A Problem for the Creationists with a Limited Timetable: Supernova Starlight

  • Thread starter Thread starter BibleReader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
BibleReader:
Many creationists maintain that the world is only a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years old.

This assumption creates a problem for those creationists.

Though light travels fast – 186,300 miles per second – the Universe is so vast that starlight is slow compared to its size. It takes light, for instance, about 100,000 years to travel from one edge of our galaxy to the other – just our own galaxy.

…
Click to expand...
Some things to think about:
  1. Our notion of size of the universe is premised on whether redshifts actually measure distance. Some scientists (i.e., Halton Arp) question this. Another measure is based on the assumption that all stars are on average the sme everywhere in the universe.
  2. Another assumption is that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the universe.
  3. Another assumption is that the speed of light has always been the same.
  4. What if the universe is relativistic-like, but rotating (say geocentric).The strong principle would indicate that huge gravitational fields would have to exist where the stars are moving > speed of light (relative to a fixed earth- keep in mind that in this scenario no object exceeds its own future light cone, there forr no local violation of light speed ) . Huge gravitational fields require the speed of light to be increased in where they exist.
“Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O’ [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 108 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 x 108 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c *. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 108 m/sec under these conditions.” (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)

This buttresses it:

“In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature or rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light).” (Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1961, p. 85).

Just some points to ponder.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com*
 
What we see in our telescopes is a sea of “local groups” of galaxies. It still seems *relatively * safe to assume a pretty standard distribution of normalcy throughout the Universe.

In part, I picked 1987A as the Radical Literalist’s Dilemma because, while 1987A is far enough away to be decisively problematic to the Bible Literalist, it is close enough, in Relativistic terms, so that there appears to be no grounds for thinking that Relativistic Dynamics will generate any significantly bizarre results between “here” and “there.”
 
40.png
BibleReader:
What we see in our telescopes is a sea of “local groups” of galaxies. It still seems *relatively *safe to assume a pretty standard distribution of normalcy throughout the Universe.

In part, I picked 1987A as the Radical Literalist’s Dilemma because, while 1987A is far enough away to be decisively problematic to the Bible Literalist, it is close enough, in Relativistic terms, so that there appears to be no grounds for thinking that Relativistic Dynamics will generate any significantly bizarre results between “here” and “there.”
Click to expand...
I said considering a fixed earth and rotating univerrse, so if it is in fact 2 million light years away, and travelling at 15 degrees per hour, it is in fact exceeding the speed of light relatve to the fixed earth (4.6 billion times the speed of light). Relativistic effects would be occuring if GR is in fact correct.

Of course no local violations of light speed would be occuring, because no object would exceed its own future light cone. This is one feature of a rotating universe.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Why can we not, as Christians, simply say,“We’ve no thoroughly clear idea HOW He did it, ie., by what mechanism, or how LONG He took in the doing of it, but it’s clear that HE did it.”?
 
40.png
trth_skr:
I said considering a fixed earth and rotating univerrse, so if it is in fact 2 million light years away, and travelling at 15 degrees per hour, it is in fact exceeding the speed of light relatve to the fixed earth (4.6 billion times the speed of light). Relativistic effects would be occuring if GR is in fact correct.

Of course no local violations of light speed would be occuring, because no object would exceed its own future light cone. This is one feature of a rotating universe.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
Hi, Mark. You didn’t pay attention: 1987A is only 150,000 light years distant. Here are my precise words…

**In 1987, astronomers saw a vast stellar explosion in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy orbiting ours, about 150,000 light years away.

That means that the starlight from the Large Magellanic Cloud is about 150,000 years old. Creationists with a limited timetable deny this – they say that the starlight we are looking at is fake, that we are still only looking at the fake starlight God created in-place in the sky a few thousand years ago, and that the real starlight won’t reach our eyes for, say, 145,000 years.

The problem with saying that, in the case of the 1987 supernova, is that that means that the star we now call “Supernova 1987A”…

**http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020331.html

**…never really existed.

Since the light of the star’s self-destruction was buried in the alleged stream of fake starlight, the pre-explosion fake light stream never showed a star that ever existed, since behind the pre-explosion fake starlight stream was the explosion fake starlight stream.

Voila: According to those creationists, God created a “lie in the sky.”**
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Why can we not, as Christians, simply say,“We’ve no thoroughly clear idea HOW He did it, ie., by what mechanism, or how LONG He took in the doing of it, but it’s clear that HE did it.”?
Click to expand...
That’s why I don’t spend too much time in these sorts of threads. I do have my opinion on it, but it’s not an important enough topic to argue over when there are people on the boards trying to say that we are saved by faith alone and things like that. However the world started, we know how it will end, and that’s all that matters when it comes down to it.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Hi, Mark. You didn’t pay attention: 1987A is only 150,000 light years distant. Here are my precise words…

In 1987, astronomers saw a vast stellar explosion in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy orbiting ours, about 150,000 light years away.
That means that the starlight from the Large Magellanic Cloud is about 150,000 years old. Creationists with a limited timetable deny this – they say that the starlight we are looking at is fake, that we are still only looking at the fake starlight God created in-place in the sky a few thousand years ago, and that the real starlight won’t reach our eyes for, say, 145,000 years.

