Off the top of my head.
-
The worst one is “God made it look old and created the light enroute.” Even Answers in Genesis cringes at this one, but it was one Duane Gish at the ICR promoted. Gish protested to me personally once in e-mail that I didn’t like his model. I gave him a cordial “thank you” for contacting me, and thanked him for all he had done for YEC/YCC. He died shortly thereafter writing me. God rest his soul.
-
Barry Setterfield’s C-dcay. My primary complaint is tinkering with planck’s constant as part of c-decay! YIKES! Messing with a fundamental constant of Quantum Mechanics will blow up chemistry in short order. Not good, imho.
-
Bill Lucas alternative electrodynamics. I met him twice. I could get straight answer from him. Nice guy. When he cited lutec perpetual motion machines as evidence of his theory I gave up. Hartnett and Faulkner challenged him at ICC 2008. Faulkner turned red and was practically screaming at him. I thought that was unbecoming. Hartnett was pretty harsh too over Lucas’ views of QM and the photoelectric effect. The YEC community has pretty much forgotten Dr. Lucas. Dr. Lucas at least had a testable model for alternative electro dynamics.
-
Humphrey’s Starlight and Time version 1.0, white hole cosmology 1.0. Humprey’s has since retracted 1.0. I don’t know what version is the latest.
-
Humpreys white hole 2.0 or above.
-
Hartnett-Carmeli 5-dimensional cosmology. Hartnett has since withdrawn it. I thought it was an ugly framing of General Relativity. So it fails the elegance test, and since Hartnett himself rejected the model, I will too. Dr. Hartnett invited me at ICC 2008 to be his PhD student in Austrailia. I couldn’t make it happen. I went to Johns Hopkins and the NIH FAES grad school instead and worked for John Sanford in Bio physics. I at least go to do some trivial amounts of physics mixed in with biology.
-
Jason Lisle ASC model, one way speed of light.
-
Mark Amunrud ICC 2013 model. I think Mark gave up on it.
-
PW. Dennis stitch GR solutions together model –
http://creationicc.org/2018_papers/06%20Dennis%20cosmology%20final.pdf
This was actually put together by a distinguished NASA GR physicist in Dennis:
ABSTRACT
We present a young earth creationist (YEC) model of creation that is consistent with distant light from distant objects in the cosmos. We discuss the reality of time from theological/philosophical foundations. This results in the rejection of the idealist viewpoint of relativity and the recognition of the reality of the flow of time and the existence of a single cosmological “now.” We begin the construction of the YEC cosmology with an examination of the “chronological enigmas” of the inhomogeneous solutions of the Einstein field equations (EFE) of General Relativity (GR). For this analysis we construct an inhomogeneous model by way of the topological method of constructing solutions of the EFE. The topological method uses the local (tensorial) feature of solutions of the EFE that imply that if (M g, ) is a solution then removing any closed subset X of M is also a solution on the manifold with M MX A = − and the restriction A M A g g = . Also, if (M g A A , ) and (M g B B , ) are solutions of the EFE in disjoint regions then the “stitching” together of (M g A A , ) and (M g B B , ) with continuous boundary conditions is also a solution. From this we show conceptually how an approximate “crude” model with a young earth neighborhood and an older remote universe can be constructed. This approximate “crude” model suffers from having abrupt boundaries. This model is an example of a spherically symmetric inhomogeneous space-time. We discuss the class of exact spherically symmetric inhomogeneous universes represented by the Lemaître-Tolman (L-T) class of exact solutions of the EFE. A more realistic model refines this technique by excising a past subset with an asymptotically null spacelike surface from the Friedmann-LemaîtreRobertson-Walker (FLRW) cosmology. We build the model from the closed FLRW solution by selecting a spacelike hyperboloidal surface as the initial surface at the beginning of the first day of creation. This surface induces, by way of embedding into FLRW space-time, an isotropic but radially inhomogeneous matter density consistent with the full FLRW space-time. The resulting space-time is a subset of the usual FLRW space-time and thus preserves the FLRW causal structure and the observational predictions such as the Hubble law. We show that the initial spacelike surface evolves in a consistent manner and that light from the distant “ancient” galaxies arrives at the earth within the creation week and thereafter. All properties of light arriving from distant galaxies retain the same features as those of the FLRW space-time. This follows from the fact that the solution presented is an open subset of the FLRW space-time so that all differential properties and analysis that applies to FLRW also applies to our solution. Qualitatively these models solve the distant star light problem and from a theological point of view, in which God advances the (cosmic) time of the spacelike hypersurfaces at a non-uniform rate during the miraculous creation week, solve the distant light problem. We conclude by briefly discussing possible objections of some of our key assumptions and showing that a relativist cannot consistently object to our assumptions based on the merely operationalist point of view that an absolute spacelike “now” cannot be empirically determined.
I had the honor of talking to Dr. Dennis. Though I am skeptical of the FLRW metric, everyone in the room that had some General Relativity education (myself included) thought he represented himself exceptionally well and collectively we wanted to study GR under him!
- Tichomir Tenev. MIT math graduate. Very smart. I met him at ICC 2018:
"Creation time coordinates solution to the starlight problem" by Tichomir G. Tenev, John Baumgardner et al.
Abstract
We present a solution for the distant starlight problem that is consistent with Scripture, Special Relativity, and observations of a young cosmos that is based on a special divine choice of initial conditions and a new synchrony convention. The initial conditions constrain the spacetime coordinates of all stellar creation events (Genesis 1:17) to be just outside the past light cone of Earth’s Day Four but within the past light cone of Earth’s Day Five while also being causally independent from one another. The synchrony convention interprets God’s numbering of the creation days in Genesis 1 as prescribing a time coordinate for each location in the cosmos, a coordinate we call the Creation Time Coordinate (CTC). The CTC at a given star is defined as the elapsed time since that star was created plus three days. Two events are considered simultaneous (synchronous), if and only if, they have the same CTCs. We show that for these initial conditions and synchrony convention, starlight emitted on Day Four (stellar CTC) arrives at Earth also on Day Four (Earth CTC). Our solution is a reformulation of Lisle’s solution (Newton 2001, Lisle 2010), but ours spells out the required initial conditions, without which Lisle’s solution is ambiguous. It also replaces Lisle’s use of the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention, which is an observer-specific subjective definition of simultaneity, with the CTC synchrony convention, which is a divinely-prescribed objective definition of simultaneity. Our solution predicts that stellar objects should appear youthful, because the light we receive from them displays them at only a few thousand years after their creation. We show for our own galaxy the number of observed supernova remnants and observed supernova frequency support this prediction. Finally, we discuss the strong agreement among current creationist cosmologies regarding spacetime coordinates of stellar creation events relative to the creation of the Earth itself.
Amazingly, Tenev himself really liked PW Dennis solution also, which also suggest some rejection of his own model, I think, I don’t know.
- Bryan Johnson, PhD from Illinois, Urbana Champaigne. I wanted to go there, but couldn’t. His bio is respectable:
"Young universe cosmology" by Bryan M. Johnson
Bryan obtained a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from LeTourneau University in 1996 and worked for 3.5 years at Northrop Grumman as a Systems Engineer before going to graduate school. He received a Ph.D. in theoretical astrophysics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2005, spent two years as a post-doc in the Astronomy Department at the University of California at Berkeley, and has been a staff scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory since 2007. He is married with 7 children, currently resides in Livermore, CA, and attends Trinity Church East Bay.
Abstract
Distant starlight is one of the most challenging natural phenomena to reconcile with a recent creation. Most creationist cosmologies attempt to address this apparent contradiction between God’s two books by appealing to the flexibility associated with our definition of time (Hartnett 2007; Humphreys 2008; Lisle 2010). In their current formulation, these cosmologies allow for long cosmological times periods while preserving short time periods on earth (they can thus be viewed as young earth but old universe cosmologies). Assuming that astronomical distance measurements are accurate, a consistent young universe cosmology would appear to require either some form of mature creation (i.e., local generation of starlight that is only apparently distant) or a variation in the speed of light. There is a vast literature on a variable speed of light (both creationist and non-creationist), often accompanied by a fair bit of controversy and misunderstanding. Creationist explorations have relied on suspect extrapolations of uncertain historical measurements to argue for a speed of light that has decreased since the time of Creation (Setterfield 1987). However, a speed of light that varies with gravity stands on much firmer theoretical footing. In particular, there is a direct mathematical analogy between weak-field gravity and a varying speed of light (Barceló et al. 2011). This paper will explore some of the implications associated with assuming that this analogy represents an underlying physical reality. One implication of this picture is that cosmological redshifts are due to a spatial variation in the speed of light (Dicke 1957) rather than to the expansion of space, although in principle both physical effects could be operating in concert. If light propagates faster in regions of space where gravity is weak, the extremely low gravitational potential of cosmological voids may be sufficient to put the entire universe in causal contact with the Earth on the time scale of Biblical history. Attributing cosmological redshifts to a spatial variation in the speed of light alone would obviate the need for dark energy, and a model in which the speed of light increases in the outskirts of galaxies has the potential to explain galactic rotation curves without invoking dark matter or modifying Newtonian dynamics. Finally, the model predicts a redshift evolution for the Tolman surface brightness signal (Hubble and Tolman 1935) that differs from that predicted by an expanding universe model, with the current model being more in line with observations. Not only does this hypothesis provide a straightforward solution to the problem of distant starlight, its connection with gravity also points the way towards the development of a robust and predictive young universe cosmological model.
Johnson, myself, and Tenev discussed and criticized each other’s ideas at ICC 2018. I wrote to him, but haven’t heard back from him.
- Cahill neo-Lorentzian model. I tried to build the Cahill interferometer. The Michelson-Morely type interferometers were operated in vacuums except the first one. The Dayton Miller one had atmospheric refraction. Smartly Cahill and Demjanov built alternate interferometers with refarction. I tried to reconstruct Cahill’s simplest one. The result were inconclusive. And Tichomir Tenev rightly pointed out the sensitivity of such an interferometer to even small jarring, which I can confirm. The apparatus, however did connect together correctly and the vendors Cahill specified (like Thor labs) were legit. I briefly got help from a photonics physicist in constructing it.
I wrote Cahill at Flinder’s university personally and pointed out the problems, and he replied by suggesting I construct his newest device which would involve a rather expensive ultra-high end oscilloscope (like $100,000 a piece). A team of engineers with access to such oscilloscopes attempted to duplicate Cahill’s interferometer with negative results, but Peter Morris found alternate evidence of the Cahill’s model, and alternatively Demjanov.
Nevertheless, Cahill gave an excellent analysis of the Dewitte, Miller, Michelson-Morely:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0306196.pdf
As I mentioned in other threads. The Hatch filter in GPS was created by Ron Hatch. GPS won’t work without it. The filter Hatch himself built inspired him to reject Einsteinian relativity in favor of neo-Lorentzian relativity.
