Talk:Starlight problem

Problems with the article

"However it was later pointed out that Setterfield's own source for this information directly contradicts this claim, and in fact demonstrates that the speed he measured is identical to the modern value." I'm a bit concerned by this sentence because while it is true that while Troitskii was trying to show a big bang cosmology what he was calculating was a value far from "identical to the modern value." Unless other citation can be found the phrase "directly contradicts" should be removed because the it does not address if this has occurred.BrianFrenzy007 (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"The problem with the “in-transit” theory is that if it is true, the events that astronomers are now seeing that happened at vast distances away from us never actually happened."

How is that a problem at all? It seems to me that it's no different from fossil records of animals and plants which appear to have lived and died long before the universe is claimed to have been created; looking at the fossil is observation of an event that "never actually happened", but for believers, that doesn't falsify young-Earth Creationism. Why would creating light from fake archaic supernova explosions be any more difficult than creating fossils from fake archaic organisms?129.97.79.144 16:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

In one sense, it's not a problem. A god supposedly could create the universe with the illusion of ago, but this would make that god a deceiver. The other problem is that there is no reason to think it is true. I could propose that the universe was created last Thursday, complete with the illusion of age and complete with false memories. That of course gives no reason whatsoever to think that it is true. It's not logically impossible, but it causes theological problems, yet resolves nothing.--RLent 23:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to ensure that the context of this problem (i.e. it's only a problem for Young Earth Creationists) is stated right up front. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a terrible summary of Humphrey's book. The book is mainly concerned with a solution to some relativistic equations in a (posited) bounded universe. DJ Clayworth 16:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Safe to say that much of this article is rubbish. The part about telescopes "shrinking" distances is extraordinary. I've no idea about Humphrey's book, but if it's a creationist tract, I don't suppose it matters how it's summarised. Either way, it's bending science to suit one particular theology. --Plumbago 16:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Are we only supposed to be accurate about things we agree with? I don't think so. Every point of view deserves to be written about accurately. How else can we judge between them?

The part about 'telescopes shrinking distances' is utterly bizarre. I propose that unless it is explained by someone very soon it is removed. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed (and paragraph removed). I was flabbergasted when I first read that paragraph. I can't believe it's been in this article so long. [1] (I was sorry to remove the beautiful picture of the Keck telescopes referenced in the paragraph.) If anyone thinks the paragraph should be restored, I'd like to see a good reference included with it. --JeremyStein

Hello again. Apologies for my previously rude remarks about representing Humphrey's book properly. Of course it's best for things to be as accurate as possible. I was just a bit fed up with YEC posturing elsewhere (that's no excuse of course).

Anyway, I just wanted to query the references to the work by Paul Davies et al. It's very much not my area of expertise, but is their work saying :

• The speed of light may have been different in the past (where "the past" is the deep past), or
• The speed of light may have been different in the past to the extent that the universe has a radically different age to that which we currently assume

I've certainly never read the latter position being seriously discussed, but the former is certainly possible given how much uncertainty there is around cosmological evolution. Can anyone clarify? It's just that, at the moment, the article's started to sound like there's the whiff of evidence for the YEC stance - and my gut feeling is that the use of references is giving very much the wrong impression. --Plumbago 17:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Time, distance, and the speed of light

Further to my note above, I now think this whole section should be (re)moved. It deals with an ongoing scientific discussion that, while about the speed of light and cosmic evolution, has otherwise little to do with the stance taken by YECs. The outcome of this discussion will not help the YEC cause, as this seeks a truncation of the age of the universe far in excess of what appears remotely possible. Leaving the text in makes it appear like there is some evidence for the YEC view (and granting this view undue scientific credability). I'd prefer not to entirely delete the text, but it looks like its content may be adequately described elsewhere (e.g. speed of light; variable speed of light). If you disagree, please comment, otherwise it's out. --Plumbago 10:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You still hear Young Earth Creationists using a change in the speed of light as an argument. I believe the biggest names have given up on it, but perhaps it would be better to list the problems with the hypothesis rather than delete the section. --JeremyStein 14:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you about the YECs using the argument (though it's losing favour). My problem with the section is that it's very long on technical detail about the speed of light as regards cosmic evolution, none of which really has anything to do with the starlight problem (in a YEC sense). I reckon it should be trimmed back to some statement along the lines of : "While there is debate in astrophysical circles about the constancy of the speed of light during the early history of the universe [cite references], any variability in the speed is vastly insufficient to explain the starlight problem." I'm just a bit afraid that the section gives YEC an undue veneer of scientific respectability as it currently stands. Similar scientific or technical disputes in evolutionary biology have been misused in the past to lend credability to YEC views. It'd be best to avoid it here. --Plumbago 15:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever removed the offending section. --Plumbago 17:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Tu Quoque

