Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why I am not a young Earth creationist (YEC)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From O’Leary: Recently, I promised I’d say a bit about that, and a bit is all I am going to say.

It is much more difficult to explain why you are not something than why you are something.

Usually, a person is not something because of an infinite array of counterfactuals. But what the person is,  is factuals, which are often quite easy to explain. (= I know that town because I grew up there. I got a scholarship for the X program, not another one. I moved to the city to find a job. I went to the Billy Graham Crusade. Etc.)

So, a little background: I grew up in communities where most people held contradictory views of the history of life. That is, they believed in Adam and Eve and also in The Caveman.

If this bifurcation seems counterintuitive, consider that a human being can easily espouse contradictory views on the same subject, so long as the views are not a source of conflict in himself or his community, such that he is forced to choose between them. And they weren’t, with us.

In public schools in the 1960s, we memorized passages from the Bible and sang hymns. The mainline denomination my cradle Catholic parents had joined when I was a small child had no problem with Darwinian evolution, even for the origin of life, that I ever heard of. But we still learned about Adam and Eve from Sunday School teachers.

One town in particular was a respectable working class community where intellectuals were rare. One resident was something of a mystery to us because he taught at the university. Who knows, he might have raised a question, but no one else did. Like most Canadians, we believed in “peace, order, and good government”, and simply did not raise issues where the public welfare was not at stake. Putting Adam and Eve to a vote against The Caveman would have seemed an utterly needless contention.

It makes for a much less dynamic society than the U.S., compensated for by a much lower rate of crime and violence.

I only had occasion to become aware of YEC in the 2000’s, while indexing books written by authors of that persuasion for a religious publishing house. Now, an indexer skim reads (to avoid starvation) but I gathered that these authors thought the authority of Scripture as divine revelation was the principle issue at stake. If the first few verses of Genesis were not to be understood literally, the whole edifice would fall apart.

Later, I learned more about YEC. For example, the role of water engineer Henry Morris in creating its theoretical basis after World War II. Indeed, I ended up writing several chapters of By Design or by Chance? on young Earth creationism. These chapters were aimed at people who, like me, were neither foes nor fans, but wanted to know why people they respected were concerned enough to espouse it. At any rate, what was clear to me was that the need for YEC, quite apart from evidence for it, depends on taking a specific view about how Scripture is to be read, a view I didn’t happen to take.

The evidence may be good; I am no judge of that. I use NASA’s dating because it is widely accepted and comprehensible. I can (and have) written a “stasis” chart, listing life forms I have heard about that are unchanged over vast periods of time and through many ecological developments. The chart uses NASA’s dating. But many science-based estimates of Earth’s age have been offered over the decades. And for all I know, NASA will one day announce that Earth is really only 100 million years old or maybe 10 billion, and I must then recalibrate it all, based on what they say afterward.

By now, you may get at least some sense of why ID supporters generally don’t fight among ourselves about the matter. Why bother? We are united by the perception that Darwinism and its offspring are just one of many current melds between science and crackpot metaphysics (one could add multiverses, “evolutionary” psychology, and “the mind is just the brain buzzing” neuroscience to the list). Darwinism happens to be the meld that we, as a community, know the most about.

For example, if you wanted to know more about what’s wrong with “the mind is just the brain buzzing” neuroscience, you would do better to talk to “mindfulness” neuroscientists than us. There is overlap, of course. I myself am co-author of The Spiritual Brain. But they are a whole separate group engaged with that issue.

Incidentally, it certainly doesn’t help Darwinism’s reputation to be infested by atheist trolls who broadcast their anti-religious opinions in foul language, then hypocritically obsess about other people’s religious commitments, generally uglifying public debate.

One can’t help but ask, what kind of “science” attracts such people? A range of reasonable answers to that question is quite short. And it does not make Darwinism sound like a science so much as a metaphysic for trolls.

Of course not everyone who believes in Darwinism is by any means a troll. But if you have condemned yourself to being a troll, please do be a Darwinist. Rant and curse, and try to get books suppressed—and let the rest of us get on trying to understand the true history of evolution in relation to the creation and flow of information, of which Darwin did not dream.

Now, I slowly made my way back to the Catholic Church, and am a Catholic in communion with the Church. Traditional Catholics have a very high view of Scripture, as will be evident to anyone who pays attention at Mass.

But we tend to interpret Scripture on many levels (literal, mystical, allegorical, anagogical, for example, just to start).

