Creationists: Starlight & Time Dilation

[FallingWaters]

This week, I watched the DVD by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. called Starlight and Time. Have any of you seen it and or read the corresponding book, and would you like to discuss the merits of his proposed theory?

Humphreys was an atheist until he was about 27 years old. He was a grad student in physics at the time. He says he was an evolutionist for another year afterward until he read a book by Dr. Henry Morris and started to ask himself these questions: "What is the actual evidence that the earth is billions of years old?" and "What is the actual evidence that we had a long sequence of events of gradual evolution?" He says he found out there was "no real evidence for either one of those things".

I enjoyed his presentation. The camera work was creative. A couple of times he made the point that we should hold on to this theory lightly and be willing to adjust it as new evidence becomes available. I was impressed with him as a person, and as a brother in Christ. I liked the way his goal was to remain true to the straightforward reading and meaning of scripture.

To tell you the truth, I am too much of a novice - and also spatially-challenged - to be able to fully understand his theory. At least after hearing it only once. But I was especially intrigued by the idea that the Big Bang Theory requires that the universe must have no center, even though the ordinary person on the street is unaware of that stipulation.

Conversely, Humphreys' theory requires that the universe must have a center and that the earth must be near it. I have no problem believing this at all, since I already was under that impression. I have been taught that the entire creation was established for our benefit and that humans were the pinnacle of God's creation. If that's true, then it would make sense that we would be placed in the center of it all.

The whole concept of the fabric of space being dented was all new to me, and I have a hard time envisioning how that works. I found it fascinating that the Voyager 2 recently found that space is dented. I'm not always sure about which of these concepts are accepted by evolutionists and which are not.

I was just wondering if BusterDog, Mark K, Calminian or any other Young Earth Creationists had any input or comments on the theory.

 

[FallingWaters]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/267.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/physics.asp

Here are a couple of articles where he explains some of his thinking.

 

[busterdog]

I am going to have a closer look.

My impression in the past has simply been that all of these origins ideas start with mind-bogglingly extreme numbers -- in terms of mass, energy, etc.

What happens in these areas of extremes is that there are issues with time dilation -- so much so that even within the realm of the smallest particles imaginable, it is hard to even say that they are "there". Remember, we are talking about space-time, not just location.

Whatever it is that makes a "big bang" or a white hole has similar characteristics. Behind them or before them is what? Infinite possibility. By definition that suggests infinite possibilities for how it is that these enormously dense or energetic things behave -- whether they went off as big bangs, white holes or 10 to the 60th power events within about six days. The math is just crazy.

Now faced with mathematically infinite possibility, evolutionists narrow it down to one certainty because they have had a look at the end result -- oh wait excuse me, they have had a look at about 100 years of 6,000 plus and don't know what the next millenium will bring, except they can wish really hard and deny tenure to all who refuse. Maybe the words "sample" and "infinity" mean something different at college.

Being a creationist, and as the nerds say, "At least I didn't have to invent 26 dimensions to make the math work." I don't think there is anything too scandalous in this. Kind of funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8P0YmgQTbA

 

[FallingWaters]

That was cute and funny! LOL!!
I loved it. Too bad about the writers strike. It might be one of the casualties.

 

[busterdog]

It always strikes me that many people don’t realize that just because you find something that agrees with a particular prediction of one model, even though that’s encouraging for the model, you can’t really talk about ‘proving’ something that happened so long ago.

Yes, and it depends on what the competition is. If there is another theory that makes the same predictions, then it is not proof of either theory at all. It merely says that both theories are still in the running. And there happens to be another theory which is coming up fast as the main contender—it is a creationist theory that I have been working on for a number of years, and it also predicts this microwave radiation, with its tiny bumps. [Ed. note: see his book and video, right, both produced after this interview, for an explanation of his theory, at both a popular-level as well as technical explanations for those interested. For the lastest on the cosmic microwave background irregulaties, see Surprise? NASA ‘confirms’ the big bang.]
​

I pulled this out of his article. Now, Humphries I believe is a big critic of Setterfield. So is Arp, how apparently has yet another cosmology that he might possibly have a go at in the future. He sent me an email about that!

