s is a super guy and contributed a lot to creationisms. We spoke to each other at ICC 2013…

    He is often right, but this time around, I have my doubts.

    1. John Hartnett has some disagreements
    2. Humphrey’s model of white hole time dilation is at variance with a point I mentioned above, namely:

    Distant galaxies structurally look about the same age as galaxies close to us. If the speed of light were constant, we should see an evolutionary sequence of galaxies as we compare the farthest ones to the closest ones. The evolutionary sequence is missing. The distant galaxies look a little bluer, but structurally they look distressingly fully formed

    This seems at variance with Humprhey’s model which basically says the distant stars are billions of years old because the clocks out there run faster.

    Also, it if there is no dark matter in the proper configuration, that would be a challenge to Humprhey’s model.

    The alternatives? I will suggest one in subsequent comments and it may address vh’s question too.

  24. 24
    scordova says:

    I would like your opinion on the space-stretching concept in regards to starlight.

    If the redshifts in the stars are due to expansion of space, then even in secular terms the space is being stretched — that’s the heart of the Big Bang theory acutally! The Big Bang however is on a different timescale than YEC, but the Big Bang assumes space is being “stretched”.

    The reason billions of years are still invoked for the Big Bang despite the assumption of stretching is the degree of red shifting involved is not consistent with young ages.

    Jesus prophesied near the end of the world, we would see disturbances in the heavens including the stars. That means there has to be some close-to-real time mechanism for distant starlight to travel. The problem is that even if such a mechanism exists, that mechanism is inaccessible to us and our best space probes, and there is almost no reason to think it exists except for theology and some of the considerations laid out in the OP.

    The Pioneer space probe launched almost 30 years ago is now 11 light hours (12 billion kilometers) from us. We are not seeing substantial evidence the speed of light is faster out there. There are controversial hints that it is faster the farther one is from earth, but it is way too early to tell.

    From wiki: Pioneer Anomaly

    The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation from predicted accelerations of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft after they passed about 20 astronomical units (3×109 km; 2×109 mi) on their trajectories out of the Solar System. The apparent anomaly was a matter of tremendous interest for many years.

    Both Pioneer spacecraft are escaping the Solar System, but are slowing under the influence of the Sun’s gravity. Upon very close examination of navigational data, the spacecraft were found to be slowing slightly more than expected. The effect is an extremely small acceleration towards the Sun, of 8.74±1.33×10?10 m/s2, which is equivalent to slowly accelerating to a velocity of one kilometer per hour (0.6 mph) over a period of ten years. The two spacecraft were launched in 1972 and 1973 and the anomalous acceleration was first noticed as early as 1980, but not seriously investigated until 1994.[1] The last communication with either spacecraft was in 2003, but analysis of recorded data continues.

    Various theories, both of spacecraft behavior and of gravitation itself, were proposed to explain the anomaly. Over the period 1998–2012, one particular explanation became accepted. The spacecraft, which are surrounded by an ultra-high vacuum and are each powered by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), can shed heat only via thermal radiation. If, due to the design of the spacecraft, more heat is emitted in a particular direction—what is known as a radiative anisotropy—then the spacecraft would exhibit a small acceleration in the direction opposite that of the excess emitted radiation due to radiation pressure. Since this force is due to the recoil of thermal photons, it is also called the thermal recoil force. If the excess radiation and attendant radiation pressure were pointed in a general direction opposite the Sun, the spacecrafts’ velocity away from the Sun would be decelerating at very slightly greater rate than could be explained by previously recognized forces such as gravity and trace friction due to the interplanetary medium (imperfect vacuum).

    By 2012 several papers by different groups, all reanalyzing the thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft, showed that a careful accounting of this could account for the entire anomaly, and thus the cause was mundane and did not point to any new phenomena or need for a different physical paradigm.[2][3] The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states “We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains.”[4]

    on the other hand from Russell Humphrey’s

    1.Back-of-envelope calculations I’ve done on the heat radiated make it seem unlikely. I’ve acquired a detailed report on the Pioneer physical structure, and I hope I can find enough details related to heat emission from various parts to do a better calculation.

    To have ‘heat’ accidentally give a number with such cosmic significance seems highly unlikely to me.

    2.A graph of radar data in their paper shows the anomalous deceleration leveling out, not steadily declining (as they interpreted the graph). The value it levels out at is almost exactly the presently-observed/accepted value of the Hubble constant H times the speed of light c, even closer than in the earlier reports of the deceleration. To have “heat” accidentally give a number with such cosmic significance seems highly unlikely to me.
    3.Pioneers 10 and 11 were not the only spacecraft to show the anomaly. Galileo and Ulysses also showed about the same deceleration, but less clearly because they didn’t get as far from the Sun. Their structures were quite different from each other and from the Pioneers. How likely is it that they would accidentally radiate the right amounts of forward heat necessary to give decelerations also on the close order of Hc?

    http://creation.com/pioneer-anomaly-heat

    We’ll see, it’s too early to say much about anything right now, imho.

    To settle the issue, we need a speedy space probe to get way out there and really really far. We also need to improve our parallax measurements which may happen with the Gaia space probe. We actually are not quite sure how far some stars really are and whether the inverse square law of brightness holds at long distances. Too many unanswered questions….

    I don’t expect we’ll have any solutions by the end of this thread!

    I will say this, if there is an anomaly whereby light travels fast the farther we are from Earth or the center of the galaxy, we might have access to some exciting adventures in space since we can travel faster than we ever dreamed. In that case, YEC would totally be cool! 😎

  25. 25
    ericB says:

    Some relevant resources:

    Regarding Humphreys’ Startlight and Time, I’d like to know whether there has ever been a satisfactory response to the devastating critical review, The Unraveling of Starlight and Time, by Samuel R. Conner and Dr. Hugh Ross. For example, it seems even Humphreys himself later abandoned key features of that earlier work in his subsequent attempts.

    Regarding a “middle way”, YECs who are convinced that life on Earth is recent should give sincere consideration to Gorman Gray’s case for Young Biosphere Creationism. Gray points out that even if we take Genesis as describing six literal days of transformation in the recent past, the Bible does not specify the age of the heavens and the earth. Thus, there is no issue even if they are indeed old. The claim the heavens and earth must be young is an error of interpretation. Gray has written The Age of the Universe: What are the Biblical Limits?, and has made the preface and first chapter available to read online at his web site. ageoftheuniverse.com

    For any who are at all concerned about the interpretation of Genesis, I would suggest a minimal exploration should include serious consideration of the book, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science, by John C. Lennox

    NOTE: I am not implying agreement with everything in the positions of any of these sources. I pass them along as potentially helpful resources to consider and evaluate.

  26. 26
    butifnot says:

    Sal I am gathering that for yourself and many here, getting ‘flushed out of the matrix’ of evolution has led to a healthier skepticism and openness and an appreciation that ‘science’ and scientist can have a hopelessly wrong interpretation of the evidence , which is of course the history of science. Mainstream cosmology of today will go that way. To be replaced with the ‘electric universe’. A reexamination of the solar bodies and surface features is what finally got me. The implications for age and decay rates are very interesting.

  27. 27
    DaRook says:

    Hey Sal,

    One of the problems with light traveling faster in the past is that c is coupled to too many things that would be disastrous for life. But according to Scripture, the sin event somehow changed the creation. We assume that all the physics was the same before sin as it was after, but how do we know? What if nature and all of it’s laws were different. The sin event was a singularity. We know how nature acts now, but not necessarily before sin took hold. What if, before sin, c was totally independent and not coupled to anything? C could have been nearly infinite and Adam could have seen the heavens in real time. Its all speculation, but no more than dealing with any other singularity. The slowing down of light at the sin event is still a problem. Cheeseman wrote an article on your old blog showing it wasn’t workable. The Distant Starlight Problem might, in the end, have to be chalked up to another creation miracle.

  28. 28
    scordova says:

    The Distant Starlight Problem might, in the end, have to be chalked up to another creation miracle.

    One reason I’m reluctant to invoke a miracle in this case is that we would be saying the universe is young but then it was miraculously made to look old. Why would God do such a thing? That is in effect the Last Thursday cosmology…

    Romans 1:20 suggests nature is constructed in a way to point humanity to the God of the Bible. What better way than to point the laws of physics to support a literal interpretation of Genesis. For that reason, I hold out hope for a solution whereby distant starlight reaches us in a way that can be understood by science. Science is also a gift from God. If God chooses to reveal knowledge through physics, it is still from God.

    and even beyond that, we have legitimate reason on scientific grounds to suspect something is up:

    1. distant galaxies structurally look about the same age as galaxies close to us. If the speed of light were constant, we should see an evolutionary sequence of galaxies as we compare the farthest ones to the closest ones. The evolutionary sequence is missing. The distant galaxies look a little bluer, but structurally they look distressingly fully formed!

    By the way, it was really good hearing from Dr. Cheesman.

    We need data to solve the problem. One such device to answer the question would be something like this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starwisp

    “Starwisp” is a concept for an ultra-low-mass interstellar probe pushed by a microwave beam. It was proposed by scientist and author Robert L. Forward in 1985,[1] and further work was published by Landis in 2000.[2] The proposed device uses beam-powered propulsion in the form of a high-power microwave antenna pushing a sail. The probe itself would consist of a mesh of extremely fine carbon wires about 100 m across, with the wires spaced the same distance apart as the 3-mm wavelength of the microwaves that will be used to push it.
    ….
    the probe is designed to have an extremely high acceleration of 24 m/s², so that it can reach a significant fraction of the speed of light within a very short distance, before passing out of range. The antenna uses a microwave lens 560 km in diameter, would transmit 56 GW of power, and would accelerate the probe to 10% of the speed of light.

    This is the sort of probe we need to find out what is going on….

    Although a 560 km diameter microwave transmitter would be a bit pricey.

  29. 29
    butifnot says:

    This is the sort of probe we need to find out what is going on….

    We need to move cosmology into the modern age. Right now it’s built on an archaic system of gravity only, particles bumping together and heating up – born from a history of being ‘in the dark’, literally, to the entire universe save the small visible spectrum.

  30. 30
    butifnot says:

    What if there is an aether, how might that affect things?

  31. 31
    scordova says:

    Here is the best discussion of secular (not YEC) hypothesis of the speed of light being much faster in the past by John Barrow:

    http://www.geosoc.org/schools/.....speed.html

    Last year, with a view to providing some alternative to inflation, Andreas Albrecht of the University of California at Davis, and João Magueijo of Imperial College, London, investigated an idea first suggested by John Moffat, a physicist at the University of Toronto. Moffat had proposed that the speed of light might not be such a sacrosanct quantity after all. What are the cosmological consequences if the speed of light changed in the early life of the Universe? This could happen either suddenly, as Albrecht, Magueijo and Moffat first proposed, or steadily at a rate proportional to the Universe’s expansion rate, as I suggested in a subsequent paper.

    The idea is simple to state but not so easy to formulate in a rigorous theory, because the constancy of the speed of light is woven into the warp and weft of physics in so many ways. However, when this is done in the simplest possible way, so that the standard theory of cosmology with constant light speed is recovered if the variation in light speed is turned off, some remarkable consequences follow.

    If light initially moved much faster than it does today and then decelerated sufficiently rapidly early in the history of the Universe, then all three cosmological problems–the horizon, flatness and lambda problems–can be solved at once. Moreover, Magueijo and I then found that there are also a range of light-slowing rates which allow the quasi-flatness and quasi-lambda problems to be solved too.

    Barrow won the Templeton prize in religion, is a quasi-ID proponent (having authored a book with ID proponent Frank Tipler), and is a very respected physicist.

    Barrow famously said to Richard Dawkins, “You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you’re not really a scientist.”

  32. 32
    scordova says:

    Some relevant resources:

    Regarding Humphreys’ Startlight and Time, I’d like to know whether there has ever been a satisfactory response to the devastating critical review, The Unraveling of Starlight and Time, by Samuel R. Conner and Dr. Hugh Ross. For example, it seems even Humphreys himself later abandoned key features of that earlier work in his subsequent attempts.