The Church takes no official position on the age of Earth. Its position on evolution generally has been grossly misrepresented, whether intentionally or from ignorance or from—I suspect this is most common—the deception of Catholic Darwinist academics. See, for example Douglas Futuyma whose simply wrong comments may well stem from the third cause.

So, yes, a Catholic can be a YEC in good faith, and some are. Most are not. The Catholic approach to Scripture does not drive us in the direction of making a formal decision in such matters.

(Believe you me: When the Church thinks she must make a formal, official decision, via an Encyclical—a letter addressed to all Catholics—she just does, and damn the torpedoes.)

So there it is. That is why I am not a YEC, and also don’t have a problem with people who are.

Comments
What about the assumption that nothing can affect light while traveling across the galaxy (aether wind, gravitational fields, etc)? What about the assumption that c remains a constant throughout the entire ly? I'm not saying that it's not (since it travels in waves I expect it to be constant (and for other reasons), BUT testing it in our solar system by sending it to the moon and back (and other tests we have made) is not the same thing as observing it in open space for a whole light year) What about the assumption regarding a moving right triangle (movement of planets/stars plus the metric expansion of space therefore the continual change of starting/ending points with respect to their location in the galaxy) won't possibly offset the expected distances traveled? I make no assertion here because I am not YEC.. I'm just asking questions off the top of my head...maybe there is something simple that I am overlooking regarding this right triangle.Breckmin
August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
Breckmin @ 81
before I respond to CLAVDIS, keiths and Lars-Erik Molin I wanted to ask if any of you accept T.E? (theistic evolution)
No, I don't. I think it adds more problems than it solve.
Lars-Erik Molin @58 my response was in regards to your question “Why make it complicated?” I think it clearly IS far more complicated than ANY of our assumptions and that is why I believe it is unknowable.
The first assumptions I did was that the speed of light at any given moment was the same at different locations. In this case those locations was cosmological pretty near each other (less than one lightyear) so in here it is of no interest what happens with that assumption at the opposite ends of the universe, if that makes it easier to accept. One light year is the distance light goes with today's value of c, no matter if it earlier was different. The second assumption was that the speed of light was known for year 1987 during the period from when the explosion was seen to the illumination of the ring was seen.Lars-Erik Molin
August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
I backed up and erased the "V" and then C&P ed it later at the end.. so I know it's CLAVDIVS sorry..Breckmin
July 27, 2013
July
07
Jul
27
27
2013
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
before I respond to CLAVDIS, keiths and Lars-Erik Molin I wanted to ask if any of you accept T.E? (theistic evolution) Lars-Erik Molin @58 my response was in regards to your question "Why make it complicated?" I think it clearly IS far more complicated than ANY of our assumptions and that is why I believe it is unknowable. I am currently neither YEC nor OEC...I am actually what I like to call AAOTEC (agnostical age of the earth creationist - and this goes back to the 80's where I used to use the adjective "agnostical" and many people would try to tell me it wasn't a word and I would always argue that it "would be" someday..and finally, in the 21 Century, (thanks to the internet) it is an acceptable adj.) There are many things that bother me about the link @70 and the post @71 that I can not be blind to (assumptions). I was hoping that someone who is YEC would respond to them so that I don't have to play the devil's advocate here and argue in defense of YEC. But something isn't right here regarding the over confidence and denial of basic assumptions.. so before I go through these I would like to know if either CLAVDIS, keiths or Lars-Erik Molin are sympathetic to T.E.?Breckmin
July 27, 2013
July
07
Jul
27
27
2013
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Clavdivs @ 78 In Setterfields theory c is just one of more 'constants' that is affected of the increase (or variation) of the Zero Point Energy. It is rather complicated and there are a lot of documents to read at his site setterfield.org. There is a document Research Papers/'Behavior of the Zero Point Energy and Atomic Constants' that describes this.
You should also note that decay time of the various radioactive elements produced by the explosion was carefully measured. Due to the slow-motion effect, as described by Walt Brown, we would expect this radioactive decay to appear much slower than the same elements decaying now on earth. However, the decay occurred at the same apparent rate in the supernova remnants as it does now on earth.
Since we know radioactive decay could not have occurred at much faster rates in the past than it does now (otherwise all life on earth would have been cooked) then we have rock-solid evidence that the speed of light has not changed significantly since the time of the SN1987A explosion, because of the absence of any slow-motion effect.