Although the don't agree, they do see to agree on the above stuff out of Humphries.

He measurement of cosmic background radiation is supposed to be so momentous because it was predicted and then observe. Some say the prediction was not all that close. But, who cares? Hearing a scream in the woods means little, even if you predicted the Blair Witch was out there.

I sort of got the gist that Humphries was just trying work out a few possibilities to see what was plausible and yet within the six days of creation. That is a far cry from accepting Gen. 1-2 because some scientist proved it was so (an accusation getting popular in OP and tempting me to rage with regal drama about the whole thing).

There are a few other explanations for CBR out there. Its kind of funny that having measure a portion of space between here a Pluto these guys are proclaiming victory on this point. Essentially its a very local echo (as far was we know). How many things can cause an echo with a certain pitch? Astonomers are continually surprised by new types of explosions in space that had never been observed.

There is an inherent circularity of reason in the human being. A philosopher named Heidegger said pretty much flat out that if you say you know anything, that is statement of metaphysics. Here, in astronomy it is ever more true. Any equation that starts with an unknown quantity is exactly what? Something that starts at an arbitrary point. Once you calibrate your measurements to the supposed results of that event, what do you have? Circularity. In creating the idea of black matter, they essentially calibrated their equation to an assumed event.

Humphries starts to get at the idea to an extent with the following:

[Ed. note: see Evidence for a Young World.]

Yes. That’s true. I estimate that there are probably several hundred processes that one could use to get an idea of the age of the earth. Only a few dozen, at most, of these processes seem to give you billions of years. The other 90 per cent of those processes give you ages much less than billions of years. So it seems like it would be good science to go with the flow of the 90 per cent of the data, and use as a working hypothesis that the Earth really is young and then to try to find explanations for the other 10 per cent of the data.
​

That whole process seems to be a much more scientific approach than the one that is taken by evolutionists. Basically, they concentrate on the 10 per cent of the data, and that’s the data you’ve always heard about. Such as the light travelling from distant galaxies and the radiometric dating techniques, and a few other things like that.
​

As such, if you have a bunch of measurements and only a few fit your theory, what do you have when you calibrate to those measurements? Circularity.

Proving the circularity of much of the age dating stuff seems like a lot of work. Part of the problem is that you are trying to measure how wet the water is when you are a fish. You have nothing to compare it to. Only God is outside of time. Our data set is different, and simply pointing out that the data set is limited never seems to do much for our evolutionist friends.

The other thing I like about the latter quote is that it has something to say about this "God wouldn't lie to our geiger counters" canard.

He made beggars blind, even for his glory as Jesus says, so why not scientists?

 

[FallingWaters]

I'm surprised to read that Humphreys doesn't care for Setterfield's ideas because at one point during the DVD I was thinking, "Oh! Too bad you don't know about plasma! Plasma would go perfectly right there!"

 

[shernren]

I'm surprised to read that Humphreys doesn't care for Setterfield's ideas because at one point during the DVD I was thinking, "Oh! Too bad you don't know about plasma! Plasma would go perfectly right there!"

I think Humphreys doesn't use any plasma cosmology because the plasma cosmologists don't believe in a Big Bang - because they don't believe that the universe was ever created, "it just is" to them.

Be careful who you ally with metaphysically. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I think Humphreys doesn't use any plasma cosmology because the plasma cosmologists don't believe in a Big Bang - because they don't believe that the universe was ever created, "it just is" to them.

Be careful who you ally with metaphysically. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

You probably have a point even though Humphrey's big bang, if you can call it that, fits into a literal approach to Genesis but allows for billions of years to past in what would seem to be no time at all here on Earth. Very interesting indeed. I highly recommend the video over the book if you have to choose one or the other. As for your 2nd statement I agree totally. All because someone is the enemy of your enemy doesn't make them your friend.

 

[busterdog]

I'm surprised to read that Humphreys doesn't care for Setterfield's ideas because at one point during the DVD I was thinking, "Oh! Too bad you don't know about plasma! Plasma would go perfectly right there!"

I don't know that much about Humphreys idea. The impression I got from the site AiG site is that part of the problem is the Setterfield is too roundly dismissed. AiG shies away from controversy were possible.