The problem with saying that, in the case of the 1987 supernova, is that that means that the star we now call “Supernova 1987A”…

****http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020331.html

…never really existed.
Since the light of the star’s self-destruction was buried in the alleged stream of fake starlight, the pre-explosion fake light stream never showed a star that ever existed, since behind the pre-explosion fake starlight stream was the explosion fake starlight stream.

Voila: According to those creationists, God created a "lie in the sky."
Click to expand...
My mistake. In that case, the supernova would only be moving at 344 million times the speed of light relative to a fixed earth (i.e., geocentric), but this is still relativistic.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Jack Chick is wrong, twice.

His first argument from the rate of erosion ignores processes that counteract erosion. Volcanos can move large amounts of rock and ash from deep in the earth onto the surface. For example the Deccan Traps contain about 12,275 cubic miles of lava deposited on the surface. Over twelve thousand cubic miles of rock takes a lot of eroding. Continental drift can make new land, as it is doing in Iceland and can raise mountains as with the Himalayas. Since his calculation does not allow for these countervailing processes, his calculations are useless for the real world.

As for his second argument, about Moon Dust, AiG say that this is one of the Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:
For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either).
Click to expand...
Since his initial figure for the rate of dust falling onto the moon is incorrect, the result of Chick’s calculation is useless and cannot be used to prove anything.

rossum
 
40.png
buffalo:
Assumption - speed of light has always been the same.
Click to expand...
Wrong, this is not an assumption. The constancy of the speed of light over time is an experimentally verified fact.

Scientists can check that the speed of light has been constant over time by observing distant astronomical objects. Observations show that the speed of light has been constant to within very small error bounds for a lot longer than the 6000 or so years suggested by YEC proponents. See here (section A6) for a more detailed explanation of the methods used and further references.

Please remember that scientists do not like making assumptions since any assumption is a weakness in their theory. If there is any way to check an assumption by experiment then scientists will do it. In this case they have done so, so it is not an assumption any more.

Even AiG have their doubts about challenging the constancy of the speed of light, see here

rossum
 
40.png
rossum:
Wrong, this is not an assumption. The constancy of the speed of light over time is an experimentally verified fact.

Scientists can check that the speed of light has been constant over time by observing distant astronomical objects. Observations show that the speed of light has been constant to within very small error bounds for a lot longer than the 6000 or so years suggested by YEC proponents. See here (section A6) for a more detailed explanation of the methods used and further references.

Please remember that scientists do not like making assumptions since any assumption is a weakness in their theory. If there is any way to check an assumption by experiment then scientists will do it. In this case they have done so, so it is not an assumption any more.

Even AiG have their doubts about challenging the constancy of the speed of light, see here

rossum
Click to expand...
Wrong! - This could be a big assumption -
Scientists claim light is slowing down
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Adam is a hypothetical being, but ASIDE from that problem…
Click to expand...
FYI - While Catholics are free to differ on the nature of creation, the reality of Adam and Eve as our progenitors is a doctrine of the faith.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Wrong! - This could be a big assumption -
Scientists claim light is slowing down
Click to expand...
To quote from the article:
Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist with the Australian Centre for Astro-biology at Sydney’s Macquarie University, put forward his thesis based on measurements of light travelling billions of years from giant stellar objects called quasars.

The measurements, taken by an astronomer at the University of New South Wales, found that a 12 billion-year-old stream of light had properties which appeared to violate accepted laws of physics.

Davies said the only possible explanation for the unusual data was that the speed of light had been faster six to 10 billion years ago than its current speed of around 300,000 kilometers-per-second.
Click to expand...
I am aware that there is some evidence changes in the speed of light on the billion year timescale. In my post I was talking about the speed of light less than a million years ago. As I said
Observations show that the speed of light has been constant to within very small error bounds for a lot longer than the 6000 or so years suggested by YEC proponents.
Click to expand...
The speed of light has changed, but not by much, and certainly not by enough to allow distant objects like supernova 1987A to be seen within the 6000 year timescale allowed by the YEC interpretation of the Bible.

Parenthetically I am glad to see that you accept your quoted site’s age of the universe in excess of 10 billion years.

rossum
 
…you all are so smart that we should send you up in the next space shuttle.
 