Hmmm. I'm not sure about this new section. It's describing essentially bad faith arguments on the part of AiG that try to cast doubt on mainstream cosmology rather than shore up YEC cosmology (for all the obvious reasons). Anyone care to comment? --Plumbago 10:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section. Besides Plumbago's objections, claiming that inflation is only a mathematical model ignores the confirmations it has received from WMAP. --ScienceApologist 13:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. OK. In which case, you might want to check out the other changes made to the article earlier today. The "Tu Quoque" most concerned me, but there are changes in tone (and an emphasis on AiG references) that are a little odd. Thanks, by the way, for sorting out the astronomy stuff - waaaaay outside my (tiny) area of expertise. --Plumbago 13:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh. It's all gone now. --Plumbago 13:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's back. An article on an alleged problem for YECs should provide responses from the leading YECs, including tu quoque. And the so-called science apologist should check out Wiki's own page on cosmic inflation to see how it still relies on hypothetical entities like the inflaton field. And he is dreaming if he thinks that the tiny fluctuations from WMAP prove something so hypothetical.[2] 220.245.180.134 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, since when was AiG a reputable source of scientific information? The slightest scan of almost any of its articles reveals inaccuracy, misrepresentation, or simple bad faith. While they've certainly got some clever people working for them, I can't help but be reminded of a quote that I'm sure is very familiar to the folks at AiG :

“ [I] would rather be descended from an ape than from

a cultivated man who used his gifts of culture and

eloquence in the service of prejudice and falsehood

”

--Plumbago 09:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As if you're in any position to know. It's going back as a way creationists deal with the problem. And why don't you read the article on cosmic inflation, as well as the 219 scientists who call the inflaton field "hypothetical"?[3]220.245.180.134 03:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try counting again and see how many of those "scientists" are cosmologists. Your writing is getting more and more virulent and you are violating one or two policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 03:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Many of the signatories are respected cosmogonists, and it is hard to dispute that the inflaton field, dark matter and dark energy are hypothetical. And the author of the AiG tu quoque article is a Ph.D. astrophysicist. If you are going to whinge about alleged lack of civility, then quit revoking and quit abusing me as a POV-pusher, and instead whinge about the abusive Plumbago.220.245.180.134 03:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cosmogonists, eh? I guess one can call themselves a "cosmogonist" and do whatever they want. Most of the signatories are neither cosmologists nor respected in this matter, but that's beside the point, the Big Bang is far and away the consensus horizon problem or not. Inflation isn't really hypothetical anymore since its parameters were measured by WMAP. In fact, since scalar fields are so ubiquitous it is more difficult to parameterize the universe without inflation than with inflation. I suggest you stop pushing your point of view so much as such is a violation of policy. --ScienceApologist 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course cosmogonists. And "consensus" means nothing in science. What matters is the evidence. And it's simply not true to say that WMAP proves inflation.[4] Rather, the big bang is assumed, but the background radiation is so uniform that inflation was proposed to explain it away. But since there is no physical mechanism to start or stop doesn't count as an explanation at all. So stop pushing your atheistic POV in violation of Wiki policy. 220.245.180.134 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus actually means more than you think in science. In particular, we have an article written on the subject here. The Big Bang is not "assumed" in the analysis of WMAP, rather the only model that fits the measurements is the Big Bang. No one else has shown otherwise. There are plenty of physical mechanisms that "start" and "stop" inflation since the only thing needed to start inflation is a scalar field and inflation stops when the scalar field reaches the bottom of the potential and reheats. --ScienceApologist 13:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, abusive? If I was being abusive at all, it was to the writers over at AiG. And rather tamely at that. As regards the matter at hand, while there's dispute within science about the early evolution of the universe, that's a long, long way from support for creationism. As has occurred repeatedly within biology, creationists misuse disputes within the field, and present them as if they were support for their own cosmologies. --Plumbago 17:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Plumbago, it's one thing to discard citations from ICR that make scientific claims, but on what basis do you discard citations that are restricted to the arena of theology, in a short paragraph that is discussing the theology of the starlight problem? Ruby 18:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

See below (in the Omphalos section). --Plumbago 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't is obvious? Evolutionists are experts on everything, and thus can pontificate even on theology. But creationists by Plumbago's definition cannot be experts on anything, even fields in which they have earned Ph.D.

