Distant Starlight Solution?
I've been eagerly anticipating Dr. Jason Lisle's paper in the Answers Research Journal concerning a possible solution to the distant starlight problem, and it has finally arrived! I've read it over once, and a lot of it is over my head, but I think I get the gist of it. If you haven't read it yet, here's the link: Anisotropic Synchrony Convention
Views: 123
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on -
There is supposed to be a less technical article to follow, although when I don't really know.
Paul Iacono said:Yeah, I read about half of it and got so frustrated... I've read Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking and was able to make more sense of them. I'll take another crack at it though.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on -
I've been waiting for this paper for a while too. I haven't finished reading through it yet, but so far it sounds like the same basic idea he described in this article back when he still used the pen name "Robert Newton":
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlight.asp
-
Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on
-
Sorry, but I've also read Greene and Hawking (Elegant Universe, Brief History of Time, etc). Those writings, while semi-technical, were aimed at laymen. Unless you're claiming to have read their technical papers and understood them, in which case you must have an advanced degree or two in astrophysics/mathematics.
If you do have that kind of technical background, then I'm surprised you weren't able "to make at least some semblance of sense out of" the paper, as even I was able to get the basics: the one-way speed of light is not fundamental to nature but is in fact a stipulation.
"That light requires the same time to traverse the path A → M as for the path B → M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity (Einstein 1961, p. 23) [emphasis is in the original]."
This being the case, there is no reason we cannot say that light coming directly at us has infinite velocity (instantaneous travel) and then a velocity of 1/2c going back. As Dr. Lisle says, this is only a stipulation. We could stipulate any number other possibilities, but he goes on to describe why ASC is more likely to be valid. I did find it kind of humorous that it all comes back to your starting presuppositions!
Now, again, I'm no astrophysicist. I couldn't begin to check out the math claims Dr. Lisle makes, but ARJ being a peer-reviewed periodical, I choose to trust it.
Paul Iacono said:It wasn't the "technical" aspects of it that frustrated me. As I said, I've read Greene, Hawking... I was able to make at least some semblance of sense out of them.
-
Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on
-
Paul Iacono said
I would point out, though, that the "peer-reviewed periodical" you refer to is reviewed not by peers in the astrophysics community, but by peers in thereligious community.
Really? I'd have to disagree with you there, Paul. For starters, the editor-in-chief of ARJ is Andrew A. Snelling, PhD (Geology). Now, I can't find a list of the people that review these papers. But that being said, what evidence do you have that those doing the reviewing aren't qualified? I'm willing to give AiG the benefit of the doubt considering their articles are written up by people with advanced degrees in their respective fields. Unless you're asserting that religious people can't do science...
-
Permalink Reply by Frank on -
I also read the article today, and found it to be an excellent explanation of how the principles in the theories of relativity work together. I think once a person understands that the measurement of time depends on position and velocity - and that you must choose one or the other as your point of reference (you don't get to choose both) - then Dr. Lisle's paper makes perfect sense.
Einstein chose to use velocity as his point of reference, as that made the most sense for the most common physics applications. Dr. Lisle is choosing to use position as his point of reference, which makes the math more complex, but explains Genesis chapter 1 and Matthew 2 (the Star of Bethlehem) perfectly. As Dr. Lisle pointed out, the Bible and all history understood time from the perspective of ASC, until Einstein showed us a different way of looking at time. Even scientists of today slip into the ASC point of reference in naming supernovae (giving the year and alphabetic notation) of when they appeared.
-
Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on
-
I made the example to show that the people working ARJ are probably all on the same level (education-wise) as Dr. Lisle and Dr. Snelling, not to imply that Dr. Snelling had the expertise to really get to the heart of Dr. Lisle's paper (but then, who knows, maybe he does?). You, however, have still not substantiated your claim that no one with an astrophysics background reviewed that paper. You simply made an assertion that the ARJ community was a "religious" one as though that somehow proves they aren't qualified.
Paul Iacono said:Well, starting with the only example you provide: A geologist is not an astrophysicist. Two totally different sciences, two totally different skill sets, two totally different bases of knowledge. Would you want an eye doctor to remove your spleen?
Stefan Morin said:Paul Iacono said
I would point out, though, that the "peer-reviewed periodical" you refer to is reviewed not by peers in the astrophysics community, but by peers in thereligious community.
Really? I'd have to disagree with you there, Paul. For starters, the editor-in-chief of ARJ is Andrew A. Snelling, PhD (Geology). Now, I can't find a list of the people that review these papers. But that being said, what evidence do you have that those doing the reviewing aren't qualified? I'm willing to give AiG the benefit of the doubt considering their articles are written up by people with advanced degrees in their respective fields. Unless you're asserting that religious people can't do science...