    Regarding a “middle way”, YECs who are convinced that life on Earth is recent should give sincere consideration to Gorman Gray’s case for Young Biosphere Creationism. Gray points out that even if we take Genesis as describing six literal days of transformation in the recent past, the Bible does not specify the age of the heavens and the earth.

    Thanks ericB!

  33. 33
    JGuy says:

    How can we revise these sets of equations in a way that can be reconciled with current observations while simultaneously accounting for the ability to see distant stars in only six-thousand years?

    This is years as measured on Earth, and not by the same kinds of clocks if located at the farthest reaches of the universe.

  34. 34
    JGuy says:

    first part of my last was suppose to be quoted from the OP

  35. 35
    ericB says:

    Sal, since you have thought quite a bit about these matters, if you ever have thoughts about the critical review, The Unraveling of Starlight and Time, by Samuel R. Conner and Dr. Hugh Ross, I hope you will share them. Thanks in advance.

  36. 36
    Joe says:

    Sal:

    Distant galaxies structurally look about the same age as galaxies close to us. If the speed of light were constant, we should see an evolutionary sequence of galaxies as we compare the farthest ones to the closest ones. The evolutionary sequence is missing. The distant galaxies look a little bluer, but structurally they look distressingly fully formed

    1- Wouldn’t that also be an issue for the big bang?

    2- It could be that those galaxies are relatively new because they are descended from the originals, which are now gone, ie as part of the universe building process. Original galaxies of super stars seeded the universe with their massive supernovae.

  37. 37
    scordova says:

    Joe:

    1- Wouldn’t that also be an issue for the big bang?

    Dang right!

    2- It could be that those galaxies are relatively new because they are descended from the originals, which are now gone, ie as part of the universe building process. Original galaxies of super stars seeded the universe with their massive supernovae.

    If the speed of light is constant in space and time, then the farther out we look, the farther back in history we see. For example when we look at mars, we’re actually seeing it the way it look 3 hours ago, pluto 5 hours ago, the pioneer probes 11 hours ago, alpha centauri 4 years ago, Andromeda a few million years ago, distant galaxies several billion years ago. So even if the galaxies disappeared by now, we are seeing what the looked like before they disappeared.

    Problematic then, is why all the galaxies (except for their blueness) look structurally about the same.

    See:
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_.....030711.php

    “We have measured the distance to the most distant mature cluster of galaxies ever found”, says the lead author of the study in which the observations from ESO’s VLT have been used, Raphael Gobat (CEA, Paris). “The surprising thing is that when we look closely at this galaxy cluster it doesn’t look young — many of the galaxies have settled down and don’t resemble the usual star-forming galaxies seen in the early Universe.”

    Clusters of galaxies are the largest structures in the Universe that are held together by gravity. Astronomers expect these clusters to grow through time and hence that massive clusters would be rare in the early Universe. Although even more distant clusters have been seen, they appear to be young clusters in the process of formation and are not settled mature systems.

    The international team of astronomers used the powerful VIMOS and FORS2 instruments on ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) to measure the distances to some of the blobs in a curious patch of very faint red objects first observed with the Spitzer space telescope. This grouping, named CL J1449+0856 [1], had all the hallmarks of being a very remote cluster of galaxies [2]. The results showed that we are indeed seeing a galaxy cluster as it was when the Universe was about three billion years old — less than one quarter of its current age [3].

    Once the team knew the distance to this very rare object they looked carefully at the component galaxies using both the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based telescopes, including the VLT. They found evidence suggesting that most of the galaxies in the cluster were not forming stars, but were composed of stars that were already about one billion years old. This makes the cluster a mature object, similar in mass to the Virgo Cluster, the nearest rich galaxy cluster to the Milky Way.

    Further evidence that this is a mature cluster comes from observations of X-rays coming from CL J1449+0856 made with ESA’s XMM-Newton space observatory. The cluster is giving off X-rays that must be coming from a very hot cloud of tenuous gas filling the space between the galaxies and concentrated towards the centre of the cluster. This is another sign of a mature galaxy cluster, held firmly together by its own gravity, as very young clusters have not had time to trap hot gas in this way.

    As Gobat concludes: “These new results support the idea that mature clusters existed when the Universe was less than one quarter of its current age. Such clusters are expected to be very rare according to current theory, and we have been very lucky to spot one. But if further observations find many more then this may mean that our understanding of the early Universe needs to be revised.”

    Er, “revise the understanding of the early universe”, or maybe revise the understanding of the speed of distant light!

  38. 38
    Joe says:

    Sal, What if the light from those original galaxies/ stars came and went before we arrived? Meaning all we see is the light from the second or third generations of stars/ galaxies.

  39. 39
    scordova says:

    Sal, since you have thought quite a bit about these matters, if you ever have thoughts about the critical review, The Unraveling of Starlight and Time, by Samuel R. Conner and Dr. Hugh Ross, I hope you will share them. Thanks in advance.

    Despite all the math thrown around, the arguments are very much like the shouting matches on the evolution debates where there is lots of miscommunication about what someone is saying.

    A more technical argument between Connor and Humprhey’s is here:

    http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_connpage3.pdf

    First off, both sides jumped into the red herring issue of universal center. To understand what’s being argued, consider if you are a pilot flying around the 2D surface of the Earth. Is there a center of the 2D surface? What is the lat/long of the center of the surface of the Earth? Is the center the North pole, the south pole, the equator? It’s sort of a meaningless statement. There is no lat/long that defines the center of the surface of the Earth. The notion of center is meaningful if we go to a Euclidean 3D space instead of a non-Euclidean 2D surface of a sphere (actually ellipsoid in the case of the Earth)…

    Both sides argue at length about the lack of center of the universe, and each side agrees, but tries to make the other look bad and claim the other side doesn’t understand!

    There is a very speculative part of Humprhey’s model that involves “the sign change”. Here is a situation where both sides of the debate could be wrong. Not every solution to the Einstain Field equations is physically valid even though it might make mathematical sense. To illustrate, take Newton’s 2nd law:

    F = ma

    where

    F = force
    m = mass
    a = acceleration

    I could invoke negative mass (like -5 kg) and come up with solutions, but does negative mass exist? 😯

    Likewise both sides assume an expanding universe (the reference to Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric solutions to the Einstein field equations). I criticized these solutions here:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....of-disney/

    So all of them could be wrong! They are more knowledgeable than me, but all that fancy math may not line up with observation (such as those observations I posted above). The expanding solution to Einstein’s field equations and the arguments may be moot.

    FWIW, there are other YECs that don’t endorse Humphrey’s model.

    1. Danny Faulkner (distinguished professor emeritus University South Caroline), former chair

    2. Jason Lisle (ICR head of research), physicst

    3. John Hartnett. Curiously Jonathan Sarfati supported Humphreys, and then when I was arguing with Sarfati here at UD, he supported Hartnett, then DaveScot banned Sarfati from UD after Sarfati likened DaveScot to an idiot…. 😯 Then DaveScot banned me, and then Barry Arrington banned DaveScot a few years later, and then Clive Hayden unbanned me, etc. 🙂

    4. Steve Miller, Mark Amunrud, Bill Lucas, Barry Setterfield, Walter Brown, others

    So not every YEC endorses Humphreys cosmology, but I can say, pretty much every YEC reveres Humphreys for his other contributions.

    I will say Hugh Ross raised a point about the Cepheid variables or any other clocked phenomenon. If Humphrey’s is right, we ought to be seeing “clocks” run faster the farther we look out, i.e. Cepheid variables, the rotation of spiral arms of galaxies.

    I read somewhere we can get Doppler returns on some arms of galaxies to estimate rotation speeds. If we can do this, Humphrey’s model could be falsified if we don’t see increase in spiral arm rotation speeds the farther we look out. This would also falsify Hartnett’s model.

    The opposite is true for Setterfield. It the spiral arms look slower the farther we look out then Setterfield’s model is affirmed. If there is no change, then Humphrey’s, Hartnett, and Setterfield models are falsified.

    And the anomalies I mentioned above suggest the Big Bang and standard cosmology may have also been falsified. We may be in position that everyone is wrong and no one is right!

    PS
    I tried to defend Setterfield by looking at spectroscopic binaries in globular clusters of the milky way. It look promising, but Danny Faulner pounced all over it when I talked to him at ICC 2008. It didn’t have the expertise to pursue it further. Suffice to say, lots of anomalies abound in the globular clusters.

  40. 40
    scordova says:

    Sal, What if the light from those original galaxies/ stars came and went before we arrived? Meaning all we see is the light from the second or third generations of stars/ galaxies.

    The light from them is always coming and going just like the light from the sun is coming and going. We see photons that were made in the sun 8 minutes ago, and those photons are now gone (by us absorbing them) and others go off to space never to be seen by us again.

    In the same way, the light from distant stars is also coming and going, but because we see a steady stream of photons, the photons that pass by us or are seen by us are replaced by the next set of photons in line, hence it seems the stars have constant light and never disappear from the sky just like our sun never disappears from the sky.

  41. 41
    Joe says:

    Sal, once a star explodes it doesn’t send out light after that. So once the original stars exploded to seed the universe their light would have stopped being sent out.

  42. 42
    scordova says:

    Sal, once a star explodes it doesn’t send out light after that. So once the original stars exploded to seed the universe their light would have stopped being sent out.

    True, and I misunderstood your comment. Apologies.

    I was talking about entire galaxies or clusters of galaxies, not individual stars. I’m not aware of entire galaxies exploding or disappearing. We do see stars disappear in real time, not entire galaxies, thus no reason to expect them to do so in the past, but…you never know!

    I don’t think anyone strongly argues entire galaxies disappear and then new ones are rebuilt from the remnants…

  43. 43
    Joe says:

    My bad- the super stars exploded seeding the universe with the materials to build galaxies. So the galaxies would be relatively new.

  44. 44
    franklin says:

    sal:We see photons that were made in the sun 8 minutes ago

    actually that isn’t true, sal. We ‘see’ photons that have left the sun ~8 min ago but their creation was likely more along the lines of 100,000 years( or more) ago at the suns core when H fused to make He to produce the photon.

  45. 45
    scordova says:

    We see photons that were made in the sun 8 minutes ago

    We see photons that were made in the sun and got emitted from the surface 8 minutes ago

  46. 46
    franklin says:

    sal:We see photons that were made in the sun and got emitted from the surface 8 minutes ago

    Which is almost what I stated with one glaring omission…the age of the photon.

    Do you agree that the sun creates photons from the fusion reaction of H to He

    do we agree that there is a lot of stuff in the way of that photon in it’s journey from the core to the surface?

    Do we agree that the time involved for the photon to make this transit is on the order of 100, 000 years or greater?

  47. 47
    scordova says:

    Do we agree that the time involved for the photon to make this transit is on the order of 100, 000 years or greater?

    Yes, thanks for pointing out another problem with YEC.

    This is one case I would invoke photons created in transit as they are essential to the hydrodynamic properties of stars, so there is no reason to assume 100,000 years for transit in a YEC model, but there would natural reason to assume it in an non-YEC model.

    However, Photons in transit from distant stars for us to see them are not essential to function and life, and further, if they weren’t created in transit from distant stars but we saw the stars popping into existence that would have been a great way to affirm the YEC model. That’s not happening, hence distant starlight is thorn in the side of YEC, as I stated in the OP.

  48. 48
    scordova says:

    Do you agree that the sun creates photons from the fusion reaction of H to He

    Yes for now, but nothing is stopping us from revisiting the question. 🙂

  49. 49
    SteRusJon says:

    Franklin,

    You have just committed the failure I so often see YEC critcs commit. You have failed to meet the YEC case on its own terms.

    The YEC case for the Sun’s origin comes in two forms, as I see it.