Setterfield discuss these things in the document Research Papers/Behavior of the Zero Point Energy and Atomic Constants/Appendix 2: Radiant Energy Emission In (i). Energy density of radiation he describes why the radiation intensities remain unchanged for a varying ZPE. In (iv). Supernova 1987 A he describes how the shorter half-life and shorter transit times are lengthened by the slow-down in c so they appear to run at the same rate as these events do today. There is also some questions answered under 'Discussion' about these things.Lars-Erik Molin
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Test (can't comment on another thread - just wondering ...)CLAVDIVS
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
Lars-Erik Molin @ 77
If the speed of light was higher at the time for the explosion the observation of SN1987A in year 1987 would actually be seen in slow-motion. If the ray from the center to the ring had been visible between the center and the ring we should have seen it moving with todays speed of light independent of the value of c when it actually happened.
Sorry Lars-Erik I don't understand what you're saying here. If you want to propose a specific speed of light that you think applied at the time of the explosion, then I will do a calculation to see if that changes things. You will find it doesn't. You should also note that decay time of the various radioactive elements produced by the explosion was carefully measured. Due to the slow-motion effect, as described by Walt Brown, we would expect this radioactive decay to appear much slower than the same elements decaying now on earth. However, the decay occurred at the same apparent rate in the supernova remnants as it does now on earth. Since we know radioactive decay could not have occurred at much faster rates in the past than it does now (otherwise all life on earth would have been cooked) then we have rock-solid evidence that the speed of light has not changed significantly since the time of the SN1987A explosion, because of the absence of any slow-motion effect.CLAVDIVS
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Clavdivs @ 74
The slow-motion effect is one reason; SN1987A is another.
How about to combine them? If the speed of light was higher at the time for the explosion the observation of SN1987A in year 1987 would actually be seen in slow-motion. If the ray from the center to the ring had been visible between the center and the ring we should have seen it moving with todays speed of light independent of the value of c when it actually happened. Have you any comment to my @58?Lars-Erik Molin
July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Lars-Erik Molin @ 75 Hi Lars-Erik: To create a quote just use tags like this - don't bother with the cite thing, and change the curly brackets to angle brackets: {blockquote}Here is the quote{/blockquote} Regarding the slow-motion effect, the following is from creationist Walt Brown's book In The Beginning:
A Critical Test. If the speed of light has decreased a millionfold, we should observe events in outer space in extreme slow motion. Here is why. Imagine a time in the distant past when the speed of light was a million times faster than it is today. On a hypothetical planet, billions of light-years from Earth, a light started flashing toward Earth every second. Each flash then began a very long trip to Earth. Because the speed of light was a million times greater than it is today, those initial flashes were spaced a million times farther apart than they would have been at today’s slower speed of light. Now, thousands of years later, imagine that throughout the universe, the speed of light has slowed to today’s speed. The first of those light flashes—strung out like beads sliding down a long string—are approaching Earth. The large distances separating adjacent flashes have remained constant during those thousands of years, so the moving flashes slowed in unison. Because the first flashes to strike Earth are spaced so far apart, they will strike Earth every million seconds. We would see past events on that distant planet (the flashing of a light) in slow motion. If the speed of light has been decreasing since the creation, then the farther out in space we look, the more extreme this slow motion becomes. About half the stars in our galaxy are binary; that is, each has a companion star. Both stars are in a tight orbit around their common center of mass. If the speed of light is decreasing, the “slow-motion effect,” should show the orbital periods of binaries decreasing with time and increasing with distance from earth.
Bottom line: Even leading YECs think Setterfield's idea doesn't work. And it really doesn't. The slow-motion effect is one reason; SN1987A is another. And yet this already-falsified-by-the-data concept keeps popping up. There must be some people out there who simply do not give two hoots about handling facts and evidence with care and respect for the truth.CLAVDIVS
July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Clavdivs @ 74 <blockquote cite=" And unfortunately for Setterfields model, it entails that certain observations should be made – e.g. a slow-motion effect for galactic rotation at greater distances – which are not in fact observed. This is the “controversy” alluded to by answersingenesis.com that is not likely to be resolved any time soon – namely, Setterfield’s model has already been falsified by the data and appears to be beyond hope of rescue. Interesting. Have you any links about it? Can you be more specific about the slow-motion and what data you mean that falsificates Setterfield? That Jason Lisle does not support Setterfield is well known. Before he went to ICR he worked for Answeringenesis and he has with his own ASC-theory made an attempt to solve the starlight problem.Lars-Erik Molin
July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
Lars-Erik Molin @ 73