-
Permalink Reply by Allen Roy on -
While I believe in a young creation week of about 6000 years ago and that there was a global flood that was responsible for the geologic column, I also believe that the universe may be very old, but no evolution. The reason for that comes from several verses throughout the Bible. The viewpoint of the creation week story is from on the surface of the planet, rather than from somewhere in space, so the sun and moon and stars show up visible for the first time from on the planet on day 4, not created from nothing at that time. I've heard all the young universe arguments, including Anisotropic Synchrony Convention, and don't find them convincing. So I am a young earth, young creation week, old universe, flood catastrophist.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on
-
He explains why in this article at the bottom of the section titled "Remaining Silent":
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/11/surviving-secul...
Paul Iacono said:LOL He used a pen name? How funny! I wonder why???!
Justin Mooney said:I've been waiting for this paper for a while too. I haven't finished reading through it yet, but so far it sounds like the same basic idea he described in this article back when he still used the pen name "Robert Newton":
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlight.asp
-
Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on
-
Paul Iacono said:
Stefan, any real, reputable "peer-reviewed" journal will list the names, degrees and affiliations of the scientists who reviewed the research in question. And no, it's not enough that they might be "on the same level". They have to be on the same level and in the same field. That's what "peer-reviewed" means.
I'm sorry, but I not sure on what authority you make such claims. By saying that "any reputable" (which is the same as saying ALL reputable) journal would list names, degrees, etc of those doing the reviewing, you're saying that ARJ is not reputable, which is merely an ag hominem attack since you offer nothing to support your claim other than your assertion that it is so. Either support your claim or retract it.
Please note that I did not ever claim that people from different fields of study reviewed Dr. Lisle's paper. I pointed out that there is no good reason to believe that people with the appropriate backgrounds did not review it. You've again made an accusation that you have yet to substantiate.
-
Permalink Reply by Arthur Smith on -
I do not understand this so-called controversy and Christian's attempts at reasoning it out when God states how He did it a dozen times. For instance:
Isaiah 45:12 "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it I stretched out the heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host."
We don't need fancy theories, just to know He stretched the Heavens out. The concept can be demonstrated with a simple rubber band: http://youdonthavetohaveaphd.blogspot.com/2009/11/wouldnt-it-take-s...
In His Service... Arthur Smith
www.HaveYouNotRead.com
http://YouDontHaveToHaveAPhD.blogspot.com/
My Book: http://tinyurl.com/LetHeavenAndNatureSing
-
Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on
-
Arthur, we're not trying to reason out whether or not He did it (as you said, He makes that clear in His word), but rather how He might have done it.
Arthur Smith said:I do not understand this so-called controversy and Christian's attempts at reasoning it out when God states how He did it a dozen times. For instance:
Isaiah 45:12 "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it I stretched out the heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host."
We don't need fancy theories, just to know He stretched the Heavens out. The concept can be demonstrated with a simple rubber band: http://youdonthavetohaveaphd.blogspot.com/2009/11/wouldnt-it-take-s...
In His Service... Arthur Smith
www.HaveYouNotRead.com
http://YouDontHaveToHaveAPhD.blogspot.com/
My Book: http://tinyurl.com/LetHeavenAndNatureSing
-
Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on
-
Paul, if you read Dr. Lisle's paper, you'll realize that you are assuming that the one-way speed of light is a fundamental constant, which even Einstein maintain it was not. It is if, and only if, you make this stipulation that there is a distant starlight problem. I might add that there is, based on your assumptions, a distant starlight problem with modern secular cosmology as well. The universe is ~15 billion years old, but the observable universe is about 40 billion light years. If we follow your logic to its inevitable conclusion, then the universe can't possibly be only 15 billion years old! Now there are of course "rescuing devices," inflation in this case, but you can always come up with an idea to make your theory fit your worldview. In this case, the rescuing device has no observed evidence/mechanism for how it might have started or stopped.
Your problem obviously lies in the Biblical worldview, but you have no logical argument to refute it, or if you do you have yet to present it.
Paul Iacono said:Stefan's right, it's not really a controversy among Christians. The controversy comes in when you try to jive what the Bible says with what science has discovered. I.e., that if we can see stars that are a billion light years away, that means it took their light a billion years to reach us. Ergo, those stars can't possibly be only 6000 years old.
Arthur Smith said:I do not understand this so-called controversy and Christian's attempts at reasoning it out when God states how He did it a dozen times. For instance:
Isaiah 45:12 "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it I stretched out the heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host."
We don't need fancy theories, just to know He stretched the Heavens out. The concept can be demonstrated with a simple rubber band: http://youdonthavetohaveaphd.blogspot.com/2009/11/wouldnt-it-take-s...
In His Service... Arthur Smith
www.HaveYouNotRead.com
http://YouDontHaveToHaveAPhD.blogspot.com/
My Book: http://tinyurl.com/LetHeavenAndNatureSing
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