    First is that of a fully functioning Sun ex nihilo. In that case, the Sun would have been brought into being about 6000 years ago looking and functioning much as it does at this moment ready to do the job fro which it was created. Not as some cold mass waiting for 100,000 years for the heat to migrate to its surface so it could begin its job. There is no essential difference between a hot mass and a cold mass when it comes to creating ex nihilo so no need to create cold and wait 100,000 years.

    The second possibility is the rapid collapse of diffuse gasses from the initial creation of heaven and earth to form the Sun. In that event, it would have been hot, even at its surface, from the moment it became recognizable as star. That is from the temperature increase due to the compression caused by the gravitational collapse. The process of collapse may have been hastened by the YEC’s Creator but a high surface temperature is a natural consequence of gas compression. There is no need for the Sun to wait 100,000 years to begin to shine.

    Even in the prevailing naturalistic star formation scenarios, gravitational collapse is a substantial source of heat. Indeed it is a necessary one, since high temperature is required for the near-center conditions conducive to nuclear reactions.

    The YEC position needs to judged based on what it has to say and how it comports to the real world. It should not be judged by what you believe based on your model. The questionable necessity for 100,000 years of energy transit time before the Sun has begun to shine brightly enough comes out of your model of how the Sun operates and its origin. It is not required in mine.

    Stephen

  50. 50
    franklin says:

    Stephen, it is obvious from your post that you did not understand anything I wrote but I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and allow you to explain to me what reaction(s) in the sun you think are responsible for the formation of photons. Also it would be a great help if you could describe where this/these reactions take place in the sun.

    This will give me an idea of how well your ideas of photon generation in the sun comport with the real world!

  51. 51
    drc466 says:

    First, I’ll self-identify as a YEC’er so you understand the biases implicit in the following. Also, I recognize what follows is an argument from logic and theology, not science per se.

    Arguably, the “creation” of the universe is a miracle regardless of your overall Big Bang/OEC/YEC belief – the origin of matter and energy is not explainable using known laws of science. All matter/energy therefore has a “false history” – it appears to have existed forever, but that isn’t possible (c.f. heat death).
    The next question becomes the extent of that miracle. Did the miracle end w/ matter/energy being set in motion, or did God push the miracle forward/stretch it out to a certain state?
    sal – to your “last Thursday” complaints: what do you think of the creation of Adam? Assuming that the Bible means what it says when it says Man was created from dust in one chronological day, I think it is a fair assumption that what was created was a grown man – not an embryo or baby or child. Therefore, Adam had the appearance of age – as would pretty much everything created on the other days. This would, of necessity, include the Sun, earth, planets, etc. I think the argument against photons with a “false history” is no stronger than an argument against human cells with a false history, yes?

    So the question becomes, how much of, and what kind of false history? Adam, for example, wouldn’t have any scars at formation (what length was his hair? hmmmm…). I would not expect the earth, for example, to have craters. Mountains? Valleys?

    So, to your point, I think the problems for YEC can be further refinable to evidence of point events that appear > 6000 years. Photons that take 100,000 years to originate in the sun’s core wouldn’t qualify – photons that appear to come from a supernova that occurred > 6000 years would. Just a thought.

    The theological argument is nicely captured by the Bible’s statement that the heavens declare His handiwork. If we accept that humanity is the end purpose of God’s creation, and the rest of creation is for our benefit, it seems logical that God would not have created the rest of the universe as He did if humankind could never see it. So God made sure we could see what He made. We still have to figure out how He did that.

    I agree that distant starlight, current state of radioactive isotopes, etc. are problems for YEC. I do think that, on the balance, the problems for long-ages are greater. And my faith system trumps both anyway, so there’s that.

    drc

  52. 52
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    For the YECs:

    Consider this supernova:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_Andromedae

    Assuming for the sake of discussion, the brilliant light of SN1885A was really coming from a supernova within the Andromeda galaxy.

    Question: approximately when did this star actually go supernova?

  53. 53
    SteRusJon says:

    Sal,

    Thanks for broaching these topics. I hold to young earth view all the while being aware of some difficulties. Seems you are of like mind. My problem with the billions-of-years crowd is that they are oblivious to the difficulties with their position. They are ignorant of the actual proposals on the table from YEC advocates. They, as Franklin demonstrates, refuse to justly access what we have to say. Instead, they insist on judging based on what they “know” to be true little realizing that most of what they know derives from assumption.

    I have, as we all have, a unique set of knowns of which I am aware. From that set I must inform the answers to the great questions regarding why I am here and how to live my life. I have searched for and found some promising alternatives to the consensus Big Bang cosmology in the plasma physics/electric universe ideas and Barry Setterfield’s latest work. If a tiny fraction of the minds and public money that has been invested in the Big Bang consensus was dedicated to developing a synthesis of these ideas I think a respectable system could be developed to support YEC. As it is, what little progress has been made comes by a few mavericks spending their own dime in their part time efforts. Although they preach about the provisionality of their understanding of the way things work, the consensus will never let it happen. The consensus “knows” that certain things are exactly as they say they are. Astronomy/cosmology is mired in the same consensus quagmire as biology.

    Anyway, thanks again for shining a glimmer of light on these points that largely go unnoticed in the grand rush to demean YEC views and ideas as anti-science.

    Stephen

  54. 54
    Phinehas says:

    See “Dusty Plasma Sail” for alternate probe possibilities (and to fire up your Sci-Fi imagination).

  55. 55
    Querius says:

    Pioneering astronomer, Halton Arp was ostracized by the his colleagues for daring to challenge the current orthodox views on red shift, velocity, and distance, which he attributes to young age rather than velocity (he’s not YEC). The data seem to support him.

    Dr. Arp also noted that based on current assumptions, there seem to be many lozenge-shaped galaxies that are all pointing to Earth! He claims that this is wrong, that these galaxies are globular and not pointing anywhere. The problem, he claims, again lies with the red-shift is velocity is distance idea. Another erroneous result (according to Dr. Arps) is that virtually close (as in nearly visually coincident) galaxies that are supposedly widely separated in space seem to be interacting.

    Anyway, these observations earned him the ire of the (infamous) “scientific community,” resulting is his virtually being banned from further research.

    He has a website worth looking at if you’re interested.

  56. 56
    franklin says:

    Stephen: If a tiny fraction of the minds and public money that has been invested in the Big Bang consensus was dedicated to developing a synthesis of these ideas I think a respectable system could be developed to support YEC.

    all you need to do is when call for proposals comes out is to write a coherent proposal outlining exactly what type of research you are proposing to conduct and what question you are going to try and answer. The proposal will outline the methodology you will use (in fine detail) and what deliverables you believe will come from your research. There will also need to be some background information outlining previous research in this area and how your research will stand out. Along with the methods also include a section on how the data will be collected and analyzed. Include a budget for the proposed research and you are all set to go fro submission.

    This is the how the vast majority of science researchers fund their work. I’ve never seen an ID research proposal (accepted or rejected) but there is always a first time for everything!

  57. 57
    scordova says:

    For the YECs:

    Consider this supernova:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_Andromedae

    Assuming for the sake of discussion, the brilliant light of SN1885A was really coming from a supernova within the Andromeda galaxy.

    Question: approximately when did this star actually go supernova?

    Exactly! We need a fully formed sun, fully formed adam, but fully formed created light to describe a supernova that never happened?

    I find it problematic. At least the other YEC cosmologies (other that Last Thrudayism) don’t suffer from this philosophical problem.

    That said, there is a nagging empirical problem outside of the theological one that suggests even the secular world has to resolve the distant starlight problem:

    Distant galaxies structurally look about the same age as galaxies close to us. If the speed of light were constant, we should see an evolutionary sequence of galaxies as we compare the farthest ones to the closest ones. The evolutionary sequence is missing. The distant galaxies look a little bluer, but structurally they look distressingly fully formed

    and

    As Gobat concludes: “These new results support the idea that mature clusters existed when the Universe was less than one quarter of its current age. Such clusters are expected to be very rare according to current theory, and we have been very lucky to spot one. But if further observations find many more then this may mean that our understanding of the early Universe needs to be revised.”

    I think I’ve tried to be balanced in this discussion by saying we may be in a situation everybody is wrong! Collectively we might all have to start from scratch and build a new cosmology….I really think we have too little data right now.

  58. 58
    scordova says:

    Pioneering astronomer, Halton Arp was ostracized by the his colleagues for daring to challenge the current orthodox views on red shift, velocity, and distance, which he attributes to young age rather than velocity (he’s not YEC). The data seem to support him.

    YES!

    See: http://www.thunderbolts.info/t.....rs-god.htm

    and another problem is the Tolman Test:

    In the 1930s, Richard Tolman proposed such a test, really good data for which are only now becoming available. Tolman calculated that the surface brightness (the apparent brightness per unit area) of receding galaxies should fall off in a particularly dramatic way with redshift—indeed, so dramatically that those of us building the first cameras for the Hubble Space Telescope in the 1980s were told by cosmologists not to worry about distant galaxies, because we simply wouldn’t see them. Imagine our surprise therefore when every deep Hubble image turned out to have hundreds of apparently distant galaxies scattered all over it (as seen in the first image in this piece). Contemporary cosmologists mutter about “galaxy evolution,” but the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....of-disney/

    and the need to possibly re-interpret the microwave background radiation as due to interstellar medium (sort of an extended atmosphere between galaxies and stars) instead of the primordial remnants of the Big Bang:

    Sep. 5, 2006 — The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a “Big Bang.”

    ——————————————————————————–

    Share This:

    8

    In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from “nearby” clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background.

    A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies.

    “These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years,” said Lieu. “This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial.

    “If you see a shadow, however, it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you don’t see a shadow, then you have something of a problem. Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....104549.htm

  59. 59
    SteRusJon says:

    Franklin,

    First off, I do not agree with the current consensus model of the way stars work. I hold to the electric universe model in some form. The energy emitted from the Sun is derived from the electric currents that propagate throughout the universe. There is, likely, an additional nuclear fusion component, as well, that comes from collisions of electrically accelerated particles. Most of this occurs near the surface of the Sun. That is my view.

    But as I understand the model you most likely espouse, the photons that I see when I look toward the Sun originate in the photosphere. The energetic atoms and ions there radiate electromagnetic energy in a broad spectrum governed by the surface temperature. That radiated energy, according to your model, is replaced by energy from just below the surface. In turn, that is replaced with energy from further down until near the center of the Sun the energy that moved upward is replaced by exothermic nuclear reactions involving light element nuclei such as hydrogen, deuterium, helium and such. The energy is transmitted to the surface via conduction, convection and radiation to varying degrees depending on the region within the Sun and the temperature gradient from center to photosphere. Electromagnetic radiation emitted in the core of the Sun, as a result of the nuclear reactions, does not travel directly through the surface and to my eye. Instead, it follows a tortured path of absorption and re-emission on its way to the surface. Model based calculations suggest it is a very long time for the energy to make its way to the surface. I have not researched the latest calculation result based on the latest model revision but I will stipulate that your 100,000 years is the number. If the model you espouse is correct, then it takes 100,000 years for the energy radiated from the photosphere to be replaced by energy from the nuclear reactions at the core. However, it is replaced almost immediately by energy from just below the surface.

    All that said, I think you missed my point. My point being that (assuming your model) the nascent Sun was a very hot body long before the first quanta of energy from the first nuclear fusion of two protons took place. That is due to the conversion of gravitational potential energy to heat due to the “falling” of all that mostly hydrogen gas into the nascent Sun. There was already a significant amount of thermal energy at the developing “surface” even in your model.

    Stephen

  60. 60
    SteRusJon says:

    Franklin,

    re: your #56 See Querius’ #55 and beginning portion Sal’s #58

    As for me making a proposal, I am just a very interest layperson with more than a few brain cells between my ears. Not enough initials after my name to even be considered in the quest for funding no matter what I might propose.

    Stephen

  61. 61
    franklin says:

    Stephen: There is, likely, an additional nuclear fusion component, as well, that comes from collisions of electrically accelerated particles.