Are you aware of that Setterfields theory says that a number of ‘constants’ are depending on the strenght of the Zero Point Energy?
In July 2013 answersingenesis.com acknowledged that:
The Setterfield hypothesis remains a very controversial proposition among creationists ... A final decision on this topic will not be soon in coming.
In reality, any model that proposes changing rates of light speed or radioactive decay can be checked against actual observations. And unfortunately for Setterfields model, it entails that certain observations should be made - e.g. a slow-motion effect for galactic rotation at greater distances - which are not in fact observed. This is the "controversy" alluded to by answersingenesis.com that is not likely to be resolved any time soon - namely, Setterfield's model has already been falsified by the data and appears to be beyond hope of rescue. On this very thread scordova stated @ 32:
Jason Lisle, a physicist, the current head of the ICR said he’s not convinced any YEC has solved the distant starlight problem.
Very true.CLAVDIVS
July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
Clavdivs @ 71 Are you aware of that Setterfields theory says that a number of 'constants' are depending on the strenght of the Zero Point Energy? It explains that although the radioactive decay rate was higher the radiation intensity remained invariable and that the earth was not toasted. If the RATE group had read these papers they would have no need for a miracle... The theory has developed a lot since the eighties and there have been a lot of critics of the earlier versions. I have not seen much of critics of the actual version.Lars-Erik Molin
July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Breckmin @66 What in the first part of @58 is problematic? Do you mean that the speed of light could have had different value for different locations at a given time? The difference in location was R (or max 1,41*R) at any given time point during the journey of the two light beams. I suppose we all agree on that R is 0.66 ly. That means that the difference in location is cosmic very small and I also do not know of any theory that postulates different speed of light for different locations.Lars-Erik Molin
July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Breckmin @ 67
What specifically is this solid evidence that “the rates are (and have been) constant or very nearly constant?”
1. The Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor discovered in 1972, that underwent fission about 1.8 billion years ago. According to creationist physicist Eugene Chaffin "...the Oklo data do provide a constraint on the difference in the half-life at the time of the Oklo reactions and the present. Half-life differences of more than one order of magnitude would seem to be ruled out..." (Actually, half-life differences of more than a couple of percent are ruled out) 2. Observations of radioactive decay in supernova remnants like (yes) SN1987A, SN1991T and many others, hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of light years away show no significant change in radioactive decay rates over huge timescales. 3. If radioactive decay occurred fast enough to fit a YEC timescale, the earth would have been toasted by the massive heat generated. This problem was acknowledged by the creationist RATE study group who had no solution other than miracles. 4. The structure and lifecycle of stars is based on physical parameters related to radioactive decay. If radioactive decay rates were different, stars would form and appear differently. Accordingly, stars further away, and hence older, would appear to have a different structure. But they don't. 5. Ages measured by radioactive decay line up with ages of objects of a known age and with many other periodic phenomena that allow age calculations such as tree rings, ice layers and sedimentary layers. Some ice layers and sediment layers show rhythmic variations that line up independently with astrophysical phenomena like the earth's obliquity (axial tilt ~40,000 year cycle) and equinoctal precession (~26,000 year cycle) allowing us to confirm that each layer actually represents a true year (orbit of the earth around the sun). All these multiple independent lines of evidence allow us to conclude that radioactive decay rates have remained constant for at least several hundred thousand years, and that ages determined using such methods are reliable within that timeframe, and thus YEC is not correct.CLAVDIVS
July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
Breckmin, Google is your friend. Here's a start.keiths
July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
Breckmin @ 66
If the galaxy is expanding by both the movement of stars as well as the metric expansion of space (which means the solar system/earth is either moving toward or away from the SN) then something tells me that a simple right triangle to compute the number of ly(s)is too simplistic. (a red flag should be up).
Breckmin, the red flag is always up for astronomers. They are constantly looking for ways to test the speed of light and the expansion of space at different distances and times. The literature is full of such stuff. And what we've found is that c and the rate of expansion are such that they do not affect the calculation of how long ago SN1987A occurred. Perhaps you don't realise it, but if the speed of light or the rate of expansion had changed on the timescales proposed by YECs, we would be able to see it through measurements of periodic phenomena (like galactic spin) and red-shift. But we don't see it. Instead, we see that the speed of light has remained fairly constant for billions of years (perhaps slightly different way back near the big bang billions of years ago, but we're not sure) and we see the rate of expansion only noticeably affects calculations at distances of tens of millions of light years.CLAVDIVS