Well, lets settle this once & for all…Somebody call Captain Picard…
 
40.png
BibleReader:
…If one looks in the southern quadrant on a clear night and looks a few degrees below Orion’s Belt, he or she will see a fuzzy white smudge. That smudge is the Andromeda Galaxy, which is “2 million light years away.” That means that what we are looking at is the light from Andomeda Galaxy which began the trip from where Andomeda was 2 million years ago (it isn’t even located there today) to where we are today.

When you look at Andromeda, you are looking at 2 million year old light.
Click to expand...
The amateur astronomer in me (well look at my user name, eh! 😛 ) has to make a correction here…

The “fuzzy smudge” just below Orion’s belt (tough to see right now, it’s a winter-spring view) is not the Andromeda Galaxy. It is the Great Orion Nebula (Messier 42). It’s a great binocular view, as well as nice to look at in a modest telescope.

The Andromeda Galaxy (Messier 31) is, conveniently in the constelation of Andromeda. I usually find it by looking for the Great Square of Pegasus at this time of year in the eastern sky and work my way to the left and use some “guide” stars to help me find it (excellent binoucular view, only visible to the naked eye in the darkest of locations). Another neat feature of the galaxy is how large it is. Imagine the width of the full moon. Now multiply that by 5. That’s how wide the Andromeda galaxy is to us! Pretty cool, huh! Here is a link to help you find the galaxy with your binoculars on your own: physics.ucla.edu/~huffman/m31.html

What you will see in binoculars is indeed a fuzzy smudge, which is the bright center of the galaxy. The outside edges are too dim to see; the photos of it you see are time exposures that allow the full galaxy to show. Enjoy…

It always impresses on me how great God is when I am out Stargazing! 🙂
 
40.png
stargazer257:
The amateur astronomer in me (well look at my user name, eh! 😛 ) has to make a correction here…

The “fuzzy smudge” just below Orion’s belt (tough to see right now, it’s a winter-spring view) is not the Andromeda Galaxy. It is the Great Orion Nebula (Messier 42). It’s a great binocular view, as well as nice to look at in a modest telescope.

The Andromeda Galaxy (Messier 31) is, conveniently in the constelation of Andromeda. I usually find it by looking for the Great Square of Pegasus at this time of year in the eastern sky and work my way to the left and use some “guide” stars to help me find it (excellent binoucular view, only visible to the naked eye in the darkest of locations). Another neat feature of the galaxy is how large it is. Imagine the width of the full moon. Now multiply that by 5. That’s how wide the Andromeda galaxy is to us! Pretty cool, huh! Here is a link to help you find the galaxy with your binoculars on your own: physics.ucla.edu/~huffman/m31.html

What you will see in binoculars is indeed a fuzzy smudge, which is the bright center of the galaxy. The outside edges are too dim to see; the photos of it you see are time exposures that allow the full galaxy to show. Enjoy…

It always impresses on me how great God is when I am out Stargazing! 🙂
Click to expand...
You’re kidding! My dad taught me that, and I’ve taught that to my kids!!! I’ve got to correct myself on that?
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Many creationists maintain that the world is only a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years old.

This assumption creates a problem for those creationists.

Though light travels fast – 186,300 miles per second – the Universe is so vast that starlight is slow compared to its size. It takes light, for instance, about 100,000 years to travel from one edge of our galaxy to the other – just our own galaxy.

If one looks in the southern quadrant on a clear night and looks a few degrees below Orion’s Belt, he or she will see a fuzzy white smudge. That smudge is the Andromeda Galaxy, which is “2 million light years away.” That means that what we are looking at is the light from Andomeda Galaxy which began the trip from where Andomeda was 2 million years ago (it isn’t even located there today) to where we are today.

When you look at Andromeda, you are looking at 2 million year old light.

Now, creationists with a limited timetable say that that is false – that that light from Andromeda is actually only a few thousand years old, and God created fake star light – starlight which didn’t *really *come from the star it seems to come from – in-place.

Now, here’s the new dilemma that position creates.

In 1987, astronomers saw a vast stellar explosion in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy orbiting ours, about 150,000 light years away.

That means that the starlight from the Large Magellanic Cloud is about 150,000 years old. Creationists with a limited timetable deny this – they say that the starlight we are looking at is fake, that we are still only looking at the fake starlight God created in-place in the sky a few thousand years ago, and that the real starlight won’t reach our eyes for, say, 145,000 years.

The problem with saying that, in the case of the 1987 supernova, is that that means that the star we now call “Supernova 1987A”…

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020331.html

…never really existed.

Since the light of the star’s self-destruction was buried in the alleged stream of fake starlight, the pre-explosion fake light stream never showed a star that ever existed, since behind the pre-explosion fake starlight stream was the explosion fake starlight stream.

Voila: According to those creationists, God created a “lie in the sky.”
Click to expand...
I guess I’ll just take your word for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top