    In your electric universe model what velocities, mass of your particles, and temperatures are required to produce iron (Fe) from hydrogen (H)? Have these conditions been verified to exist on the sun or any other star?

    Also, if you would, what predictions does your model make for the observed phenomena of supernovas?

  62. 62
    franklin says:

    stephen: As for me making a proposal, I am just a very interest layperson with more than a few brain cells between my ears. Not enough initials after my name to even be considered in the quest for funding no matter what I might propose

    as an interested layman you might want to consider why no one submits any ID proposals for funding. Lack of interest in doing the research? Lack of viable methodologies? No hypotheses to test? It is a curious phenomena that I don’t think anyone will be willing to address.

  63. 63
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    2. YEC have proposed solutions to the distant starlight problem.

    I have absolutely no dog in the YEC vs OEC fight.

    But I’ll propose another YEC hypothesis…

    Perhaps we’re living in a virtual reality, and everything outside our solar system is not there at all. It’s only simulated images for our amusement and befuddlement. This is last tuesday-ism on steroids.

    Of course, one might raise a (Christian) theological objection and say that God would never deceive us in such a manner. But maybe the deception isn’t God’s doing. Maybe God let Satan tweak the virtual reality so as to intentionally deceive. God sent a lying spirit to Israel. (1 Kings 22:22) Isn’t a deception of such proportions possible given 2 Thessalonians 2:11?

    Just food for thought.

  64. 64
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    …. Oh, and don’t forget, Yahweh supposedly allowed the serpent in the Garden in the first place, who summarily deceived the innocent couple.

    Weird eh?

    I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue against the possibly of massive deception on Biblical grounds, given the entire range of evidence.

    Just food for thought

  65. 65
    SteRusJon says:

    Franklin,

    Strictly speaking, the electric universe model is not ID related. It is my own view that it could be incorporated into a larger scheme with some of the work of Barry Setterfield to address the YEC’s difficulties with a really big universe that can be seen with light that travels at only 299,792,458 m/s 🙂

    I have no intention of attempting to defend the electric universe model piecemeal. That was part of my point before. If you wish to pooh-pooh it, learn for yourself what it has to offer first, on its own terms. Otherwise, reserve judgement and go on about your business. If your interest is the least bit piqued, you can do as I did, investigate for yourself. Decide what parts make sense and what is trash and make up your own mind about the whole idea. As for myself, I find there is enough merit to the idea that it deserves some investment in minds and money on the public’s dime.

    As for proposals for ID projects. I am afraid I have less confidence in the system to fund an overt ID proposal than you do. Riddle me this- Do you honestly think the RATE project (in some form or another) done under the auspices of the Institute for Creation Science would have been given the funds they needed if they had overtly ask for public funding as an ID proposal given the history of the investigators?

    I would not be surprised if there is not the occasional covert proposal by an ID sympathizer who is trying to uncover something that would support the ID cause. I also wonder, if they were successful, if the result passed peer review and accepted for publication. I seriously doubt that anyone seeking public funding is going to brazenly stamp “ID PROPOSAL” on the cover page. Most ID sympathetic investigators, as most investigators in general, are content to uncover how the world works. Interpretation as to how the data affects the ID vs. evolution is just that: interpretation and separate from the data collection process itself.

    Stephen

    PS I see Google’s banner is a cute nod to Schrödinger and his cat.

  66. 66
    Joe says:

    franklin- where are the blind watchmaker proposals for funding?

  67. 67
    franklin says:

    <blockquote.Stepehn: I have no intention of attempting to defend the electric universe model piecemeal. That was part of my point before. If you wish to pooh-pooh it, learn for yourself what it has to offer first, on its own terms. Otherwise, reserve judgement and go on about your business.

    I took a bit of a read about the electric universe and found it completely lacking in predictive power and wrong in so many areas I thought I would point out a very simple gap within the theory, i.e. my reference to the production of iron nuclei. If you can’t answer/explain the simplest of concepts within the electric universe paradigm I have to assume that my initial assessment was correct.

    Do you honestly think the RATE project (in some form or another) done under the auspices of the Institute for Creation Science would have been given the funds they needed if they had overtly ask for public funding as an ID proposal given the history of the investigators?

    Absolutely! Having participated in the grant proposal process for many years I’ve found that in many cases the authorship of the proposal is blinded to the reviewers. The proposal is then judged on its merit and the soundness of the proposed methodology as well as the likelihood of the completion of a successful project. The difficult part is in writing a coherent and realistic proposal in the first place. If you do you’ll get funding. If you submit a bunch of crap then you shouldn’t be surprised when it is rejected.

    No one needs to stamp ID PROPOSAL on their submission but they will need to submit a sound, reasoned, and thorough proposal as well as having a testable hypothesis. If this is done funding will be made available for the research. Which brings us back to the question of why no ID researchers write and submit proposals for funding.

    I’d sure like to read am accepted or rejected ID grant proposal (as well as reviewers comments) but, alas, I fear that after all these long years none exist.

  68. 68
    franklin says:

    joe: franklin- where are the blind watchmaker proposals for funding?

    Joe when you read all those published journal articles,which you claim to do, take a bit of time to look at the acknowledgements. In there you’ll often find grant #’s as well as funding sources. From there it is easy to find the submitted proposal. You can also contact the authors and ask them to send a copy of the grant proposal.

  69. 69
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    SteRusJon: First off, I do not agree with the current consensus model of the way stars work. I hold to the electric universe model in some form.

    How does the model you espouse explain the sun’s 11 year magnetic reversal cycles?

  70. 70
    Querius says:

    Statements such as “The universe is 13.8 billion years old” bother me because we know that the passage of time depends on velocity and the presence of a gravitational field. It would be more accurate to say that the oldest apparent age of the universe is 13.81 BY (as indicated by the Planck space telescope), but even that is misleading.

    Imagine carefully drawing a line on a deflated balloon with an ink marker. It’s one inch long and it took you 1 minute to draw. Next, you inflate the balloon in 1 second so that the line is now 12 inches long. Obviously, the line appears as if it was “in transit” for 12 minutes, right?

    So what’s the currently accepted rate for the inflation of the universe?

    Again, the Planck space telescope seems to confirm a rapid inflationary period starting at about 10^-38 seconds and lasting about 0.01 seconds, during which time the universe doubled in size at least 60 times until it was about 10^50 times as large, and nearly its present size! (This would solve the “flatness” problem having to do with the lack of overall curvature of space).

    After that, it’s thought that the universe continued to expand at the Hubble constant of about 67.3 KM/Sec/Megaparsec until the present.

    Currently, most everyone feels that these estimates are pretty speculative.

    The time of this expansion at or near the Hubble constant could certainly have lasted 13.81 billion years . . . or maybe much less than that, say 10,000 years . . . or if you’re traveling close to the speed of light . . . maybe a week.

  71. 71
    Querius says:

    SteRusjon wrote:

    First off, I do not agree with the current consensus model of the way stars work. I hold to the electric universe model in some form.

    I think you might be referring to the plasma origin of the universe, which I find interesting as well.

    Incidentally, according to this theory, our solar system formed from the outer planets inward, finishing with the sun!

  72. 72
    SteRusJon says:

    Franklin,

    My hat is off to you. You made a complete investigation of all that the electric universe model has to offer in the 23 minutes between the time I submitted my post and the time you submitted yours. At least that is how I read your response, correct me if I have misunderstood.

    Stephen

  73. 73
    SteRusJon says:

    CentralScrutinizer,

    Again, I will not make a piecemeal defense. I will, however, make note that magnetism is inextricable associated with electrical current. Electrical currents are readily put into stable oscillation. External electrical power fed through the Sun could readily explain a consistently regular and long term reversing magnetic field. Do you know of another way to generate and sustain an varying magnetic field other than a varying electric current?

    Stephen

  74. 74
    franklin says:

    stephen: My hat is off to you. You made a complete investigation of all that the electric universe model has to offer in the 23 minutes between the time I submitted my post and the time you submitted yours. At least that is how I read your response, correct me if I have misunderstood.

    Consider yourself corrected.

    Rather than be concerned with how much time I investigated the electric universe model perhaps your efforts might be more fruitful if you provide some info concerning the questions that have been posed to you about the subject?

    FYI it was three hours 36 min between your first mention of the electric universe and my reply. But you knew that, right?

  75. 75
    franklin says:

    edit: 3 hr 25 min

  76. 76
    scordova says:

    One reason electric universe is pursued is that the great strings of galaxies look like the products of plasmas under electricity.

    The problem is one of numbers. How can such large currents flow, we should be able to detect these currents and attendant fields. Also, how can electricity move through such gigantic distances fast enough? Setterfield suggested that the speed of light was fast in the past and allowed the electricity to flow through the plasmas to create these Birkland currents that created the galaxies.

    I don’t hate electric universe theories, but hard numbers are lacking. When I studied plasma physics (mostly space physics), I don’t recall seeing anything that suggests large enough electric or magnetic fields in modeling the plasmas surrounding the Earth or being present in the solar system.

    We used a lot of the Lorentz Force equations which can be derived from Maxwell’s equations to help model the behavior of plasmas:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

    In my study of space plasmas under the influence of Lorentz forces (that come from E and B fields), the value of the E fields (electric) and B fields (magnetic) in the solar system didn’t seem anywhere near what would be needed for electric universe models. I studied plasma physics because of Setterfield’s interest in the electric universe.

    I can’t say I’m comfortable with Setterfield and the electric universe models. Barry Setterfield is a good friend. We’ve prayed together for God to show us the way. It breaks my heart that he may have a mistaken theory…. But as I said, 4 out of 5, or shall I say 5 out of 6 YEC cosmologies of necessity must be wrong, and each of the failed theories represents many years of peoples lives…

    It is evident godly men aren’t guaranteed the right answers to questions of physics and cosmology….

    I asked Russell Humphrey’s about the Birkland currents, and he thinks they are too weak to do what electric universe models predict…

    I think ideas from every cosmology (YEC, OEC, Big Bang, Steady State, Plasma, Electric, etc.) have some element of truth, but right now all of them have fatal problems. We need more data, and that will cure some of the problems.

    Right now we have a disproportionate amount of speculation relative to small amounts of data. God willing the data will pour in, and we’ll have the answers. He’s given us plenty so far, so I expect more will be coming since the Bible teaches He intends for us to discover these things even though He also made it difficult to figure out:

    “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, it is the glory of kings to search out a matter.” Proverbs 25:2

  77. 77
    SteRusJon says:

    Querius,

    Yes, I agree that plasma physics is a very important component of the electric universe model. After all, plasma is the conductor as well as the resistive and capacitive circuit components. There are a lot of different ideas being put forward. The field needs some house cleaning because a lot of it is, as Franklin puts it, a bunch of crap (and not able to secure funding). The gold is tainted as a result and the whole field is, as a result anathema to the main stream.

    The universe primarily consists of plasma. Plasma is a conductor consisting of some portion of free electrical charges. Free electrical charges moving in magnetic fields will experience additional electrical forces that change their motion which in turn generate new magnetic fields. That is simple physics that we understand and use in our everyday lives. I don’t go so far as to say that explains everything that happens out there in that great big cosmos but I cannot fathom how some, such as Franklin, can so readily dismiss it as being of no consequence (electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity and yes, I know that positives cancel negatives, but still) and unable to explain anything (“completely lacking in predictive power” as Franklin has judged after thorough evaluation.)

    There are more things in heaven and earth, Franklin,
    Than are dreamt of in your science.

    Stephen

  78. 78
    SteRusJon says:

    Franklin,

    OK, I stand corrected. 3 hours and twenty five minutes. I still tip my hat to you. Thorough evaluation it is.

    Stephen

  79. 79
    franklin says:

    Stephen: but I cannot fathom how some, such as Franklin, can so readily dismiss it as being of no consequence (electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity and yes, I know that positives cancel negatives, but still) and unable to explain anything (“completely lacking in predictive power” as Franklin has judged after thorough evaluation.)

