Yeah, whatever. Coming from an atheist I presume? Well, guess what. You cannot separate God from his universe. On the farm we say, “It ain’t there if he ain’t there”
1 Like
Such a theory is basically day-age creationism pretending to be young earth creationism.
(So too, for what it’s worth, is Jason Lisle’s anisotropic synchrony convention.)
I am speaking as a scientist. You may have noticed that this view is shared by many theistic scientists.
Do you understand the subject at hand? Jason Lisle’s idea is nothing close to day-age creationism. It is frankly a misuse of special relativity to try and pull a young universe out of the hat. He did it wrong. He knows it now as does John Hartnett, I believe. Notice that all the pompous talk of ASC and grandiose claims have all but ceased. Have you heard any lately?
1 Like
Minkowski spacetime? First year undergraduate physics. Basic special relativity.
Of course, there may be subtleties to it that I haven’t yet explored since graduation, but I’d always be interested in learning more. Educate me.
Depends how you define “day-age creationism.” 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 could easily be interpreted as referring to two different reference frames, which is what the ASC is, is it not?
Interesting to hear that. Thanks for the heads-up.
1 Like
No, it is not.
In what way?
A post was split to a new topic: Answers in Genesis Interview of John Whitcomb (final interview?)
SR reference frames (or changes in position per Lisle’s plan) is precisely what he mishandled. He used changes in timing conventions to try and time dilate the entire universe and call it young. This is a gross misapplication of timing conventions. Theta = 0 at the location of earth does not by default throw the entire universe system into our peculiar SR frame of reference. If we perceive light to travel infinitely fast toward us from distant cosmic sources, those sources do not by default assume our frame and magically turn young. In this manner, Lisle’s application of ASC frames of reference - whether two or infinite - was incorrect.
3 Likes
Why would light outside our galaxy travel infinitely fast yet light from stars inside our galaxy “crawl” towards us? Wouldn’t that indicate some kind of boundary condition? If so, once distant starlight enters our galaxy, wouldn’t it also slow to a crawl?
1 Like
Does this idea assume that the earth is in a separate Minkowki space from everything outside the earth?
Are you asking me? I have no idea and don’t care because light does not travel in this manner. You and I both know that. Maybe you are asking Lisle? Faulkner? Other YECs? They will have respond in their own way.
It makes no such assumption. Light cones are seamless in past, present, and future. Whatever is created in earth’s past light cone is causally connected to it - a seamless connection.
In this post you seem to understand enough of Lisle’s idea to judge it, so it seemed appropriate to ask you the question about the speed of light.
Jason Lisle, straight from the source:
Under ASC, the speed of light as a function of direction relative to the observer (θ) is given by cθ = c/(1-cos(θ)), where θ = 0 indicates the direction directly toward the observer.
Sure. Let’s explore this statement some more.
Please note that the statement would necessarily imply that the light now reaching us from the Andromeda Galaxy originated at a point 2M years distant in the earth’s past last cone.
If this is not the case, then physics causality (i.e., the arrow of time) is completely broken. Which in turn would necessarily imply that the earth and the Andromeda Galaxy could not possibly be in the same Minkowski space.
But if the earth is ~6000 years old and the Andromeda Galaxy started existing 4 days later, then the maximum distance the Andromeda Galaxy can exist in the earth’s past light cone with respect to today must be no more than ~6000 years minus 4 days.
These are the magnificent paradoxes that emerge from the proposition that at a point 6000 years ago, when the universe outside the earth did not yet exist, God created the universe 14 billion years earlier.
If the Minkowski “now” spacetime in which the earth exists is the same spacetime as the rest of the universe, then the arrow of time has run backwards from 6kya to 13.8bya, and in turn physics is broken.
Let’s explore the paradox of your scenario just a bit more. At the conclusion of day 1 in a “now” Minkowski spacetime, the earth existed but the Andromeda Galaxy did not. How could it? To claim that the Andromeda Galaxy already existed on day 1 but was not yet created until day 4 is not, to say the least, a meaningful statement.