And Plumbago thinks that citing a hostile witness is "misusing disputes". 220.245.180.134 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, "evolutionist"? Try "scientist". And as a scientist, I have some expertise in distinguishing science from something that's been carefully dressed up as science. I certainly amn't disputing the qualifications of YECs, but they're inappropriately using their knowledge to bend over backwards and (badly) shoehorn their pet theory into mainstream science. As evidenced by the complete lack of published science on said pet theory. Oh, sorry, I forgot, there's a hidden conspiracy between tens of thousands of scientists distributed through hundreds of institutes over five continents that carefully suppresses YEC research while all the time giving the impression that it's unbiased. My mistake. --Plumbago 12:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon contributions

Whoever is contributing, please explain your opinions on the subject here. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 03:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, please explain your reversions. One section was unsourced about how creationists allegedly first handled the problems, so it is original research forbidden on Wiki. 220.245.180.134 04:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous posturing. Kent Hovind is a good example of someone who used to claim that no distances beyond 100 light years could be measured. There are still some people who follow the "old Kent" such as this person: [5]. --ScienceApologist 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it is ridiculous to assert things without verification, contrary to Wiki rules. So put up or shut up!220.245.180.134 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You need to breathe. We are writing an encyclopedia article, not fighting a battle. The reference is right above your post. --ScienceApologist 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that this isolated incident by some unknown reflect the original creationist response? Also, what Hovind actually claims is (in a debate with Hugh Ross on the John Ankerberg Show):

I mentioned earlier, you can’t tell the distance to these stars, 14 billion light years away. They might be—they probably are. But we can’t measure that, and it’s silly for us for humans, little humans on Earth to say, we know the distance to that star, 14 billion light years away, it can’t be done.

I.e. he is against dogmatism about the precision of the measurements but agrees that the huge distances are probably real.220.245.180.134 04:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hovind's pathological skepticism is a well-worn tactic of creationists and was advocated as a response early on in the creation-evolution controversy with regards to this particular question. The starlight problem was virulently attacked by Marshall and Sandra Hall in 1975 as being based on inaccurate astronomy in their first popular tract on the subject (arguably one of the founding members of the creationist movement). That distances to objects are hard to measure was a common attack that creationists would use (believing that the cosmic distance ladder was too full of inaccuracies to be believed). Hovind softened his tone after being trounced by a number of anti-creationists for his ignorance on the subject but he is a good example of someone who doesn't like to admit he was ever wrong. --ScienceApologist 06:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the debate. And Marshall Hall is a geocentrist rather than having any standing in the creationist movement,[6] as well as long post-dating The Genesis Flood. And as shown, Hovind didn't claim what you said he did. So we still have no evidence that YECs would have used this alleged "first solution". Thus that section is violates the rule under every editing window "Content ... must be verifiable" 220.245.180.134 04:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Any standing in the creationist movement" -- let's be honest about your POV. You are biased against geocentrists. That's fine, but don't impose your own biases on these articles. Hall is a self-described creationist.

Hovind claims that there are errors in the measurement of distances. This is a fact. That's all the section you keep removing is saying. It was a first solution as demonstrated above. Ignorance of your movements beginnings is no excuse for removing this factual history.

--ScienceApologist 14:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You need remedial comprehension lessons. Not only is Hall not mainstream creationist (why, do you like geocentrism or something?) but he can hardly be evidence of the first attempts to solve the problem. Nor can Hovind, who is a contemporary of ours not a "first attempt", and the reference claims only that one should not be dogmatic about the accuracy of the distances while agreeing that they are probably real.