    There are more things in heaven and earth, Franklin,
    Than are dreamt of in your science.

    Stephen, for some subjects it doesn’t tale much reading to discover some fatal flaws. For example the first time I heard of homeopathy it only took about ten minutes of reading to discover the fatal flaws. Those ten minutes included the time it took to reread the content of the first five minutes of reading. I found the concepts of the electric universe model equally lacking in content.

    If you cannot describe the conditions that your model needs to produce heavier nuclei from lighter than it does not match reality very well at all. You can correct my obvious misconceptions by providing some info on the questions that have been posed to you on the subject.

    You claim that sufficient electric current passed through the sun would account for the magnetic flips that are observed. What is the magnitude of the electric current that would be required to maintain the magnetic field of the sun? Has this electric current been measured? Detected?

  80. 80
    scordova says:

    I don’t mean to be too critical of the Electric Universe model, but let’s look at one consideration.

    If there are large magnetic fields out there, why am I not detecting them with my compass. My compass can be easily overwhelmed by a nearby permanent magnet.

    Further if the sun is drawing its energy from passing through a magnetic field, then I ought to be able to take random wire coils and using the Earth’s movement around the sun and the sun’s movement in the universe, I ought to generate significant amounts of power with or without super conductors, in fact non-superconductors (copper wire) would then generate lots of heat. I just don’t see it.

    These considerations proceed from Maxwell’s equations (eqn #3 Maxwell-Faraday law of induction).

    That said, Menas Kafatos (chair of the Earth and Space Observation) at my former undergrad alma mater George Mason came out in favor of plasma cosmology. Not all plasma cosmologies are of the electric universe variety…

    Plasma cosmology may have some merit, but the electric universe variety of plasma cosmologies may need some work. It seems to have issues…

  81. 81
    scordova says:

    From
    http://www.scholarpedia.org/ar.....tic_fields

    Magnetic Field Strengths in Galaxies

    The typical average equipartition strength for spiral galaxies is about 10 ?G (microGauss) or 1 nT (nanoTesla). For comparison, the Earth’s magnetic field has an average strength of about 0.5 G or 50 ?T. Radio-faint galaxies like M 31 (Fig.3) and M 33, our Milky Way’s neighbours, have weaker fields (about 5 ?G), while gas-rich galaxies with high star-formation rates, like M 51 (Fig.1), M 83 and NGC 6946 (Fig.2), have 15 ?G on average. In prominent spiral arms the total equipartition field can be up to 30 ?G strong, in regions where also cold gas and dust are concentrated. The strongest total equipartition fields (50-100 ?G) were found in starburst galaxies, like M 82 and the Antennae, and in nuclear starburst regions, like in the centers of NGC 1097 and other barred galaxies.

    So let us presume the sun getting its energy by motion through a galactic magnetic field that is 50,000 times smaller than the Earth’s magenetic field. We ought to build wire coils on Earth that can experience motion through this same magnetic field and generate electricity. We don’t find evidence of this, at least not in amount commensurate with the output of the sun.

    This leaves us with having to postulate an alternative means of electrical generation if the sun is powered electrically. I’m not aware that the mechanism has been described…

  82. 82
    scordova says:

    Now that I’ve criticized parts of electric universe, let me offer some positives for electric origin of matter.

    The Proton-21 lab suggest that electrical means were the avenue of elemental synthesis in the cosmos. They have experiments that should be considered:

    http://www.proton21.com.ua/articles/Infin.pdf

    One more confirmation of both the collective
    self-compression and the formation of a collapse is
    presented by the discovered effect of transmutation of any kind of radioactive nuclei into nonradioactive ones. In this case, similarly to nature, the products of laboratory nucleosynthesis contain practically no a-, b-, or g-active isotopes, which opens the possibility of using the discovered physical phenomenon for the reprocessing of radioactive and toxic wastes.

    In other words, they performed alchemy through electricity!

    Other examples of electrical alchemy:
    http://phys.org/news6674.html

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf

  83. 83
    JGuy says:

    Sal,

    The reason I said it may not be of help now is that if we speed up light it will (without attendant changes in other physcis) affect:

    1. nuclear decay rates
    2. plank’s constant
    3. stellar fusion processes

    Even if there weren’t these problems, wouldn’t it be odd if c decayed and no other constant changed? Seems to me that it would make more sense that other things did change with a changing c. After-all, if c changed, it would mean something cosmic is changing to affect it. It’s not like light has wheels and would slow down due to friction. 😛

    Example: The fabric of space and time could be expanding among other things. The only way I can imagine at the moment that one could detect such a change would be for changes in light speed. The way I imagine it is like seeing everything in a 3D grid of points. And these points are the distances of the smallest units of space/time possible (quantized 3 dimensions). If they were to become further apart, we wouldn’t see any change since everything would grow relative to it. However, things like light or Plancks constant would be affected assuming time is not affected. Ok, I’m confusing myself, anyway…above point should remain.

  84. 84
    scordova says:

    However, things like light or Plancks constant would be affected assuming time is not affected.

    Changing Planck’s constant, bad juju. Molecular structure goes boom, Adam and Eve go bye bye. 😯

    PLank’s constant governs:

    Quantum Mechanics
    Chemistry
    Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics

    Mess with Planck’s Constant, bad juju. Adios fine tuning.

  85. 85
    Joe says:

    franklin:

    Joe when you read all those published journal articles,which you claim to do, take a bit of time to look at the acknowledgements. In there you’ll often find grant #’s as well as funding sources. From there it is easy to find the submitted proposal. You can also contact the authors and ask them to send a copy of the grant proposal.

    I have yet to read anything about any blind watchmaker proposals. I was hoping that you could help me out but obviously you cannot.

    Heck I can’t even find anyone who can produce a testable hypothesis wrt the blind watchmaker…

  86. 86
    gensci says:

    If distant starlight is a thorn to YEC, then the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is a crown of thorns for YEC and OEC alike. There are LOTS of unanswered and unanswerable questions. As Christians, I think we could all use more humility when it comes to interpreting the past, while acknowledging that God’s ways alone are continuous, and at times He suspends His natural laws in ways we will never fully comprehend.

  87. 87
    butifnot says:

    So let us presume the sun getting its energy by motion through a galactic magnetic field that is 50,000 times smaller than the Earth’s magenetic field.

    Current powers galaxies and their stars. This sounds like a misguided criticism by an opponent that is ignorant of the actual theory (not you Sal)

  88. 88
    butifnot says:

    Surface features of the terrestrial planets – They’re clear and familiar and blatantly scarred and shaped by electricity. A good place to start the electric journey.

  89. 89
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    C’mon, can’t we all agree that YEC is preposterous, and Darwinism (the Modern Evolutionary Hypothesis) is preposterous?

    The reality lies in a very interesting middle ground.

    Come on people, left and right, push your per-conceptions and darling ideologies aside.

    The truth is showing itself to be much stranger than everyone thought. On all side. Good grief. Let’s follow the evidence, where it leads.

  90. 90
    JGuy says:

    CentralScrutinizer @ 89

    Come on people, left and right, push your per-conceptions and darling ideologies aside.

    I did already when I changed my view from old earther to young earther. 😉

  91. 91
    ericB says:

    Sal, thanks for your response at @39. One major point not yet covered is the charge in The Unraveling of Starlight and Time that Humphreys has effectively abandoned multiple key aspects of the argument in Starlight and Time.

    2 The Abandonment of Starlight and Time

    In his latest attempt to defend Starlight and Time[11], Humphreys actually quietly abandons it. The three central arguments of the original Starlight and Time proposal were:

    1. The alleged physical significance of the Schwarzschild time coordinate of the Klein metric. This is so important in the original Starlight and Time argument that Humphreys called it “the essence” of his new cosmological model[19].

    2. The gravitational time dilation effects of differences of gravitational potential in a bounded universe which, it was alleged, do not occur in an unbounded universe. Again, this is essential to the original argument.

    3. The alleged profound effects of event horizons in a bounded universe. In Starlight and Time, Humphreys attributed most of the effects of 1 and 2 above to the action of an event horizon, which he claimed would cause Earth clocks to be static while billions of years of time elapsed on clocks in the distant universe.

    It has been shown in a number of articles[10] [17] that all three of these claims are manifestly false. In particular, 1) the Schwarzschild time coordinate has no physical significance at all for the behavior of physical clocks in a bounded universe, 2) the pattern of gravitational field and potential differences is manifestly identical for bounded and unbounded universes (this is sufficiently important and sufficiently simple that we will revisit it below) and physical clock behaviors are manifestly identical for both cases, and 3) the event horizon of a bounded universe has absolutely no effect on the passage of time on physical clocks in such a universe.

    In his most recent defense of this theory, “New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics[11]”, Humphreys gives up so much ground on each of these three central arguments that one can fairly say that he has abandoned the original formulation of his hypothesis. New Vistas has little to say about Schwarzschild time. Whereas this time coordinate was “the essence” of the original argument, it now receives only passing mention and is no longer appealed to in support of Humphreys’ claim to have solved the light travel problem. Although Humphreys continues to employ the phrase “gravitational time dilation”, it is clear from his argument that he no longer contends that potential differences in the bounded matter sphere produce differences in the time-keeping rates of physical clocks — indeed, he explicitly concedes that physical clocks tick at the same rate in such a universe[20]. Finally, event horizons, which played a prominent part in Starlight and Time, are now admitted by Humphreys to have no effect [21], and the effects which he wrongly attributed to them in Starlight and Time are now attributed to the changing signature of the Klein metric.

    Four years after the original publication of Starlight and Time, Humphreys has abandoned all the central arguments of that hypothesis. All that remains is a skeleton, consisting of the idea of a bounded universe and a phrase, “gravitational time dilation.” The disproof of the original central arguments of Starlight and Time is not difficult. Dr. Humphreys’ recent abandonment of the central physical arguments of his original proposal shows that these physical arguments were not well-thought out and were not adequately reviewed by experts in relativity theory and cosmology prior to their dissemination in the church.[22]

    In New Vistas, Humphreys quietly drops his old physical arguments and invents new ones to take their place. …

    If these charges are correct, it would seem that even if Humphreys’ new revised cosmology were correct, nevertheless the cosmology presented in Starlight and Time should be tossed in the trash. If Humphreys himself no longer stands by those older discredited ideas, I don’t see why the book Starlight and Time should even still be sold.

    Is that a fair description, or has the situation been misrepresented in some way?

  92. 92
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    Tooshay 😀

  93. 93
    scordova says:

    Is that a fair description, or has the situation been misrepresented in some way?

    I don’t believe it is a fair description, and I think Humphreys is being misrepresented on those 3 points, but was falsified on other points. I think Humphreys is wrong, but lets falsify his work fairly.

    I didn’t particularly care for Connor going on and on about the lack of a universal center in an unbounded model when Humprheys didn’t even make the argument there was a universal center in an unbounded model, in fact Humphreys stated the opposite! And saying Russ didn’t understand, that was a bit low. Even I could see Russ understood. It was a strawman and red herring with lots of math just for theatrics.

    First, there are an INFINITE number of solutions to Newton’s 2nd law:

    F = ma

    It doesn’t mean every solution is physically valid. I similar manner there are an infinite number of solution to Einstein’s field equation:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/f/5/3f50fd206f2fe543a6a8a3e687cf74c3.png

    FWIW, Humphreys is merely using the White Hole solution to General Relativity that is accepted as a mathematically valid solution!

    See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

    Alan Guth (who pioneered the Big Bang inflation model) says our universe is basically a black hole from another universe but looks like a Big Bang to us, but by that logic, nothing is preventing this universe from being a white hole that just looks like Big Bang to us!

    Humprheys merely postulates, our universe is the white hole, and like the Big Bang, we don’t really have to postulate a formation mechanism, we just accept that we are here and alive as a matter of fact. Whatever happened prior to “the beginning” is a matter of philosophy.