July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
Breckmin @ 64
I only skimmed your discussion (I was lazy) but do any of your calculations for distance regarding these two light rays include an expanding universe over the course of these light years traveled? (or do they not need to take this into consideration because of the angle or how the ring is being used?)
1. The calculations I made on this thread were about JGuy's "changing light speed" idea (for which there is no evidence), simply to show it does not make any difference to age of supernova 1987A. As such those calculations do not account for an expanding universe. 2. Are you are suggesting maybe the supernova started off close to earth, and via the universe's expansion is now far away, and thus light from the explosion didn't have to travel so far and therefore the light travel time fits within the YEC timeframe? If so, this doesn't work for a number of reasons, such as red-shift - if the supernova was moving away from us at high speed the light would appear red-shifted, but it is not. 3. Astronomers have made very detailed measurements of the universe's expansion, and the effect is negligible for a relatively "right next door" object like SN1987A. Expansion only comes into calculations for things tens of millions of light years away or more. In simple terms, the expansion of the universe doesn't solve the starlight problem for YECs.CLAVDIVS
July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT
keiths @ 64 What specifically is this solid evidence that "the rates are (and have been) constant or very nearly constant?"Breckmin
July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
@64 If the galaxy is expanding by both the movement of stars as well as the metric expansion of space (which means the solar system/earth is either moving toward or away from the SN) then something tells me that a simple right triangle to compute the number of ly(s)is too simplistic. (a red flag should be up). Not withstanding the mind wandering about all sorts of anisotropy (does aether wind even exist and can it affect such light? what about other anisotropy possibilities in space?) I agree with Lars-Erik Molin's last sentence in post 58 but I disagree with the first part of 58 and suspect that it is even far more complicated then we are aware of.Breckmin
July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
Breckmin,
...what do you think of the idea that the “best science” would not be one that would assume uniformity over the last 10,000 years…let alone millions of years (or even 4 billion years)…Why do you think the best science makes these assumption regarding the radioactive decay of isotopes … and how is this not in any way a bias?
It isn't an assumption. There is solid evidence that the rates are (and have been) constant or very nearly constant. If there has been any variation at all, it's far too small to support YEC.keiths
July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
@CLAVDIVS and @JGuy I only skimmed your discussion (I was lazy) but do any of your calculations for distance regarding these two light rays include an expanding universe over the course of these light years traveled? (or do they not need to take this into consideration because of the angle or how the ring is being used?) I've always thought that a much denser galaxy would throw everything off (regardless if the speed of light was a hundred times faster).Breckmin
July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
keiths @ 62 He's 23 (been to nuke school in the Navy)and has taken biology in College... so he's aware of the alleged 4.54 billion claim. Far be it for me to end up on a red herring defending YEC here (my son would probably ask a similar question, btw) - but what do you think of the idea that the "best science" would not be one that would assume uniformity over the last 10,000 years...let alone millions of years (or even 4 billion years)...Why do you think the best science makes these assumption regarding the radioactive decay of isotopes ... and how is this not in any way a bias?Breckmin
July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Awww, Breckmin... Don't do that to your son! Let him know that our best science gives an age of 4.54 billion years, plus or minus less than a percent.keiths
July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT
I told my son the other day that the earth is probably somewhere between 6,000 and a few million but that I am completely agnostic on the age of the earth. I doubt 4 or 5 billion... but whatever the age it really doesn't change my theology or my scientific investigations. It is sort of like eschatology and whether there is going to be a Millennium or not. It doesn't seem that important.Breckmin
July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