So if you want the section to remain, you must provide historical sources from, say, before The Genesis Flood that show that creationists had invoked this reasoning. Otherwise it violates the Wiki rule on verifiability.220.245.180.134 04:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There were no creationists before The Genesis Flood according to History of Creationism. You need to be aware that creation science as an idealization and criticism of specific scientific arguments didn't exist until then. Moreover, more than a few of the early movers-and-shakers in the creation science movement were criticizing astronomical distance measures and Hovind just happens to be one who enjoys bandwagons in his movement. --ScienceApologist 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What appalling historical revisionism. Most of the Church Fathers and Reformers were YECs, as were the founders of most branches of science. And you STILL haven't provided a source as Wikin rules require for what early creationists did or "would have" done.

That's a silly comment. I suppose you expect that I'm going to act as though the claims of creationism in historical scientists is somehow a convincing argument. Newton was a YEC! O Lordy! I must have strayed from the right righteous Christian tradition of Jesus' death being the source of all science. Maybe if I repent and am born again science will also be reborn and our anonymous contributor will be given a Nobel Prize. O that I've seen the light! --ScienceApologist 18:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Even sillier is claiming that a YEC can't be a scientist, while the greatest scientist of all time was a YEC! Note that ancient-earth ideas were common among the Greeks.

This greatest scientist of all must have been the first person in the Holy Trinity. --ScienceApologist 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

When you get off your high-horse, please grace us all with a creationist from 1900-1950 who made this "first attempt to address the problem" in the "early part of the 20th century". Wiki doesn't allow what you think YECs would have claimed; you are required to verify this.203.213.77.138 07:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Price is a good example, but by no means the only example. The Creation Society of Mid-America is a good starting point. --ScienceApologist 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, please provide a reference for an early claim.203.213.77.138 04:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Wikiformatting"

Your formatting choice is actually not in conformity with Wikipedia policy on external links and references. --ScienceApologist 06:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Omphalos

I won't revert again just yet. But your point is unnecessary since it's covered earlier in the same section where Omphalos is discussed. And no-one's saying that the in-transit theory is "unbiblical", merely that it has some unfortunate theological implications. If God created in-transit light or belly buttons on Adam and Eve, then He has effectively created a "false history" of the heavens and Adam and Eve's birth (in the latter case, since neither Adam nor Eve were born, there's no need for belly buttons). Some (such as Charles Kingsley; see here) see this interpretation of the Bible as repellent, since it implies that God lies. --Plumbago 18:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I will revert. We don't need to pepper our articles with tit-for-tat arguments for and against. Omphalos can be discussed in regards to its definition and should not be placed in as a counter-criticism. --ScienceApologist 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::The problem with using Omphalos is that he is only talking about Adam, Eve, and earth geology, and it is original research to connect Omphalos' 1857 work with the starlight problem which is a recent development. You have to go with ICR which makes the connection, in order to play by WP rules. Ruby 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gosse is not the sole provider of Omphalos creationism. --ScienceApologist 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw since the other editors see fit to use original research to justify the existence of this article. Ruby 21:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Original research"? Aside from its subject, the meat of the starlight problem is identical to that posed (and "solved") in Omphalos. It's hardly original to point that out. --Plumbago 22:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The objection raised that God created a "false history" lacks logic and is merely a red herring. There is nothing gained by God nor does it cause His creation any "harm" or negative impact. As Adam and Eve was created with the full complement of genes which are expressed, there is no logical reason why they should necessarily be without belly buttons.

Care to explain why the "false history" objection lacks logic? It's a simple point : were Adam and Eve created with bellybuttons / were the heavens created with the remnants of supernovas, etc.? If they were, then God arranged things such that they appear to have (but don't really) a history behind them. Where's the problem with that argument? As for Adam and Eve's genes, is there a gene for bellybuttons? I think not. --Plumbago 09:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is VERY biased and shows little to no understanding

"The star light problem is the problem that the star light appears to have travelled millions/billions of years. This article does not show where these times are taken from because it is written obviously by an beginner. Star light distances are based on redshift frequencies. This is werthy of note because the interpretation of the red shift is what derives the distance. The different theories (mainly c decay theory) are based on a different interpretation of the redshift. The article says that the speed of light has been accuratly mesaured to be constant over 300 years. No source is stated, this is completely false. The speed of light is constant only when measured with an atomic clock, with a dynamic clock (such as a fraction of an earth orbit or a mechanical clock) it has been shown to change. The article states c decay theory must be invalid because light from distance stars is dated to be millions of years old (measured with atomic clocks). The c decay theory agrees with this, but states dynamically c has been declining at a rate which makes dynamical time different than atomic time. It is so obvious that the author has never read any of the c decay work because c decay does not say the speed of light, timed with an atomic clock, is getting slower. I recommend this article be flagged as bias and or possibly remove all of the sections related to c decay because the c decay section does not mention ANY true fact of the c decay theory."

Did you write this yourself, or is is a big quote from someone else? You've put it in quotation marks.

As regards c-decay, at this time there is no evidence for this. The only reason c-decay is discussed at all is because creationists (some of them) have suggested this as a route for explaining the distance to stars (given that they assume a young universe). If it weren't for them, we'd not be discussing it at all, because it isn't observed. That some older measurements of it appear at odds with modern ones is hardly surprising given the technology we have at our disposal today.

I've no idea what that mechanical clocks story is all about - are you suggesting that our standard timepiece should be the orbit of the Earth around the Sun? Given that this isn't constant (for several reasons), this suggestion is ridiculous. Wherever possible, we should use the best techniques our technology affords. Creationists wanting a different value of c does not constitute a good reason for adopting less accurate technologies. --Plumbago 08:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, there is no evidence for a change in the speed of light. Furthermore, for a change in the speed of light to account for the difference between 12,000 years and 13,000,000,000 years would require an extremely large change in the speed of light. Furthermore, the light we are receiving from astronomical objects depict events that took much longer than 12,000 years to happen. Red giants take a long time to evolve. It takes a long time for a star to go Nova. We see galaxies that are colliding, and that doesn't happen in 12,000 years. Of course, the creationists will argue that the good Lord created red giants, stars about to go nova, and galaxies colliding with other galaxies, but that is completely non-scientific. Bubba73 (talk), 16:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The decay is exponential so obviouly this accounts for large change in c in past time that is no a very small change in c today. C decay theory states that all light slows, not just new light, this is why light from far away is the same speed as local light. C DECAY THEORY PREDECTS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT WITH AN ATOMIC CLOCK, BUT VARIES WITH DYNAMIC CLOCK. By dynamic clock they are referring to a human percevable second. So the theory is stating that in the past the number of atomic ticks in a percevable second was greater, and that this number is slowly decreasing. Obviously if you use atomic clock to measure atomic ticks you get no change, as expected. The speed of light was measured with percevable clocks (which include ANY mechanical clocks based on non-atomic movement, hour glass, resonators etc.) to be slowly decreasing until atomic clocks were invented, this is common knowledge. I do not agree with this c decay theory but the point is every reason why it was wrong as given here is completely incorrect and nothing to do with Setterfield's theory who is mentioned here a few times. Setterfields theory was designed to agree with all current observations and it does. It is named C decay because C decays in dynamic time, not atomic time. So the theory is basically stating that atomic orbits of electrons are getting faster and faster. It has been proven that faster orbitting electroncs do not effect speeds of non atomic occurances, including chemical reactions. This is what the theory is really about. The section should state nothing more than the speed of light, from all sources of the universe has been measured to be constant when using an atomic based clock. Everything else in the section is incorrect.

Yea, right. Bubba73 (talk), 04:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop being so cynical. Ratso 00:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

faster light?

I have two questions about this sentence in the article: "Big bang advocates have proposed cosmic inflation as well as light being much faster."

1. wouldn't it be better to say that cosmic inflation is hte solution to the "horizon problem"?
2. is it correct that big bang advocates propose that light was much faster? Bubba73 (talk), 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Inasmuch as there are those who propose Variable speed of light hypotheses and accept the expanding universe paradigm, there are Big Bang advocates who argue for a speed of light that was faster. However, I'm not sure they do this in the context of the horizon problem, though VSL will solve the horizon problem. --ScienceApologist 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Do they think that the speed of light could have been enough faster to make things that occurred 12,000 years ago appear to have been 12,000,000,000 years ago? (I doubt it) Bubba73 (talk), 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. --ScienceApologist 12:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://sunsite.nstu.nsk.su/sun/sunflash/november.1994/flashback/1107.sun-observer-feature.html
  • In Starlight problem on 2007-06-02 20:21:31, Socket Error: (10061, 'Connection refused')
  • In Starlight problem on 2007-06-03 14:30:01, Socket Error: (10061, 'Connection refused')
  • In Starlight problem on 2007-06-10 16:24:15, Socket Error: (10061, 'Connection refused')