    Humphreys is a very humble man and in my view has always been quick to admit blunders.

    One thing I found about General Relativity (GR) is that you can come up with many strange solutions that may not be physically real. 😯 For example, when I studied GR, the professor had us study one solution where it seemed you could magically travel faster than the speed of light. I thought, how could that be, that seems to violate special relativity (SR). Then when reviewing the homework assignment he said, that was a wormhole, he wasn’t sure such things exist since you need negative mass — it was simply a math exercise.

    In addition he assigned us to study 4 dimensional spheres (which would correspond to 5 dimensional space time) and we had to work out geometry in these. These were make believe worlds, but the math exercise was useful in understanding counter intuitive geometries in relativity…

    To some extent a criticism can be leveled against the Big Bang FLRW (Freidman Lemaitre Robertson Walker) that invokes expanding space. Is such a solution valid since it results in superluminal (faster than the speed of light) velocities and possible violations of the conservation of energy?!

    For black holes and white holes (Humphreys), we really don’t know whether they are physically real even though they are valid mathematical solutions. FWIW, some physicists have whispered black holes do not exist:

    http://www.nature.com/news/200.....328-8.html

    That said, these topics are technical enough, that I’d have to spend about 3 weeks with GR specialists going through it with a fine tooth comb for both sides. The specialists know more than I.

    I got fed humble pie when the professor had us study the Sach-Wolf effect, and my head almost exploded trying. I found some simplified explanations and told him, “I couldn’t comprehend 10% of the original paper!” 😯

    Look at page 1935 and beyond, and you’ll see what I mean. Gasp!

    http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubm.....9_1929.pdf

    So take what I said about the GR arguments with some skepticism since I could be also wrong.

    But a lot of math for the white holes has been worked out and I think all that Humphreys is doing is leveraging pre-existing knowledge. So why criticize his math. To do so would be to criticize solutions to General Relativity that have already been accepted in the mainstream (again a math solution does not imply a physically real situation, getting the math right is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a physics idea to be true).

    Hence, I think Connor had to resort to some cheap shots and theatrics regarding some things Humphreys never said since the White Hole solutions are essentially valid on mathematical terms (but perhaps not on reality terms)…

    But why invest the time in more speculation? The Cepheid variables and Doppler on the spiral arms are the observational data we need to explore. We need astronomers to study this. One study that isn’t being done is examination of spectroscopic binaries. We need really good telescopes. If we can determine average orbital period changes the farther we look out, we can falsify or affirm 3 of the YEC cosmologies: Humphreys, Hartnett, Setterfield. In my view, arguments can go on forever, data will settle the issue.

    And that’s why, with the exception of guys like Einstein and Feynman, Nobel prizes are generally awarded to experimentalists, not theorists.

  94. 94
    halloschlaf says:

    I’d like to add a further possibility to explain the light of distant stars.

    It has to do with stretched further dimensions in the sense of the Kaluza-Klein Theory and the exquisite but nearly unknown theory of Burkhard Heim, a German physicist. If the cosmos is actually a 5-D or even a 6 –D or even higher n- D- Fabric, there is perhaps the possibility that light reaches us from distant stars without increasing the c-value, the velocity of light, from the perspective of a 4-D-fabric. In this case it should be considered that photons are actually not crossing the 4-D-Fabric of Space and Time, but are crossing a higher-degree- fabric of additional dimensions. The trajectory through the 4-D-Fabric of space and time is -as quantum mechanics is already proposing- in reality non-existent. What can be measured is not the trajectory of photons in the 4-D-Fabric, but only the arrival of photons and their interaction with masses/energies within the 4-D-fabric. Indeed, it seems to me that this proposal is in accordance with the Quantum-analysis by Friedman, especially regarding his interpretation of the photon trajectory as an integration of all possible trajectories through SpaceTime. This sort of reckoning accounts also for the entanglement problem. And, it is supported by the strange phenomena of quasi-crystals with their higher dimension- symmetries.

    The problem of the light from distant stars then narrows down into a discussion of the real topography of the 4-D-manifold within a higher-dimensional fabric. The inhabitant of the 4-D-world would always measure the c-value within the local manifold in accordance with the special and general relativity and associate a certain travel time to the light from distant stars. From the perspective of the 5-D-Fabric light is travelling on a higher-dimensional trajectory, which leads us to a totally different actual time in the 5-D-frame.

    This would open up a solution for the (space probe) Pioneer anomaly: Within the flat local topography of the solar system the measured distances would be in accordance with the c-value. If the topography is bent or curved at the edges of the flat solar system region, light would travel the shorter trajectory through the 5-D- fabric, which would make Pioneer appear to gradually slow down.

    Another simple experiment might demonstrate the validity of the argument: According to the general relativity theory, the signals of a satellite coming from the opposite side of the orbit around the sun, or of a big planet, should slightly vary in travel time when passing close to the sun or the big planet, because the trajectory is bent. However, according to the proposed theory there should be in fact no difference in travel time. Rather, the signal should be arriving sooner than expected. Indeed, this “accelerating” effect is measured when satellites are orbiting big planets.

  95. 95
    butifnot says:

    For black holes and white holes (Humphreys), we really don’t know whether they are physically real even though they are valid mathematical solutions.

    Outstanding! To that end http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/

  96. 96
    scordova says:

    Butifnot:

    To that end http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/

    WHOA! Man it was worth it writing this thread just to get those resources. Even though I can judge who is right since the material is so over my head, it did point to people published in the mainstream (Physical Review Letters) and historic papers by historic people like Schwarzchild himself.

    The author is pretty smart. One does not get to be John Webb’s student by being a dodo….

    Thanks a million!

  97. 97
    scordova says:

    One of the papers was by Leonard S Abrams. Abrams published some papers in Physical Review Letters (a respected physics journals) which formed the basis of critique which can be found here:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102055

    Black Holes: The Legacy of Hilbert’s Error

    …..
    Thus the Kruskal-Fronsdal black hole is merely an artifact of Hilbert’s error.

    Which would probably invalidate White Holes as well.

    From the journal Nature:

    George Chapline thinks that the collapse of the massive stars, which was long believed to generate black holes, actually leads to the formation of stars that contain dark energy. “It’s a near certainty that black holes don’t exist,” he claims.

    But Einstein didn’t believe in black holes, Chapline argues. “Unfortunately”, he adds, “he couldn’t articulate why.” At the root of the problem is the other revolutionary theory of twentieth-century physics, which Einstein also helped to formulate: quantum mechanics.

    In general relativity, there is no such thing as a ‘universal time’ that makes clocks tick at the same rate everywhere. Instead, gravity makes clocks run at different rates in different places. But quantum mechanics, which describes physical phenomena at infinitesimally small scales, is meaningful only if time is universal; if not, its equations make no sense.

    2005
    http://www.nature.com/news/200.....328-8.html

  98. 98
    franklin says:

    sal: The author is pretty smart. One does not get to be John Webb’s student by being a dodo….

    but as his example demonstrates one can and will be expelled for being a dodo in John Webb;s research group!

  99. 99
    scordova says:

    one can and will be expelled for being a dodo in John Webb;s research group!

    He was unwise to make an enemy of his advisor! But perusing Crothers papers he refers to a problem I remember being discussed by a fellow student with my professor, mostly because it was so shocking. I think it was related to:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.....ingularity

    which can happen in very small scales

    General Relativity fails on very small scales when quantum mechanical effects become important

    http://casswww.ucsd.edu/archiv.....al/GR.html

    Crothers just amplifies on that basic problem.

    Anyway, Crothers has some allies (not friends, just people who reject black holes and other related issues). Because we know GR may fail at the singularity, he can’t be said to be definitely wrong. It is a well known problem…

  100. 100
    franklin says:

    sal: He was unwise to make an enemy of his advisor!</blockquote.

    He;s a narcissist who felt that every expert in the field that dared to criticize his musings was inept. Whenever he was encouraged to fit his hypotheses to scrutiny of the collected data he flounced everytime.

  101. 101
    scordova says:

    He;s a narcissist who felt that every expert in the field that dared to criticize his musings was inept.

    Agreed. It’s not like Crothers discovered something new, the problems he’s highlighted are acknowledged, maybe not the same way he phrased them.

    But he did highlight work of others whom I respect. That was worth reading about.

    It was refreshing to hear that there isn’t uniform agreement on the singularity problem. It has bearing on the truthfulness or falsity of the Big Bang and other things as well.

  102. 102
    Axel says:

    ‘There are LOTS of unanswered and unanswerable questions. As Christians, I think we could all use more humility when it comes to interpreting the past, while acknowledging that God’s ways alone are continuous, and at times He suspends His natural laws in ways we will never fully comprehend.’ – #86 Gensci

    Hello Gensci

    This put me in mind of something Christ said to Martha on the occasion of Lazarus’ death, which I was musing on this morning:

    ‘I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.’

    First, note the order of ‘resurrection’ and ‘life’; not ‘life’, death and ‘resurrection’ to ‘eternal life’.

    Our true life follows this life, is in him and is eternal.

    Then, ‘Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,….’

    Here he is evidently talking about the death of the body (temporary, pending its glorification or condemnation), but going on to say that the life of the soul and the spirit are unaffected, continuing to live on eternally.

    Then he continues:

    ‘… and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.’

    In other words: ‘In effect your physical death is an irrelevance, since your real life in me will be unaffected’; a reiteration of the point he had just made.

    Why he spoke in this way has baffled me for years. Not unlike, ‘If you do not eat my body and drink my blood…’; both, evidently, deliberately couched in mysterious terms, when he could have stated the matter much more simply and straightforwardly.

    He could, for example, have said in response to Martha’s words, ‘I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day’:

    …. ‘If you follow me, though your body may die, your soul and spirit will live on, completely unaffected, until they are reunited with your glorified* body.

    However, it seems that Christ wanted us to get used to the idea that the world of the spirit, of ultimate truth, IS mysterious, even when prima facie, it can be simply expressed in a more linear way. The words and the manner in which he expressed them are also, of course, much more sonorous and memorable.

    There is a third aspect, Christ referred to in relation to his speaking in parables, and that is that he deliberately couched them in that mysterious way, viz without any explanation, so that the ‘clever clogs’ would dismiss it as talking down to them, as if they were kiddies.

    Well, if anything, he was, if not talking up to them, talking them up, despite the appearance of so-called, ‘dumbing down’!

    ‘At that same time Jesus was filled with the joy of the Holy Spirit, and he said, “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike. Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way.’

    Children are the only true intellectuals, since as we grow older, and this happens to the ‘brainy’ more especially, our search for knowledge and understanding becomes less and less disinterested, and more and more (material) profit-oriented.

    It’s natural, if not supernatural, for all of us, in that we have ourselves and maybe a family to support, and the world does not look kindly on those who do not have sharp elbows and greedy souls. They are denied work or paid scandalously poorly, accused of being lazy and blamed for their plight. ‘Moral hazard’, don’t you know!

    So, Christ realised that when a cerebral person heard him talking about a king and his stewards, agents, etc, he would be inclined to say to himself, I know what a king and his steward are. This is kiddies’ talk. The manual worker, on the other hand, more docile (teachable) to the Holy Spirit, humbly takes in such references and the Holy Spirit is able to coordinate associated concepts, such as ‘kingship’, ‘authority’, etc, etc.

    This aptitude for metaphor, which we normally associate with our conventionally rather epicene image of the poet, is actually, for the reason I mentioned above, the province, par excellence, a genius, indeed, of the manual worker, sportsman, viz mostly people not habitually involved in intensive, cerebral work, usually, in their slang, as Chesterton pointed out, but sometimes just wry comment. After the Dutch had visited us and given us yet another master-class in soccer, one of our players remarked that the Dutch players, ‘evidently hadn’t read the script…!’

    I think the English people are supreme in this field, and I believe they have an associated gift for joy. You only have to see the mad dancing of the youngsters to become aware of it. The other side of the coin is that we have been putty in the hands of our leaders, historically of largely Norman (norseman) descent. Too affable for our own good. One historian wrote that the expression, Merry England, was a reality in the Middle Ages. Evidently, despite the difficulty in surviving, or perhaps even because of it, in part.

    The Celts’ are more language-oriented and tend to have a drier sense of humour: An Old Firm (Celtic v Rangers) soccer game, was described by an elderly spectator as like ‘Beirut without the sunshine.’ I haven’t tried to reproduce the Glaswegian pronunciation, as it would be too inept to be worth-while.

    The amount of slang relating to matters of finance and commerce is also notable kin the US, but it seems more likely that expressions such as, ‘the bottom line’, and a car being ‘totalled’, originated in the diseased scones of the working-class lads in the Back Office, than to the likes of Michael Lewis and Nassim Nicholas Taleb!

    Of course, there is also the very mordant wit of the cerebral type, most notably, oddly enough, right-wingers, such as Evelyn Waugh, in connection with another right-winger, and the hilarious, often sardonic, wit of the Jews. What would be left of US television sit-coms in the absence of their Jewish script-writers.

    My. My. I seem to have digressed. Not like me at all.

  103. 103
    ericB says:

    Sal:

    I don’t believe it is a fair description, and I think Humphreys is being misrepresented on those 3 points, but was falsified on other points. I think Humphreys is wrong, but lets falsify his work fairly.

    I definitely agree with your point about judging his work fairly. Leaving aside for the moment the ultimate determination of whether Humphreys’ position(s) are true or not (pending the data we need to distinguish), the main thing I want to understand more clearly is the extent to which his views have or have not changed in “New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics“ (NVoSRtC) in the course of his defense against criticisms.

    1. “The alleged physical significance of the Schwarzschild time coordinate of the Klein metric. This is so important in the original Starlight and Time argument that Humphreys called it “the essence” of his new cosmological model[19].”

    vs.

    NVoSRtC: “New Vistas has little to say about Schwarzschild time. Whereas this time coordinate was “the essence” of the original argument, it now receives only passing mention and is no longer appealed to in support of Humphreys’ claim to have solved the light travel problem.”

    2. “The gravitational time dilation effects of differences of gravitational potential in a bounded universe which, it was alleged, do not occur in an unbounded universe. Again, this is essential to the original argument.”

    vs.

    NVoSRtC: “Although Humphreys continues to employ the phrase “gravitational time dilation”, it is clear from his argument that he no longer contends that potential differences in the bounded matter sphere produce differences in the time-keeping rates of physical clocks — indeed, he explicitly concedes that physical clocks tick at the same rate in such a universe[20].”

    3. “The alleged profound effects of event horizons in a bounded universe. In Starlight and Time, Humphreys attributed most of the effects of 1 and 2 above to the action of an event horizon, which he claimed would cause Earth clocks to be static while billions of years of time elapsed on clocks in the distant universe.”

    vs.

    NVoSRtC: “Finally, event horizons, which played a prominent part in Starlight and Time, are now admitted by Humphreys to have no effect [21], and the effects which he wrongly attributed to them in Starlight and Time are now attributed to the changing signature of the Klein metric.”

    In short, if “Humphreys gives up so much ground on each of these three central arguments that one can fairly say that he has abandoned the original formulation of his hypothesis”, then people shouldn’t be buying and studying his old formulation in SaT, and should only be considering the new formulation, which apparently avoids certain failings documented in the Unraveling review.

    If your answer is already implicit in the other details you provided, it was not clear to me how those other issues (e.g. the red herring about a center, which you made clear) answer the questions I am asking here.

    Thanks for your help.

  104. 104
    scordova says:

    If your answer is already implicit in the other details you provided, it was not clear to me how those other issues (e.g. the red herring about a center, which you made clear) answer the questions I am asking here.

    Apologies, I did not answer your question meticulously nor did I research it in detail. That said, I looked into it again, and here is a point by point:

    1. “New Vistas has little to say about Schwarzschild time. Whereas this time coordinate was “the essence” of the original argument, it now receives only passing mention and is no longer appealed to in support of Humphreys’ claim to have solved the light travel problem.”

    Utter cheapshot. New Vistas was a response to criticisms, so it focuses on technical matters related to the criticism. Its no wonder Schwarzchild time gets little mention, it wasn’t the focus of the paper. This is like me writing one day about genetics and then getting criticized that I didn’t mention genetics when I wrote about PZ Myers. Cheapshot.

    2. “The gravitational time dilation effects of differences of gravitational potential in a bounded universe which, it was alleged, do not occur in an unbounded universe. Again, this is essential to the original argument.”

    Misrepresentation,imho. The “unbounded universe” they refer to is the unbounded Big Bang universe based on Robertson-Walker (FLRW) solution to GR, whereas Humphreys is using a different solution (the white hole)! This is like criticizing someone who said, “delicious apples are red” by saying, “not true, because oranges are orange.” With enough math theatrics it can look like one party actually made a valid criticism when they didn’t.

    Humphrey’s called them on it:

    In their application of the Robertson-Walker metric to
    the cosmos I envisage, Conner and Page failed to heed the
    warning I made in my book about that metric.

    Don’t apply Roberson-Walker model (oranges) to Humphrey’s model (apples).

    NVoSRtC: “Although Humphreys continues to employ the phrase “gravitational time dilation”, it is clear from his argument that he no longer contends that potential differences in the bounded matter sphere produce differences in the time-keeping rates of physical clocks — indeed, he explicitly concedes that physical clocks tick at the same rate in such a universe[20].”

    Misrepresentation. Humphrey’s said the opposite:

    The existence of that zone shows that my cosmology is
    different from the Big Bang theory, and especially that time
    dilation does indeed occur in mine.

    Connor uses how things work in Big Bang cosmology to criticize how thing work in White hole cosmology. Like criticizing the model of an apple based on the model of an orange.

    3. “The alleged profound effects of event horizons in a bounded universe. In Starlight and Time, Humphreys attributed most of the effects of 1 and 2 above to the action of an event horizon, which he claimed would cause Earth clocks to be static while billions of years of time elapsed on clocks in the distant universe.”

    Same criticisms as above. Even if Humphreys is wrong (which I believe) criticize him for what he said, not what he didn’t say. #1 and #2 were not falsified properly by Conner and Page, so #3 isn’t falsified properly either.

    The details are so in the weeds, I’d have to spend weeks to give it a fair reading. Let me emphasize, I haven’t given too much time on the matter, so my impression doesn’t count for much. But I gave you my best shot given my knowledge base (which is tiny) and the time constraints.

    I essentially gave up on reading Connor further because:

    1. it may all be moot because of the clocking issues I highlighted. If Starlight and time is wrong on those points, why beat a dead horse?

    2. I saw a cheap shot by Connor, and I felt it would be better to look at more objective critiques. In the process I saw that white hole solutions are accepted in the mainstream, and Humphreys essentially borrowed what was already accepted.

    3. black holes and white holes might be false, the discussion jogged my memory to that shocking discussion I heard between my GR professor and a student. The problem of singularities may invalidate: white hole, black hole, Big Bang

    Rather than answer your question directly and accurately and technically (none of which I did very well, and my apologies because I’m not a specialist in these areas), I appeal to Humphrey’s character (and willingness to admit error) vs. what looked to me a propensity by Connor to misrepresent.

    Finally, GR is a tough topic. The question of what happens at singularities and “sign changes” etc. is speculative, and no one knows the right answer. Humphreys admitted as much. No need to pounce on what he already acknowledge is a weakness in his theory as if he didn’t acknowledge it. That’s a bit low, imho…

  105. 105
    ericB says:

    Thanks Sal! I’m sorry to hear that Humphreys may have been significantly misrepresented (e.g. applying orange standards to apples). I wouldn’t want to be misrepresented and so I wouldn’t want to see it happen to others either.

    But I’m very glad that I asked for the clarifications. Even if the technical details are in deeper waters, I believe your clarifications have provided another perspective that was missing from just reading the Unraveling review.

    Thanks again.

  106. 106
    Mung says:

    There are many devout Jews and Christians who believe the universe is old.

    Many scientists and atheists believe this as well.

  107. 107
    Lars-Erik Molin says:

    It seems to me as most of the debattants here are not familiar with Setterfields theory and the problems it solves.
    Most only know that he says that c had slowed down from a very high value.
    The primary cause is that the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) has increased from a very low value. The vacuum has become ‘thicker’.
    That affects a number of natural ‘constants’ not only c.
    See http://setterfield.org/000docs/behaviorzpe.html

    Some examples:
    The redshift quantization first observed by Tifft. Setterfild has an explanation to why and also to the size of the steps. That means that the doppler approach to the redshift is false. Not entirely, there are small doppler components depending on our motion in our galaxy and the observed objects local motion. The main part of the redshift, that is quantized, depends on the increase i ZPE. Redshift jumps has been observed when some objects has been checked at occasions some years apart.

    The CMBR has the same value in all directions. What we see is the opaque plasma wall from the beginning redshifted from 5400 ºK to 2.725 ºK.

    The Nobel Prize 2011 in Physics was given for the observation of supernovas brightness and redshift indicated that the universe is expanding at an accelerating speed. Setterfields theory says that the universe was spread out at the beginning and now is more or less constant in size. The observed effects depends on the increase in ZPE and has the from him expected behavior.

    There are no need for dark mass or dark energy in Setterfields theory

    Some words from Helen Setterfield about the reactions:
    There is a reason that Barry’s work is not being referenced by mainstream scientists – or even looked at by most. If Barry is right about what the data are indicating, we are living in a very young universe. This inevitable conclusion will never be accepted by standard science. Evolution requires billions of years.
    And there is a reason why the major creation organizations are holding his work at an arm’s length as well: they are sinking great amounts of money into trying to prove that radiometric dating procedures are fatally flawed. According to what Barry is seeing, however, they are not basically flawed at all: there is a very good reason why such old dates keep appearing in the test results. The rate of decay of radioactive elements is directly related to the speed of light. When the speed of light was higher, decay rates were faster, and the long ages would be expected to show up. As the speed of light slowed down, so the radioactive decay rates slowed down.

    And over to something else:
    What is the velocity of gravitation?

  108. 108
    scordova says:

    Lars-Erik Molin,

    Thanks for visiting. Barry is a good friend of mine. We have prayed together for God to show us the answer.

    I corrected some of the math in his papers, there are some conceptual errors.

    I think there are some problems in his theory particularly Planck’s constant changes.

    I think there is data that show some slowing down of the speed of light, but there is a lot of work to do. There are some other mechanisms of light travel worth considering.

    At this point, it’s just too early to tell. We need more experiments and observations.

    God bless you,
    Sal

  109. 109
    tjguy says:

    Excellent discussion here on this issue. Thanks everyone!

    For Sal from post #28

    This seems at variance with Humprhey’s model which basically says the distant stars are billions of years old because the clocks out there run faster.

    distant galaxies structurally look about the same age as galaxies close to us. If the speed of light were constant, we should see an evolutionary sequence of galaxies as we compare the farthest ones to the closest ones. The evolutionary sequence is missing. The distant galaxies look a little bluer, but structurally they look distressingly fully formed!

    As was mentioned, fully formed galaxies as far back as visible is a huge problem for the Big Bang theory, but I didn’t realize it would also be true for YEC theory. Perhaps that depends on which method is used to try and solve the distant starlight problem.

    Just a question here on this point. I’m not trying to defend Humphrey’s or anything, but I just wonder if this really isn’t a problem for his model if God created the galaxies fully formed.

    Is there something about his model that would prevent such a scenario?

    Would the creation of fully formed galaxies be a problem of deception in your view? I don’t think it would be a problem, personally. There is probably something I don’t understand about Humphrey’s model to explain this, but I thought I would ask.

  110. 110
    tjguy says:

    For Franklin @ 46

    Do we agree that the time involved for the photon to make this transit is on the order of 100, 000 years or greater?