Now if the Andromeda Galaxy did not yet exist on day one 6000 years ago, how is light from 2M years prior reaching us from that galaxy tonight?
Truly, only three conclusions are possible from your scenario:
- We live in an absurd universe where the arrow of time and causality has been broken and physics is meaningless.
- The earth and the rest of the universe do not share a Minkowski spacetime.
- The universe started existing 6000 years ago, but it has the appearance of a much older age.
Take your pick.
Grace and peace,
Chris
I just wanted to point out that the “secular distant starlight” problem is not actually solved by the regular Hubble expansion. However, we don’t even know if it is really a problem in the first place. Essentially, the CMB is very uniform in temperature but the explanation for why the CMB has such a uniform temperature cannot be explained by normal physical mechanisms of heat transfer and equilibrium. Interestingly, Danny Faulkner writes:
Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.
The problem for Faulkner is that we don’t really know if that’s the case. What is the underlying/initial probability distribution for the temperature of the early universe? It is unlikely that we will have a full answer until an adequate theory of quantum gravity. But at the end of the day, it is a question of initial conditions. Some types of initial conditions need explaining and others don’t. A uniform temperature distribution isn’t exactly remarkable and a huge problem to explain.
However, if it is something that we need to explain, inflation is one possible mechanism to explain the uniformity of the CMB. Inflation is kind of like an ad hoc explanation for three alleged issues, but the thing is that cosmologists don’t just leave it at that, they actually aim to craft experiments to test cosmic inflation. A fairly lengthy summary of the history of inflation can be seen here:
That is quite different from YEC science. And it is very misleading to call the horizon “problem” the “secular starlight problem” as if it is even remotely close to the very large problem Faulkner is writing about.
4 Likes
No, thank you. Your analysis is incorrect, thus so is your conclusion and the choices you force on us.
The reality is that earth in its nascent state on creation day 1 can actually be represented by a single coordinate point in spacetime. We say it is in the spacetime “now” location. As God accesses a time that predates earth by 14 billion years, we find oddly enough that that coordinate point has remain fixed. Only the proper distance between it and a big bang event – we will also represent by a coordinate point – has super-increased as time has grown according to the scale factor a(t) in the Friedmann metric. See Section 3.2 here
http://www.int.washington.edu/users/dbkaplan/555/lecture_03
But another peculiar thing about that big bang coordinate point is that we believe it actually contains all coordinate points in spacetime. In big bang cosmogony, this is the best we can understand thus far in the moment that precedes a big bang event. And since all points are “co-shared”, so also are all points are “co-moving” – yes, even coordinate point “earth” and coordinate point “big bang” are co-shared and co-moving.
So, yes, a lot of aging of co-moving coordinate points takes place in the universe as God accesses that earlier point in spacetime. Even though spatial coordinates remain fixed, co-moving coordinates still age according to the expanding scale factor a(t) .
But no, you are incorrect in thinking that spacetime in this scenario is “not shared” as you say by earth and the rest of the universe, or that causality is “broken”. The above explanation overthrows your analysis and conclusions.
I’m discussing a different question than the homogeneity of the CMB. Rather, how is it that the observable universe is much larger than the speed of light dictates? In other words, how do we recieve light from galaxies greater than 15 billion light years away when the universe is less than 15 billion years old?
The answer is that several observations indicate the universe is expanding. This so thoroughly solve the “proble” that it likely did not even register as problem.
At least that is my understanding. @pevaquark you are a physicist though, did I miss something? @physicists did I miss something?
Incorrect. I could have rebutted your conclusion much faster and easier. Here is the Friedmann spacetime
All God has to do is to make sure he uses that metric when creating the earth on day 1, then simply use that same metric when creating the universe 14 billion years earlier on day 4. In that way, broken causality is impossible since the same spacetime equation describes all spatial and all time dimensions - and all eras of cosmic evolution.