# Young Earther cosmology:

sonhouse
Science 07 Jan '16 12:49
1. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
07 Jan '16 12:49
The world according to RJ and his buddies, the Earth, the solar system, the entire universe, is 6000 years old.

Ok, flying with that cosmology,

It would require a variable speed of light.

For instance, we know the speed of light very very well here on Earth.

We can, for instance, measure the distance changes of the moon directly by the retro-reflector left there by the Apollo astronauts.

We also know the speed of light very well by the Voyager probes, now out to about 5 billion miles, 8 billion Km, from the sun.

There is no variation we can measure directly out to 5 billion miles.

But the YEC cosmology would insist that say, for a star 10,000 light years away to have become visible now, c would have to be by definition, 1.6666c but the closer to Earth you get under that cosmology, the closer to c we measure here.

So going out to the edge of the universe, 13 billion light years, in order for that light to have reached us in the 6000 years old the Earth OBVIOUSLY is since we read the bibleđź™‚ that means c has to be 16 TRILLION times the c we measure on Earth.

But we don't see any variation in c, directly measured by the light flight time to the voyagers, if that cosmology held water, c measured at the voyager distance would have to be ever so slightly faster than c here on Earth.

That would seem to put the cabosh on THAT particular cosmology.

What you you all think?

I put that to RJ in spirituality to see what he comes up with.

I am sure he will find some rational for it all. After all, the bible is the word of GOD.......
2. 07 Jan '16 22:375 edits
they would say if the speed of light can be constant then God made the light between the stars in transit.
But here is the problem with that:

We observe through our telescopes a star exploding (a supernovae) that is, say, 100,000 light years away. Note that when a star explodes, it ceases to exist (at least as a star ).

So when did that star explode? Obviously the young-Earth creationist cannot say it happened 100,000 years ago (like science says it must) because that would mean the universe is more than 100,000 years old.

OK, if the universe is 6000 years old then, to see that star now, god must have produced a fake image made light in transit showing the star exploding just as we would see it if light traveled much faster from its source (why would a god do that? -well that's another problem). That, of course, would mean the light we see in the image of a star exploding is fake in the sense that it couldn't have come from the star at all thus is not starlight (how can it be starlight if it didn't come from a star?) but "God light" made by a god.

But unless this God is showing us LIES (why would a God do that!?), there must have been a real star exploded 100,000 light years away and that REAL starlight from that explosion still hasn't reached us because that light needs to travel for 100,000 years first, which it couldn't yet have done unless the universe is way older than 6000 years old.

But that means in a bit less than about 100,000 years time that REAL starlight from that explosion will eventually reach us and we will see the same star explode yet again! Even though the first explosion should have ended the star's existence! So now we will apparently see a star that ended its existence in an explosion a long time a go explode yet again for a second time! That makes no sense at all! Why would a god go to all the trouble to create such apparent cosmological contradictions? -to confuse us?
I thought this God isn't supposed to show us lies?
3. 08 Jan '16 10:40
This is the wrong forum. But in line with what humy has said, my analogy is that God made Adam with memories of his childhood, and the fight he had with his elder brother when he was five and his mother got all angry with them. I once explained this to Kelly and he has never talked to me again.
4. moonbus
Uber-Nerd
08 Jan '16 11:52
This is the wrong forum. But in line with what humy has said, my analogy is that God made Adam with memories of his childhood, and the fight he had with his elder brother when he was five and his mother got all angry with them. I once explained this to Kelly and he has never talked to me again.
It gets worse. If one assumes that the universe was created 6,000 years ago, then the universe cannot be any bigger than 12,000 light-years across (6,000 l-y radius), even if the speed of light is variable (or was much slower in times past).

The speed of light in a vacuum is 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). So, in a year, it travels 5,878,499,810,000 miles or 9,460,528,400,000 kilometers.

But even if one assumes that the speed of light was once much slower, let's say 1% of its present speed, it still does not rescue the YE hypothesis. For light cannot have been traveling any longer than 6,000 years at whatever speed, if the YE hypothesis is correct. Therefore the universe cannot have a radius greater than 6,000 l-y (at whatever speed), if the YE hypothesis is correct.

This simply does not match empirical observations.

