The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[helmespc]

The more important thing to realize is that the Big Bang cosmological model has the same issue; the universe is not nearly old enough to account for the uniformity of radiation we observe today. So anyone who points to this as a problem for creationism is actually pointing out a huge problem with their own cosmological model.

Not to drudge up ancient history in this thread, but I didn't see this fallacy addressed anywhere. Nothing makes my blood boil like misstating accepted science as if it were "incorrect" and thus proving the opposite... Statler's statement here is completely and utterly a LIE based on wishful thinking. In fact, the background radiation of the universe was measured and pointed EXACTLY to the big bang. The cosmological radiation matches up with everything else we know about the cosmological model.... it most certainly is not, and never will be, evidence for the ignorant conclusion that the universe is 6000(!) years old...

[Darwinning]

https://www.answersingenesis.org/content...ention.pdf

So now that you are going to read the article, I will expect you to not post any further “refutations” that were already addressed in the original article.

Let me start by saying that I know nothing about cosmology. There. I'm an idiot, but I'll still respond.

The anisotropic synchrony convention is just that—a convention. It is not a scientific model; it does not make testable predictions. It is a convention of measurement and cannot be falsified any more than the metric system can be falsified. However, I have made an argument in this paper that the Bible uses the ASC system. This claim is in principle falsifiable, though of course I have argued that it is true. Furthermore, given the information in Genesis and the inference that the Bible does use ASC, we can construct a cosmology that does make testable predictions. I will refer to this as the “ASC model.”

I think I agree with that. Nothing wrong with pretending light particles move a different speeds for different observers; even if it seems a bit silly to me.

Also nothing wrong with concluding the Bible uses the ASC system. But those testable predictions sound interesting.

“ASC is more mathematically complex than the Einstein synchrony convention. Therefore, by Occam’s razor, Einstein synchrony is more likely to be correct.” This objection also fails for two reasons. First, Occam’s razor applies to competing models, not alternative conventions. It would be ridiculous to argue that the metric system is more likely to be “correct” than the English system on the basis that it is mathematically
simpler. A system of measurement cannot be “correct” or “incorrect”, though it may be “useful” or “not useful.” Likewise, the Einstein synchrony convention and ASC are two different systems of measurement (like English units and metric), and one can be converted to the other. They are
not competing models.

This may be the case for the ASC convention, but certainly not for the ASC model. Occam's razor should apply to the model and its predictions.

Second, by arguing that one measurement system is “correct,” this hypothetical critic exhibits non-Relativistic thinking. He has denied the conventionality thesis in which we understand that both ASC and Einstein synchronization are legitimate synchrony conventions in Special Relativity. Even for those people familiar with Relativity, it is all too easy to slip back into pre-Einstein thinking, in which we intuitively feel that the one-way speed of light (and hence a given synchrony convention) can be “true” or “false.” But that simply isn’t so. Synchrony conventions are stipulated. They are not a property of the universe that can be investigated.

Again, no argument there. Just that this only applies to the convention, not the model or its predictions.

On to the predictions!

Consider blue stars. Blue, O-type, stars are the hottest and most luminous stars in the universe. Although they are more massive than their yellow and red counterparts, their high luminosity means that they use up their fuel much more quickly than other stars. The hottest blue stars cannot last more than a million years or so. Moreover, it is well known that spontaneous star formation is riddled with theoretical difficulties (overcoming internal gas pressure, angular momentum, and magnetic fields) and lacks any significant observational support.

Lack of observational support and theoretical difficulties? Just like for the existence of (a) God?

Spontaneous star formation vs. spontaneous supreme being formation (a being which subsequently creates the universe). I think Occam's razor serves us well here; the former requires far fewer assumptions than the latter.

(Again, I am no cosmologist. I cannot comment on the validity of the claim that there are theoretical difficulties. But even if there are, I can still apply Occam's razor.)

This is particularly problematic for blue stars since they have the greatest mass. If blue stars do not form, then their presence in any region of space suggests that that region was created in the recent past. Blue stars are ubiquitous in our galaxy, and are apparently in the most distant spiral galaxies as well. This is a strong confirmation of the ASC model. The fact that numerous blue stars exist at all distances is consistent with a universe that is thousands of years old at all distances as we now see it.

"I have not seen people put Twinkies in stores, therefore God must be creating them on the spot!"

So, if I assume God exists and no model for the formation of blue stars is ever found, I will have "a strong confirmation of the ASC model". Not the kind of evidence I was looking for, really. Lack of evidence or theory for the formation of blue stars does not equate to proof of creation. That's just silly. Again, Occam is our friend.

The whole point of this exercise was to prove that we can make testable prediction about cosmology based on Genesis (see above). The above is not a prediction, it merely states observed facts and points at missing evidence.

The rest of the proofs for the model in the paper can likewise be dismissed. Thanks for wasting my time. It was fun.

[Jackalope]

Regardless of what AIG claims about blue giant stars and "problems" with star formation - the existence of low-mass white dwarfs cannot be accounted for in a universe that is not ancient.

AIG's tortured "explanations" aren't supported by science at all. This nonsense has been refuted thoroughly countless times already.

[Erinome]

Like a broken fucking record. Just preach over it, why don't ya!

[All they can do]

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Yes, I went over with Statler ages ago regarding ASC and the speed of light.
He doesn't seem to quite understand just how impossible space travel would be if we used a different 'convention' than what relativity uses because that would make communication with space probes impossible - communications would arrive to the probes at half the speed of light and return instantaneously.

Nevermind that 'instantaneous' travel being impossible and our assumptions about C have thus far been proven correct as far as telescopes can see - nevermind the practical applications both on the ground and in space that all rely on relativity being absolutely correct.

I'm sorry, Statler, but simply using a 'different measuring tool' doesn't make ASC's idea that the physical constants of the universe aren't exactly the same regardless of the observer's position - including the speed of light and there's plenty of data (like NASA's entire history of space travel) to prove it.

Earth does not have a special position in the universe. It never has. It will live and die just like any other planet in the universe - as such, ASC's method of cheating the speed of light to make the universe younger does not work.

[Darwinning]

I'm sorry, Statler, but simply using a 'different measuring tool' doesn't make ASC's idea that the physical constants of the universe aren't exactly the same regardless of the observer's position - including the speed of light and there's plenty of data (like NASA's entire history of space travel) to prove it.

That's the bit that confused me in the article. Is the author suggesting that the speed of light is different in relation to Earth, or in relation to the observer? Both seem ludicrous, and I can come up with all sorts of problems for both, but it was never quite clear to me from the article which of these nutty proposals it was putting forward.

[The Grand Nudger]

It was probably never quite clear to the proponent of the argument either, so don't feel bad.

[Darwinning]

It was probably never quite clear to the proponent of the argument either, so don't feel bad.

I was afraid you were going to say that.

A shame. I'd liked to have understood better exactly why the article was total bs.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, "creation scientists" are never actually looking for a model of anything. They have their model, the OT. They feel that it is complete and accurate. What they do look to do is criticize, insert doubt, etc in any area where evidence leads us to conclude something that would be contradictory with the OT. Nothing wrong with criticism or doubt (the OT focus is trash), but it would be nice if they took it a little farther. Sadly, once they've given an alternative that "sounds sciencey" and would seem to fit with their religious narrative that's where the train stops (most times).

[Zen Badger]

I see Statler hasn't been back.....
Hee, hee hee.....