--Stwalkerbot 16:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up Humphreys section

I've been working on this section in an effort to more clearly explain what Humphreys says in his book. That's difficult because I don't actually have it, I'm simply re-arranging the pre-existing text to make it flow better. I'd appreciate it if someone who is knowledgeable about the material could make sure I haven't clipped out something vital, or misrepresented it in some way.

Maury 21:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I removed the paper. I read it several times to be sure, and it covers a topic completely different than Humphreys. They're talking about the expansion of a shock wave inside a black hole, there's nothing about a white hole or anything even remotely similar. Maury 12:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the article "Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole", in the Abstract, the authors state, "Here the expanding FRW universe emerges be-hind a subluminous blast wave that explodes outward from the FRW center at the instant of the big bang. The total mass behind the shock decreases as the shock wave expands, and the entropy condition implies that the shock wave must weaken to the point where it settles down to an Oppenheimer–Snyder interface, (bounding a finite total mass), that eventually emerges from the white hole event horizon of an ambient Schwarzschild spacetime." In the final paragraph of the article, the authors also discuss the role of white holes in their cosmological model. You can read the article online - http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/20/11216

-Dan 70.101.100.222 12:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In-transit creation

"Consequently, the in-transit theory is often rejected for theological reasons, as it suggests that God has created a "false history" of events that never took place."

How in the world , if God is omnipotent, could anyone presume what God would or could do? --aajacksoniv (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cited to Answers in Genesis (as recording opinion, so Wikipedia:Reliable sources should be covered). - Eldereft (cont.) 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the answer to my question there.--aajacksoniv (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument.
• Others have claimed that God created the light en route, but this would mean that supernova 1987A never actually happened, but rather that God created the image of the exploding star en route to Earth. Moreover, it would mean that the progenitor star never actually existed even though we have been able to see its image throughout time. While some ‘appearance of age’ is essential in a supernaturally created universe where things were created functionally mature, would God create the image of a star that never actually existed, or a supernova that never happened? Perhaps we cannot completely eliminate this possibility, but it nonetheless seems a remarkably uncharacteristic act for the God of the Bible.

It is hardly Thomas Aquinas, so feel free to dig up some better sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Physical nonsense

The entire premise of this article is based on physical nonsense. The "speed of light" is not a fundamental constant of physics, as many nonphysicists believe it to be. It is merely a conversion factor that relates conventional units of time and distance (the "meter" and the "second"). In fact, the speed of light is no longer measured. In SI units it is defined as 299792458 meters/second; the meter is no longer defined by the distance between two lines scratched onto a platinum-iridium bar stored in a vault in Paris; it is defined as 1/299792458 of the distance that light travels in vacuuo in one SI second. The number 299792458 meters/second is an absolute constant and by definition does not change over time.

Now it is true that at one time the speed of light was measured relative to the Paris artifactual meter, and it is possible that the speed of light might change if that were still the definition of the meter. There is no evidence that this is the case and strong evidence against it. But modern physics would not regard any such variation as a "change in the speed of light," but rather as a change in the length of the above-mentioned Paris artifactual meter.

In any case, such a variation would not be due to a "change in the speed of light," but instead due to a change in one or more of the actual fundamental constants of physics, all of which are dimensionless. The two that are most likely to be important are the fine structure constant and the ratio of electron to proton mass, both of which could affect the length of the above-mentioned artifactual meter.

Unfortunately for "speed of light changing" enthusiasts, there is direct evidence from various sources that there have been no significant variations in these constants for hundreds of millions and even billions of years. Bill Jefferys (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill. Any chance that you can try to integrate these points (with sources) into the article? Though the article does state in the lead that its subject is pseudoscience (as of an edit of mine yesterday), the main body currently presents the so-called "creationist cosmologies" without much comment to this effect. Your points would help here, so please edit away! Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 14:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill, you are clearly informed on this issue. With reliable sources cited (per Plumbago's comment above), and a neutral point of view, you could make some good contributions. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)