If YE-ers now want to say that God created light which merely appears to have traveled from much farther away and merely appears to be billions of years old, as God created fossils which merely appear to be millions of years old--but really aren't--then God is a deceiver on such a cosmic scale that it beggers all comprehension. One might as well believe that God created the entire universe just this moment, replete with fictitious memories of our having gone to bed last night.
5. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
08 Jan '16 12:56
Originally posted by humy
they would say if the speed of light can be constant then God made the light between the stars in transit.
But here is the problem with that:

We observe through our telescopes a star exploding (a supernovae) that is, say, 100,000 light years away. Note that when a star explodes, it ceases to exist (at least as a star ).

So when did that star explode? Obv ...[text shortened]... osmological contradictions? -to confuse us?
I thought this God isn't supposed to show us lies?
There is another problem in that faked light scenario: A god could arrange things that we could be fooled and such but it would be impossible to fool every advanced civilization in the universe, since we could be seeing things like a Gonsalves painting, from one perspective the fake works, but another perspective, it would be obvious something fishy is going on.

http://www.boredpanda.com/magic-realism-paintings-rob-gonsalves/

So to say a god did it to fake us out is just another manifestation of the attitude of the religious, that humanity is SO important and to be kept from real knowledge a god would go to great lengths to make things appear as they are today.
6. 08 Jan '16 16:21
Originally posted by moonbus
It gets worse. If one assumes that the universe was created 6,000 years ago, then the universe cannot be any bigger than 12,000 light-years across (6,000 l-y radius), even if the speed of light is variable (or was much slower in times past).
Actually those YECs that do try to resolve the issue by suggesting a modified light speed suggest that light travelled faster, not slower.

Therefore the universe cannot have a radius greater than 6,000 l-y (at whatever speed), if the YE hypothesis is correct.
If light travelled faster, then it would be possible. It would however, not match observations.

One might as well believe that God created the entire universe just this moment, replete with fictitious memories of our having gone to bed last night.
Yes, LastThursdayism is the standard counter to the 'light in transit' creationist solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
7. 08 Jan '16 18:12
Originally posted by sonhouse
The world according to RJ and his buddies, the Earth, the solar system, the entire universe, is 6000 years old.

Ok, flying with that cosmology,

It would require a variable speed of light.
You're assuming that they think that far. That assumption is clearly wrong.
8. moonbus
Uber-Nerd
08 Jan '16 19:56
If light travelled faster, the universe could still be no greater than 12,000 l-y in diameter. The universe might be greater or smaller in miles or kms, depending on the speed of light, but the 6,000 l-y radius is fixed, if Genesis is right.
9. moonbus
Uber-Nerd
08 Jan '16 21:23
BTW, has any YE-er actually done the math to figure out just what the speed of light would have to have been to account for observed size of the universe if it were only 6,000 yrs old instead of the current estimate of 12 - 14 billion?
10. 08 Jan '16 21:55
Originally posted by moonbus
BTW, has any YE-er actually done the math
No.

You're all assuming that these people think, and are capable of doing maths.

They're not even capable of reading the Bible for anything but literalism, for #*&#'s sake, when most of it is clearly not written that way.
11. moonbus
Uber-Nerd
08 Jan '16 22:54
Originally posted by Shallow Blue
No.

You're all assuming that these people think, and are capable of doing maths.

They're not even capable of reading the Bible for anything but literalism, for #*&#'s sake, when most of it is clearly not written that way.
Well, it certainly wasn't written for Christ's sake.
12. 09 Jan '16 16:51
Originally posted by moonbus
If light travelled faster, the universe could still be no greater than 12,000 l-y in diameter. The universe might be greater or smaller in miles or kms, depending on the speed of light, but the 6,000 l-y radius is fixed, if Genesis is right.
Why? I don't understand how you come up with that.

Light would have have to have travelled almost instantaneously for Adam to see any stars. But I see no reason why you put a 6,000 ly radius limit on the universe.
13. 09 Jan '16 16:52
Originally posted by Shallow Blue
No.

You're all assuming that these people think, and are capable of doing maths.

They're not even capable of reading the Bible for anything but literalism, for #*&#'s sake, when most of it is clearly not written that way.
I believe Kelly is capable of doing some maths. He doesn't accept relativity though.
14. menace71
Can't win a game of
09 Jan '16 21:02