I find it a bit odd that Humphries would be so didactic on this point, when the Humphries model seems to be a way to fit the model to his conclusions. In other words, it is not evidence driven, but conclusion driven. He provides a useful and plausible model, but it didn't seem clear to me that even he was convinced it was THE answer.

The AiG had some favorable stuff on Setterfield, but it was mostly critical with the same tired junk the agnostics were spinning on their catty web sites. Error bars and cherry picking, lots of nice words, but no professional statistical analysis. Later posts were more open to a variable speed of light, but setterfield didn't seem to get any credit.

The plasma model, similarly, is just a model. It is not argued to be the answer. Unlike the Big Bang worshippers, I don't see that these other folks have that much invested emotionally and politically in their models.

Setterfield seems to be accepting of some of the electric universe ideas, but that is not per se a conviction on origins.

Steady state has nothing to do with any of this. That is like having a position on immigration and another on the war in Iraq. They have a tendency to go together, but no necessary relationship.

 

[shernren]

As far as I can tell, OEC viewpoints are completely legit here. Therefore, here's an OEC critique: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unraveling.shtml

Have fun. Feel free to ask me about any of the technical details.

You probably have a point even though Humphrey's big bang, if you can call it that, fits into a literal approach to Genesis but allows for billions of years to past in what would seem to be no time at all here on Earth. Very interesting indeed. I highly recommend the video over the book if you have to choose one or the other. As for your 2nd statement I agree totally. All because someone is the enemy of your enemy doesn't make them your friend.

The fundamental difference between Humphreys and the "other side" like Setterfield, Arp, and the plasma cosmology guys is that Humphreys is completely working from within the framework of GR and starting by assuming that Einstein's theories accurately describe the physical structure of the universe. (Of course, I'm not convinced that he completely understands them - but that's unrelated to my main point.) The main observations that support the Big Bang are redshift measurements obeying (roughly ) Hubble's Law, and the cosmic microwave background.

Do remember that around the 1920s to 1950s there were indeed plenty of alternative theories floating around against the Big Bang. Models like oscillatory universes, steady state, tired light - what all those "other models" have is that there is no beginning in them.

Even that is true today. Look back to the basic theoretical motivation for the Big Bang. If the galaxies are all speeding away today, then if you reverse time - if you play the tape backwards, so to speak - they must all have started from a single point, which would have had to have been a singularity, which would necessitate some kind of point at which the universe starts. That only holds, however, if you think redshift really reflects the state of motion of a galaxy. Both Setterfield/Arp and the electric cosmos people think that they have some kind of alternative explanation for redshift. But if that is true, then galaxies aren't actually moving around, and the whole time-reversal argument doesn't work, and there is no theoretical or observational motivation left to assume that the universe actually began.

I know it must be uncomfortable dealing with a model that says, essentially, "Many billions of years ago, it all began". Most of you don't like the "many billions of years ago ... " bit, and that's understandable. But in "it all began" you have a fundamental tenet of creation and creationism and I think the AiG gang know what they're doing to leave it alone. That's why you'll see them tinkering around with GR instead of trying to explain the evidence away with even more radical theories - because if the universe isn't changing in some fantastic, irreversible way right now, if the redshift-deniers are right, then there is no reason to assume that the Universe ever began and will ever end - there is no reason to assume that the Universe has ever done anything other than exist, no creation required.

 

[Assyrian]

Be careful who you ally with metaphysically. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

A bit like Alien vs Predator?

 

[FallingWaters]

You probably have a point even though Humphrey's big bang, if you can call it that, fits into a literal approach to Genesis but allows for billions of years to past in what would seem to be no time at all here on Earth. Very interesting indeed. I highly recommend the video over the book if you have to choose one or the other. As for your 2nd statement I agree totally. All because someone is the enemy of your enemy doesn't make them your friend.

What are you guys talking about?

Humphreys' cosmology doesn't include a big bang. It's the opposite of the big bang because the big bang requires that there not be a center to the universe, but Humphreys' cosmology requires there is a center.

I didn't get the impression at all that his theory was anything like the big bang.

 

[busterdog]

What are you guys talking about?

Humphreys' cosmology doesn't include a big bang. It's the opposite of the big bang because the big bang requires that there not be a center to the universe, but Humphreys' cosmology requires there is a center.

I didn't get the impression at all that his theory was anything like the big bang.

Don't get hung up on the center of the universe thing. It is mostly useful to try to trip up the layman.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

Its really just a semantic game if it is brought into this discussion. For example, theidea that the universe is like an expanding balloon is useful, the idea of direction of that expansion and anisotropy is useful, but the idea of a center is irrelevant. Its really just a question of using analogies, none of which are ever perfect. So, don't sweat the "center" thing. THey are just say, yes, its like a balloon. THere is no rubber at the center.

Humphries seems to use the idea of inflation (explosion if you like) from some type of singularity. I am a bit confused on some of the comparisons, but there are some analogies.

 

[FallingWaters]

...
I find it a bit odd that Humphries would be so didactic on this point, when the Humphries model seems to be a way to fit the model to his conclusions. In other words, it is not evidence driven, but conclusion driven.

Isn't the theory of evolution the same way?
Or when they create the "perfect" environment in a laboratory and make an amino acid and say life was made that way, isn't that what they're doing?

He provides a useful and plausible model, but it didn't seem clear to me that even he was convinced it was THE answer.

I wouldn't trust him if he said it was the answer. How arrogant would one have to be to claim that? Every idea or theory has to be properly adjusted as new information becomes available. I think his attitude is that if any information comes available that contradicts his theory, then obviously that part of his theory must be considered falsified, and he must then adjust that part of his theory.

The AiG had some favorable stuff on Setterfield, but it was mostly critical with the same tired junk the agnostics were spinning on their catty web sites. Error bars and cherry picking, lots of nice words, but no professional statistical analysis. Later posts were more open to a variable speed of light, but etterfield didn't seem to get any credit.

Well I happen to think it's a really cool idea that the "stuff" of space fabric could be plasma.

The plasma model, similarly, is just a model. It is not argued to be the answer. Unlike the Big Bang worshipers, I don't see that these other folks have that much invested emotionally and politically in their models.

They're all models, in my opinion - some more plausible than others.

 

[FallingWaters]

Don't get hung up on the center of the universe thing. It is mostly useful to try to trip up the layman.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

Its really just a semantic game if it is brought into this discussion. For example, theidea that the universe is like an expanding balloon is useful, the idea of direction of that expansion and anisotropy is useful, but the idea of a center is irrelevant. Its really just a question of using analogies, none of which are ever perfect. So, don't sweat the "center" thing. THey are just say, yes, its like a balloon. THere is no rubber at the center.

Humphries seems to use the idea of inflation (explosion if you like) from some type of singularity. I am a bit confused on some of the comparisons, but there are some analogies.

Ok. Well, then I don't think Humphreys sees space like a balloon. He sees it more like a stretched out sheet with a dent in the middle. I don't think it's the same. Granted, I might have to watch the video a couple more times before I get it under my belt.

I'm willing to concede it might be like the big bang in some ways, but I really think he should open up his mind to the idea of the plasma.

 

[busterdog]

Isn't the theory of evolution the same way?

Most of what I say is the same way, and really everyone else. I guess most everything is, except the word of God.

* * *

They're all models, in my opinion - some more plausible than others.

I think that's the point. Once you start listing the unknowns that have been discovered, it seems there is far more unknown than there is known.

 

[shernren]

Don't get hung up on the center of the universe thing. It is mostly useful to try to trip up the layman.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

Its really just a semantic game if it is brought into this discussion. For example, theidea that the universe is like an expanding balloon is useful, the idea of direction of that expansion and anisotropy is useful, but the idea of a center is irrelevant. Its really just a question of using analogies, none of which are ever perfect. So, don't sweat the "center" thing. THey are just say, yes, its like a balloon. THere is no rubber at the center.

Humphries seems to use the idea of inflation (explosion if you like) from some type of singularity. I am a bit confused on some of the comparisons, but there are some analogies.

It's not really a semantic debate. Let me give you a simple analogy (heh, heh) to show you why.