Robert Byers @33 I don't want to derail this thread any more that I already have on the complexity of biblical inerracy. You say that evangelical Christians would "take me on" regarding errors in the scriptures...I believe this is where the church needs intellectual reformation (in this information age) so point the way (where I can expose identifiable errors we see in textual criticism) and I would be happy to look at the actual textual evidence for these identifiable errors in the fragments/copies we have currently. I doubt even Dan Wallace holds to a verbal inspiration of the Autographa and I'm not certain how any practical textual critic could. I'm not certain what you mean by "the Bible is always clear on dates." Genealogies can have generational gaps (grand father or even great grand father. We are not even certain when Jesus was born (7 BC? 4 BC? 3 BC?) and there is much debate regarding when specific prophets wrote specific books. "The Author was God." In a sense yes (divine ordination + God-Breathed)in a practical sense - we can not be so over simplistic as to deny what prophetic or apostolic authorship actually means. We must make a distinction between grapha (scripture) and logos (the Word). To fail to make this distinction is extremely over simplistic and really less than 500 years old. I believe in Adam and Noah and agree with their approximate dates (although I am not certain how long Adam lived in the garden before he ate the fruit or whether he aged or his years were even counted/included in the 930 years. The O.T. is rarely hyper technically specific on details. But back to the first point, please point me to a forum where evangelicals you know "take you on" on regarding identifiable errors in the ancient manuscripts. The truth of the uniformity in manuscript errors (on minor non essential details) should not be hidden.Breckmin
July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
This is for any YEC. I've forgotten the rebuttal for naturally occurring Uranium particularly U-238 and the alleged half-life of 4.468 billion years. I have a brief memory of how it is fielded so to speak but always looking for more clarity in the argument.Breckmin
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
Why make it complicated? At the explosion the first light ray started its journey direct to us and at the same moment an other light ray took the way perpendicular out to the ring (with the radius R). When that second ray reached the ring it went on directed to us. From that moment to the end of the journey the second ray always was the distance R behind the first ray. Forget about the times and velocities and only look at the distance R. The two rays started at the same moment and moved along with the same velocity. That velocity could have been todays value of c or may have been slowing down from same very high value. The first ray reached us in year 1987 and the second ray reach us 0.66 years later. In year 1987 the velocity was c as today and R could be calculated to 0.66 ly. Note that a ly is the distance a light ray reaches with todays value of c. With the value R the distance to SN1987 could be calculated to 168000 ly. That does not mean that the explosion took place 168000 years ago. It could have happened much later if the value of c have been higher. The conclusion is that this observation of SN1987A tells nothing about the velocities or times involved and it can not be used to show anything about the value of c in older days.Lars-Erik Molin
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Clavdivs, Maybe no calculus is needed after all. Assumng 100c at the start. Seems at a cursory view that if SN1987 were only then about 1679 LY away, then it would work. The ring would have to be much smaller of course (do the trig to figure it out). This would account for the 0.67 years observed on earth. Almost any distance should work. You'd simply have to resolve for an initial velocity and decay curve that makes a working solution. Problem Solved.JGuy
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
Clavdivs, I think I know now why the math didn't work. When you treated the light paths separately, they ended up being treated as constant velocity problems (e.g. as if the light were all moving at a constant 50.5c), for the duration. I suspect the math required would be more complex than this. It might require calculus to model it. Maybe, not, I am not thinking to hard about it right now.JGuy
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Clavdivs @ 51
Regarding the “obvious problem” I think you may have neglected that the lagging light is travelling sideways relative to the earth for the initial part of its journey, giving the leading light a small head start.
That it was traveling sideways makes no resolution to the problem. I hope you realize that. Afterall, this is WHY the light lags. This is WHERE the light then traveled for 0.67 years at super-light-speeds. I didn't neglect it per se, I simply disregarded it because it was trivial. The "little bit" of a lead, the radius of the ring as you calculated, was 36.6 light years of distance! Also, recall you calculated it's distance as ~9 million light years away from earth... that's why the ring needed to be 36LY large (or vice versa).
And I don’t believe your idea works that the time delta to traverse the ring at the supernova might be different from the time delta measured at the earth. This is because we have assumed light speed = 100c at the time of the explosion, so if you think it took more or less time to traverse the ring than 0.66 years what you’re really saying is the ring must be either larger or smaller, which yet again means the ring must be further away/closer to the earth to keep the angular size the same. Even if you’re correct about the time delta this doesn’t solve the age problem for YEC.
In the model, the light actually did travel for 0.67 years to the ring. But the distance it covered was 36LY (as you calculated). It would lag the leading light by approximately that much always. I realize you started with the assumption that the T1 & T2 differed by 0.67 years. And this is why the math and conclusion are paradoxical. Anywa, revisit my post #41 to understand why for light to reach the ring in 0.67 years, will not translate to 0.67 years on earth. ...JGuy
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply