Then regarding a YEC cosmology, there may be really only one way to do it. And it is a miracle, but it seems to work. I turned it in to AiG several years ago. Two reviews out of three were favorable, but Andrew Snelling made the final decision not to publish.
In a nutshell, God creates earth within a 4D spacetime. Then he proceeds to occupy - via a miracle of course - a spacetime that predates earth by 14 billion years and places galaxies, etc in the cosmic sky. Since at that point, all the cosmos would reside in our past light cone, the entire sky is visible immediately from earth.
I can understand why geologist Andrew Snelling balked. Your scenario implies that the astronomical data should be interpreted in the standard fashion. What then to do with the geological data that with approximately equal strength point to an earth and life-forms that are billions of years old?
I do appreciate your willingness to work with the astronomical data with as much integrity and thought as possible. That seems to be your focus, so feel free to just bracket the geology discussion to a later date if that’s how you want to roll.
@stcordova, am I correct in understanding your position?
You think that the earth, solar system, and our Galaxy are young. The universe might be ancient though, along with distant stars and galaxies outside the Milky Way.
Is that right?
I think everything is young, but the evidence we have right now for the cosmos is that it is old. Like abiogenesis researchers and evoltuionary biologists, and inflation advocates, I’m appealing to yet-to-be-discovered and proven mechanisms.
My optimism is grounded in the trend of discoveries in the last 100 years or so. But optimism and intuitions and faith beliefs aren’t empirical facts.
You are spot-on. Snelling immediately saw the young cosmos dissolve with my proposal and felt that he could not risk the negative implications for the YEC platform. He told me, “We must be sure we uphold the Scripture in all we do” [which really means “his view of the Scripture”]. So there it was. The end of the idea.
@stcordova I’m stumped. Just how do you propose to “keep the cosmos young”? Your choices are extremely limited. 1. Barry Setterfield’s idea perhaps 2. Jason Lisle.
@stcordova I’m stumped. Just how do you propose to “keep the cosmos young”? Your choices are extremely limited. 1. Barry Setterfield’s idea perhaps 2. Jason Lisle.
How will you do this?
I’m looking into neo-Lorentzian relativity. I reconstructed Cahill’s laser interferometer, got inconclusive results.
Maybe back to the drawing board, and trust God will make clear someday what is the truth.
If you’re really interested in neo-Lorenzian ideas, I can gin up some links.
Isn’t this just light speed anisotropy? Remember, the lab is our Universe, and always based on 2-way light speed. Even if SR allows a very fast delivery of galactic light to our location it in no wise changes the empirical and very old age of the cosmos.
Yes, please send me (rather, all of us) a link to both the interferometer experiment you refer to and also to neo-Lorenzian ideas.
The most important neo-Lorentzian is Ron Hatch whose Hatch Filter is in all GPS satellites. They wouldn’t work without them. When Hatch constructed the filter it motivated his neo-Lorentzian ideas. I was shocked when John Sanford visited my home and told me about his acquaintance with Hatch (who is not a creationist as far as I know), and his service to the US GPS advisory council. I saw him there in a photo of the GPS advisory council with the president of my former company, Marty Faga!
This was the first Cahill interferometer I tried to reconstruct, but was unable to because the vendors of the part discontinued sale or donations for experimenters:
I wrote Cahill of my problems duplicating his results, he wrote back and suggested the newer experiments. Others indpendently reconstructed the newer experiment Cahill recommneded to me and reported NEGATIVE results, so I discontinued pursuit of the idea for now:
However Peter Morris had an alternative experiment/observation that looked promising:
Here’s another astronomical tidbit: Younger stars have higher metal content, because they are made up of the debris from older supernovae. We can literally see (with spectrographs) that stars very far away are also younger stars.
Since I’m putting all ideas on the table, I’ll mention a couple. They’re likely wrong, but on the other hand for completeness I have to mention them.
As I mentioned, there were proper motions in high Z quasars, as mentioned in the paper above. I also found some surveys saying there is proper motion in galaxies. If this is real, this suggests some of these objects are closer, and maybe even a smaller visible universe (gasp). I met one small universe advocate, Robert Fritzius, he’s a RITZian relativist, not an Einstenian, nor Loretnzian…
Next, for professing Christians who confess the Nicene Creed:
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead ,
Though Bible prophecies are hard to interpret, if “disturbances in the heavens” mean we will see these disturbances in real time before Christ’s return, there must be a fast transport mechanism for light.
I’ve been occasionally watching to see reports of increase supernova activity over the years. None so far that can’t be explained by simple increase in the number of SN that our telescopes can see, but I want to monitor the news for this…
Also we’ve seen quasars “die”. How many of these are dying? Again if this is related to plasma lasers, then they never really died.
“The difference was stunning and unprecedented,” said John Ruan of the University of Washington, lead author of a related paper as well as a member of Runnoe’s team. Ruan is also speaking at the AAS meeting. “The hydrogen-alpha emission dropped by a factor of 50 in less than twelve years, and the quasar now looks like a normal galaxy.” The change was so great that throughout the SDSS collaboration and astronomy community, the quasar became known as a “changing-look quasar.”
Over those twelve years, other telescopes have also been looking at this changing-look quasar, and Runnoe’s study made use of these additional observations as well. The additional data allowed the team to narrow down the period of change, finding that the quasar decreased by a factor of 50 in just a few years.
There are now some reports of lasing action in plasmas. This is could throw a monkey wrench in what we view as real events:
The European Space Agency said on May 16, 2018 that its Herschel space observatory has observed a rare phenomenon: an unusual natural laser emission beaming from the core of the Ant Nebula. This nebula is a striking double-lobed cloud in space – located in the direction to the southern constellation Norma – and now it’s known to contain one of the few space infrared lasers discovered so far. ESA said the laser light beaming from the nebula suggests the presence of a double star system hidden at the nebula’s heart.
Varshni suggests natural plasma lasers are more common than we think and have caused us to mis-read some spectral plots as red shifted.
All this to say, I think any model right now of cosmology is a little premature. We really know very little.
That’s a big ‘if’. It may mean (if they are not events local to solar system, and they could be), it may mean that in God’s providential timing (he’s good at that) that the light from galactic or cosmic events gets here at the right juncture.
This seems to reflect Sal’s major tactic: because he casts some doubt on the distances of a few extremely distant objects, therefore we can say nothing about astronomical distances. Because we don’t know everything about subject X, we can say nothing about subject X.
Nearby galaxies seem to be moving away from one another too fast, we don’t know why, and every new set of data just seems to make the problem worse.
…
“The results could mean we need a major reworking of our understanding of the universe”
…
There is no current theory that can explain all the measurements so far. So either we need to reconsider the measurements or reconsider our understanding of the physics.
How about dropping the idea the universe is expanding according Big Bang cosmology which needs (so far) imaginary entities like dark matter and unprovable quasi-religious events accepted on blind faith like Inflation? Maybe saying, “we don’t know” is the most honest thing to say right now.
The inflation model is so concocted that an alternative theory is Variable Speed of Light (Zippy light). If the Big Bang can accomodate appeals and special pleadings like Zippy light or a mechanism (like inflation) operating at thousands or millions of times the speed of light, so should YEC/YCC.
But when YCC appeals to Zippy light or some sort of VSL or other exotic mechanism as a possible fix to its problems, the need for some sort of VSL is used as an argument against YCC, whereas such kludges receive with welcome if it will save the Big Bang.
Several signatories of this statement were professors at my undergrad almamater and colleagues a the MITRE think tank where I once worked:
" 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. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
…
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sylvan J. Hotch, The MITRE Corporation (Retired), USA
John Hartnett, School of Physics, University of Western Australia, Australia
“If dark matter were truly a remnant of the Big Bang, then in many cases researchers should have seen a direct signal of dark matter in different particle physics experiments already,” Tenkanen said.
The fact that researchers haven’t seen such a signal yet is troubling.
Or maybe dark matter doesn’t exist nor never existed. We don’t know.
Short answer, yes. Some form of Zippy light might do the trick, but that the Maguijo VSL theory as is would not work for YEC/YCC. That’s why I was interested in the neo-Lorentzian relativities. They may hold an explanation.