    Yes, this is a problem for YECs, but having God create a fully functioning sun is no problem in my view. I believe Sal mentioned this would be an option for him as well.

    But since you bring this up, I’m sure you realize that the standard model also has a big problem with the sun. It should not have been hot enough in the beginning for life to have evolved on earth. Earth should have been a frozen wilderness. I believe it is called the Faint Young Sun Paradox. I know cosmologists have an ad hoc explanation to deal with this, but what are the chances that they are right? Very low in my book!

  111. 111
    tjguy says:

    For Central @ 64

    Oh, and don’t forget, Yahweh supposedly allowed the serpent in the Garden in the first place, who summarily deceived the innocent couple.

    Weird eh?

    I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue against the possibly of massive deception on Biblical grounds, given the entire range of evidence.

    Central, I think we need to be careful here as God is very clear about who He is and what His character is like. Deception is NOT an option. Allowing something and actually being the agent of the deception are two different things. I’m sure you are familiar with all the verses that speak of God as trustworthy, faithful, true, honest, righteous, etc. God cannot lie. So I don’t think this is an option, biblically speaking.

  112. 112
    scordova says:

    Just a question here on this point. I’m not trying to defend Humphrey’s or anything, but I just wonder if this really isn’t a problem for his model if God created the galaxies fully formed.

    One of my physics professors famously said:

    The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists

    James Trefil
    “Five Reasons Why Galaxies Can’t Exist.”
    Dark Side of the Universe

    Trefil suggested the solution is Dark matter, but Dark matter has problems. Trefil was my teacher 9 years ago at George Mason before I went on to grad school elsewhere.

    Is there something about his model that would prevent such a scenario?

    Would the creation of fully formed galaxies be a problem of deception in your view? I don’t think it would be a problem, personally. There is probably something I don’t understand about Humphrey’s model to explain this, but I thought I would ask.

    I believe the Galaxies were created fully formed, or at least created very fast (in a day).

    I don’t think it is a problem of deception that they are fully formed, in fact, the twisting problem (in the OP) suggests that God may have left evidence they were formed recently! They spirals would have been erased perhaps in a matter of a few million years. Granted that’s not 6,000 years, but it may be proof against the Billion year’s story.

    Another proof to partial recent creation of moon and Earth system I provided here:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....eontology/

    Then we have the planetary rings and comets and other things hinting (not proving) the solar system is young.

    God is leaving for us clocks to help us reconstruct history, that is why I reject created light models. God promises nature will testify of Him but also we’d have to dig hard to see it because he actively made the quest difficult:

    “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, it is the glory of kings to search out a matter” Proverbs 25:2.

    Indeed, God is making our quest hard, but not impossible. It is a glorious quest! Praise be!

  113. 113
    scordova says:

    Here are some possible but speculative developments:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....he-aether/

  114. 114
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    tjguy: Central, I think we need to be careful here as God is very clear about who He is and what His character is like. Deception is NOT an option. Allowing something and actually being the agent of the deception are two different things. I’m sure you are familiar with all the verses that speak of God as trustworthy, faithful, true, honest, righteous, etc. God cannot lie. So I don’t think this is an option, biblically speaking.

    I don’t need to be careful of anything. The texts say what they say. Several Biblical texts clearly state that God sends lying spirits, and strong delusions. Whether it comes directly out of his hand, or he “allows it”, whats the difference? In either case, he *sanctions* it. And that’s what matters. What’s the difference if you tell you son a lie, or you allow some jackass to tell your son a lie when you could easy step in an prevent the deception?

    But, I’m not a “Bible believer”, per se, so I don’t have any trouble with the the contradictions.

  115. 115
    tjguy says:

    OK, sorry. I assumed you were a believer the way you were talking. There is a big difference for me between allowing something and doing it yourself. Allowing it does not equal condoning. If God stopped everything that He disagreed with, well, we wouldn’t be able to do much, think much, or say much because much of what we do say and think are corrupted by our selfish motives. I guess you would rather be a robot that always does, thinks, and says what is right? See, God is more interested in people choosing to love and follow Him. Love from robots is meaningless. You can’t have a meaningful relationship with a robot unless you pretend it is living. It’s easy to say that allowing something means that it is sanctioned, but when you think about what that would mean in reality, I think you can see why that would not work. Of course, to understand that, you would need to understand what God means by sin.

    Anyway, thanks for the reply!

  116. 116
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    tjguy if God stopped everything that He disagreed with, well, we wouldn’t be able to do much, think much, or say much because much of what we do say and think are corrupted by our selfish motives.

    However, the OT has Yahweh himself as the instigator sending out a lying spirit. That’s quite a bit different than merely allowing us lowly humans to sin or not.

    The Yahweh said, ‘Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. “Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Yahweh and said, ‘I will entice him.’Then Yahweh said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He [Yahweh] said, ‘You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so. Now therefore, behold, Yahweh has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets;

    So, according to the Bible, Yahweh may not directly lie. He just has others do the deed for him.

  117. 117
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    …. That was 1 Kings 20-23 by the way

  118. 118
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    …. That was 1 Kings 22:20-23 by the way

    Sheesh. Somebody needs to add an editing feature to this site, for lousy typists like me.

  119. 119
    scordova says:

    Central,

    Deceiving spirits were especially directed to those the rejected God and had hard hearts. I don’t think there was an account of a deceiving spirit sent to someone whom God delighted in or one whom God’s grace fell upon (like Paul).

    In the case I 1 Kings 22, God sent a spirit to tell Ahab what Ahab wanted to hear since Ahab didn’t want to hear the truth, but loved lies instead. God gave Ahab what he wanted…

    We see mirages, is that a deceiving spirit? I don’t think so. God gives us the means to figure out how many things work. What we are ordained to learn, we will learn.

    We are learning for one thing, Darwin can’t be right. That was ordained.

  120. 120
    Barb says:

    CentralScrutinizer @116:

    So, according to the Bible, Yahweh may not directly lie. He just has others do the deed for him.

    The Bible is clear: God cannot lie (Nu 23:19; Heb 6:13-18), and he hates “a false tongue.” (Pr 6:16-19). So what does this account tell us?

    In actuality, God, the personification of love, is the foremost example in showing confidence in his intelligent creatures. (1 John 4:8) He evidently gives his spirit sons considerable freedom in carrying out their duties. He at times allows them to express their views on handling a particular assignment and then grants approval for them to follow through accordingly.

    An example of this is the account at 1 Kings 22:20-22, where we read: “Jehovah proceeded to say, ‘Who will fool Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And this one began to say something like this, while that one was saying something like that. Finally a spirit [son of God] came out and stood before Jehovah and said, ‘I myself shall fool him.’ At that Jehovah said to him, ‘By what means?’ To this he said, ‘I shall go forth, and I shall certainly become a deceptive spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ So he said, ‘You will fool him, and, what is more, you will come off the winner. Go out and do that way.’” This spirit or angel then exercised his power upon Ahab’s prophets so that they spoke what was in their hearts, not truth, but what they themselves wanted to say and what Ahab wanted to hear from them. Though forewarned, Ahab preferred to be fooled by their lies and paid for it with his life.—1Ki 22:1-38; 2Ch 18.

    We see here, not deception on God’s part, but the fact that free will is involved. God allows an “operation of error” to go to persons who prefer falsehood “that they may get to believing the lie” rather than the good news about Jesus Christ. (2Th 2:9-12)

  121. 121
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    Sal and Barb, come on, Yahweh didn’t merely “allow” anything in the case of Ahab. He initiated the transaction and commissioned the liar.

    Now, do I think the real “God” lies? I have no idea. It’s possible that the entire universe is a lie of sorts. And that’s just the point of my original post #63.

    Anyway, this isn’t a Biblical theology site, so it’s rather off-topic. However, concern about the integrity of the god of the Bible seems to be a strong undercurrent, so.

  122. 122
    Barb says:

    CentralScrutinizer @ 121: God did not initiate the transaction, nor did He commission the liar.

    He created all intelligent beings–spirit and human alike–with free will. How they use that free will is up to them. Ahab chose to believe a lie, with disastrous results. Ahab had counselors and prophets who told him the truth, but he chose to believe something that was false. That is not God’s doing, it’s Ahab’s.

    The integrity of the God of the Bible is unimpeachable. The integrity of humans, however, is questionable. It might help you understand if you got over this theological bias of yours.

  123. 123
    tjguy says:

    Here is more evidence that mystifies old age cosmologists and requires ad hoc explanations to sustain their ideas:

    Scientists Dodge youthfulness

  124. 124
    tjguy says:

    Sorry. That link did’t work.

    Try this one.

    http://tinyurl.com/lc2pkyn

    It is from crev.info and the article is called “Scientists Dodge Youthfulness of Saturn Moon Titan”

  125. 125
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    Barb: CentralScrutinizer @ 121: God did not initiate the transaction, nor did He commission the liar.

    Of course he did. Did you read the text?

    What you do with it is your business, but the text says what it says.

  126. 126
    scordova says:

    It’s possible that the entire universe is a lie of sorts

    Then you might really like this cosmology website which I visit on occasion to grab a few novel brainstorms:

    http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/

    His main thesis is the universe is deceptive. The reason I was sympathetic to some of the claims is when I was in cosmology class I saw a gravitationally lensed quasar. The astronomers realized they were looking at only 1 quasar when through the telescopes it looked like two! Gravity can alter the path of light so you end up seeing double triple or more of something, and worse it gives deceptive positions of where something is in the sky.

    When a scientist presented this in class, my stomach turned. I thought, then what the heck can we really believe about what we’re seeing!

  127. 127
    scordova says:

    Here you go CentralScrutinizer, a discussion you helped inspire:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....deceptive/

  128. 128
    Axel says:

    CentralScrutinizer, spiritual truths of any notable significance are so subtle, abstruse and mysterious, that the bible, far from being a kind of straightforward, technical manual, as for a car or a domestic appliance, above all challenges us to WANT to understand the spiritual truths being propounded, and proceeds by indirections.

    Hence, for example, Jesus’ words to the effect that we shall have no life in us if we do not eat his body and drink his blood, which elicited the response by potential partisans of scientism among the crowd, that it was intolerable talk; and so, they ceased to follow him. Those that remained had seen enough not to dismiss Jesus on the basis of their own incomprehension of particular teachings of his, in the light of what they had seen and did know about him.

    So, the fact that the bible ostensibly states that God ‘initiated the transaction and commissioned a liar’ by no means refutes the point made by Barb, namely, that it is merely a literary device favoured by the inspired writers of the scriptures. I rather like it as a literary device, personally.

  129. 129
    Axel says:

    Perhaps a better illustration, because less outlandish in the matter it addresses, are his words:

    ‘I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die.’

    1) Real life follows resurrection;
    2) Temporary death of body, but life of the spirit uninterrupted by it;
    3) life in Christ and belief in him (at whatever level, incidentally, as we know from elsewhere in scripture) are inseparable. Lip service – failure.
    4) Permanence of the life of the spirit from its own perspective, viz without express reference to the body. The spirit has precedence in terms of reality, even in relation to the glorified body.

    God could have expressed it as straightforwardly as that, but he chose, instead, to challenge his listeners to want to understand his words, and meditate on their meaning. Even wanting to understand them leads to a gain in understanding of his teachings. Docility to the Holy Spirit, not an IQ or comprehension test.

    Of course, there are also simple, explicit teachings, to be observed, such as the Decalogue, and the primacy of mercy over legal demands, which are of prime importance with proximate regard to our actions, not just with proximate regard to our understanding.

  130. 130
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    Axel, there may be merit to what you say or not. I don’t know, but I’m not a very big fan of abstract “intuitions” regarding texts that are quite obvious in their denotative meaning.

    At any rate, my intent was not to cast stones at anyone’s theology or opinion or feelings or whatever. Just pointing out the Bible texts taken together are not consistent. If people have to resort to intuitive “truths” to make sense of what is, on the face, contradictory, that is fine by me, and none of my business.

Leave a Reply