a starlight problem for nonchristians(not meaning nonchristians in a bad way)?

Question

The ‘distant starlight problem’ is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel–time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel–time problem.

The background
In 1964/5, Penzias and Wilson discovered that the earth was bathed in a faint microwave radiation, apparently coming from the most distant observable regions of the universe, and this earned them the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978.1 This Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) comes from all directions in space and has a characteristic temperature.2,3 While the discovery of the CMB has been called a successful prediction of the big bang model,4 it is actually a problem for the big bang. This is because the precisely uniform temperature of the CMB creates a light-travel–time problem for big bang models of the origin of the universe.

The problem
The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere5—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000).6 However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB7 would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light8). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.


(1) Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.
(2) Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light.
The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?9 This is a light-travel–time problem.10

The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. At the time the light was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, space already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than the distance that light could have travelled (called the ‘horizon’)11 So, how can these regions look the same, i.e. have the same temperature? How can one side of the visible universe ‘know’ about the other side if there has not been enough time for the information to be exchanged? This is called the ‘horizon problem’.12 Secular astronomers have proposed many possible solutions to it, but no satisfactory one has emerged to date (see Attempts to overcome the big bang’s ‘light-travel–time problem’ below).

Summing up
The big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. Both biblical creationists and big bang supporters have proposed a variety of possible solutions to light-travel–time difficulties in their respective models. So big-bangers should not criticize creationists for hypothesizing potential solutions, since they do the same thing with their own model. The horizon problem remains a serious difficulty for big bang supporters, as evidenced by their many competing conjectures that attempt to solve it. Therefore, it is inconsistent for supporters of the big bang model to use light-travel time as an argument against biblical creation, since their own notion has an equivalent problem.

Attempts to overcome the big bang’s ‘light-travel–time problem’
Currently, the most popular idea is called ‘inflation’—a conjecture invented by Alan Guth in 1981. In this scenario, the expansion rate of the universe (i.e. space itself) was vastly accelerated in an ‘inflation phase’ early in the big bang. The different regions of the universe were in very close contact before this inflation took place. Thus, they were able to come to the same temperature by exchanging radiation before they were rapidly (faster than the speed of light1) pushed apart. According to inflation, even though distant regions of the universe are not in contact today, they were in contact before the inflation phase when the universe was small.

However, the inflation scenario is far from certain. There are many different inflation models, each with its set of difficulties. Moreover, there is no consensus on whic

Answer 1

I don't believe this. If you're going to argue a point, it helps if you know what you're talking about. If you don't then do what I (usually) manage to do, which is leave it to those who know what the words mean. A cut/paste like that fools no-one.



What this is really saying is "We can make things up to suit our dogma because scienists do the same."



Wrong from the start. Scientists develop what they call a hypothesis based on what they see and that can be tested either directly or by continuing observation. Not only don't these creationist science proposals do that, but they use a selected bit of good science to say why another bit doesn't follow, simply ignoring whatever valid explanation there is.



Now if people choose to believe this, that's their business. What I object to is that it's being done for exactly the reason you've posted here. It's not to persuade scientists and change their minds, it's to fool you. It's an appalling breach of trust by those who are supposed to preach Christ crucified, not recruit you and use you to spread some gospel that science is incorrect. I'm a Christian, and the people who try this are doing us no favours.

Answer 2

You're just rollin' tonight, aren't you? I think that non-Christians think that they understand Christianity better than they really do. In most cases, but not all. And not to attack them at all -- it's just a matter of actively being away from something. In 1991-1996, I could recite the entire Atlanta Braves starting lineup, their 5 starters, and the closer. Now, I'm still what I would call a hard core fan, but I can't do that anymore. With a full-time job, a wife, and this blinkin' Yahoo thing, I don't give as much time to baseball as I did. Ex-Christians (or non-Christians), same thing. I think that our beliefs are misrepresented fairly often on here. BUT, in many cases, this is being done by younger (faithwise) Christians and/or trolls. And, we ourselves don't always understand everything perfectly. It's an imperfect world -- we see through a glass darkly. Not to make an excuse for our mistakes, honest mistakes, but it is what it is. I could stand to learn A LOT more, but I answer as best I can with what I know to be true and what I believe to be true. If I learn differently, from the Scriptures or a different interpretation that follows the Scriptures, I would of course modify my position. Have a great night!

Answer 3

Perhaps there is a third option that doesn't include god or the big bang... something no one has thought of yet. Anyway, creationism is knocked out of the water by dinosaurs.



The bottom line is that no one knows what really happened. You're lucky to have your own mind and thoughts that you can use however you like. You can believe in god, or not. I personally do not believe in the bible at all. not one bit. There's too much that doesn't make sense to me, and I feel that organized religion has caused more harm than good to this world.

Answer 4

I disagree with Big Bang, too, but not nearly as much as I disagree with creationism. The article by Jason Lisle, Ph.D., which you quote verbatim from Creation Ministries International, does raise some valid arguments agains Big Bang. You have to be pretty smart to understand them. The arguments against creationism, on the other hand, are too numerous to count, and most of them can be understood by anyone with an open mind.



Don't plagiarise; cite your sources.

Answer 5

The inflationary mechanism is a very satisfactory solution to this problem. It may not be universally (heh heh) accepted by cosmologists, but it is now probably the majority opinion.



Predictions of inflationary theory have been borne out by later measurements: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24768



Comparing this revision of an existing model to the case of young-earth creationism is hardly fair. YEC cannot be reconciled with science by twiddling a few variables. For YEC to be true, it would require us to unceremoniously dump cosmology, astronomy, physics, geology and biology on the dung heap.

Answer 6

this does not prove creation.



although i do have a question



would increasing light's speed do disastrous things to E=MC^2



since C is squared, a little change is a lot. for the universe to be 6000 years old and for us to see a galaxy 13.7 billion light years away would mean a big change for C, and only a temporary change, since it is now traveling at 3.0E8. How would this effect mass in the universe?

Answer 7

Why go all the way to the Big Bang?

First you've got to get past reliable and consistent

varve, (look it up), tree ring, and ice core data,

going back well beyond 12,000 Yr.s.

(Much farther in the ice cores.)

The B.B. Theory, (just like Genesis), gets vague as

you approach 'the beginning'. That's why it's a Theory.

Answer 8

If you're going to copy and paste articles from AnswersinGenesis.com, don't you feel a little funny having the space run out on you in the middle of a word?



Don't paste 800 words of creationist lies and quote-mining, anti-scientific, fundamentalist propaganda and present it as a science question.



Ask a question.