Suppose you cut a tunnel through to the center of the Earth. Let's say I take a scale and weigh myself on the surface on the Earth. I'll weigh about 70kg (unfortunately). Now if I go to the center of the Earth, I'll weigh nothing. Since the mass of the Earth evenly surrounds me on all sides, everything cancels and the Earth's gravity has no effect on me.

Again - if I take a ball and throw it straight up, it lands straight down (and in a bad cartoon, or a theoretical physics problem, it lands on my head with adverse effects for me). But if I take a ball and throw it at 45 degrees, it lands quite far away from me.

The point is that for Big Bang models to work as advertised, they must assume that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on the distance scales at which the theory works. Not on the scale of solar systems or even galaxies; not on the large scale of "outside the stuff we can see" that Baez talks about; but on the scale of the CMB - which is indeed incredibly smooth. Now, homogenuous means physical laws work the same wherever you are; isotropic means physical laws work the same whatever way you're pointed.

However, the Earth example I just gave shows that things aren't homogeneous or isotropic on Earth. The results of physical experiments vary depending on where I am; or on what direction I'm pointing in. This is explained by the fact that space isn't "even-ed out" around and about Earth - things tend to fall, towards the center. This is the sense in which Humphreys uses center - he means to say that there are unbalanced gravitational forces throughout the universe and that they point to a center very near Earth.

 

[FallingWaters]

Most of what I say is the same way, and really everyone else. I guess most everything is, except the word of God.

* * *



I think that's the point. Once you start listing the unknowns that have been discovered, it seems there is far more unknown than there is known.

Right. I know that's shocking to you, but I think that's how new theories start. And if you keep on going, and don't get falsified, it's highly likely that you're correct. Eventually, the theory gets to the point where it can be trusted to predict things.

 

[busterdog]

Right. I know that's shocking to you, but I think that's how new theories start. And if you keep on going, and don't get falsified, it's highly likely that you're correct. Eventually, the theory gets to the point where it can be trusted to predict things.

Well, I kind of looked at the answers at the end of the Book. So, in theory you are right. But, it will take a lot of time to develop. And, in a prophetic sense, I think the safe money is betting we won't be around long enough to see it. But, you could be right.

 

[busterdog]

It's not really a semantic debate. Let me give you a simple analogy (heh, heh) to show you why.

Suppose you cut a tunnel through to the center of the Earth. Let's say I take a scale and weigh myself on the surface on the Earth. I'll weigh about 70kg (unfortunately). Now if I go to the center of the Earth, I'll weigh nothing. Since the mass of the Earth evenly surrounds me on all sides, everything cancels and the Earth's gravity has no effect on me.

Again - if I take a ball and throw it straight up, it lands straight down (and in a bad cartoon, or a theoretical physics problem, it lands on my head with adverse effects for me). But if I take a ball and throw it at 45 degrees, it lands quite far away from me.

The point is that for Big Bang models to work as advertised, they must assume that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on the distance scales at which the theory works. Not on the scale of solar systems or even galaxies; not on the large scale of "outside the stuff we can see" that Baez talks about; but on the scale of the CMB - which is indeed incredibly smooth. Now, homogenuous means physical laws work the same wherever you are; isotropic means physical laws work the same whatever way you're pointed.

However, the Earth example I just gave shows that things aren't homogeneous or isotropic on Earth. The results of physical experiments vary depending on where I am; or on what direction I'm pointing in. This is explained by the fact that space isn't "even-ed out" around and about Earth - things tend to fall, towards the center. This is the sense in which Humphreys uses center - he means to say that there are unbalanced gravitational forces throughout the universe and that they point to a center very near Earth.

Is there any support for Humphries on center of the universe thing? Presumably it is not overwhelming evidence. I have heard this idea elsewhere and it never made sense to me. Some folks had used the readshift notion, which, even if you reject Tift doesn't seem to require more than the expanding envelope notion.

One story is that Hubble struggled with this idea and was terrified at the idea that the data would suggest a preferred position in the universe -- apparently because that would be way too unlikely for his taste.

I am all for the laws of physics not working in certain areas. I am guessing that here one needs to take sides as between Einstein and Lorentz and the preferred frame of reference thing. But, the no center thing I think confuses the discussion and detracts from the usefullness of the expanding envelope analogy. That was really my point in emphasizing the more useful analogy.