Talk:Starlight problem

message: Further to my note above, I now think this whole section should be (re)moved.  It deals with an ongoing scientific discussion that, while about the speed of light and cosmic evolution, has otherwise little to do with the stance taken by YECs.  The outcome of this discussion will not help the YEC cause, as this seeks a truncation of the age of the universe far in excess of what appears remotely possible.  Leaving the text in makes it appear like there is some evidence for the YEC view (and granting this view undue scientific credability).  I'd prefer not to entirely delete the text, but it looks like its content may be adequately described elsewhere (e.g. speed of light; variable speed of light).  If you disagree, please comment, otherwise it's out.  --Plumbago 10:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You still hear Young Earth Creationists using a change in the speed of light as an argument.  I believe the biggest names have given up on it, but perhaps it would be better to list the problems with the hypothesis rather than delete the section. --JeremyStein 14:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the YECs using the argument (though it's losing favour).  My problem with the section is that it's very long on technical detail about the speed of light as regards cosmic evolution, none of which really has anything to do with the starlight problem (in a YEC sense).  I reckon it should be trimmed back to some statement along the lines of : "While there is debate in astrophysical circles about the constancy of the speed of light during the early history of the universe [cite references], any variability in the speed is vastly insufficient to explain the starlight problem."  I'm just a bit afraid that the section gives YEC an undue veneer of scientific respectability as it currently stands.  Similar scientific or technical disputes in evolutionary biology have been misused in the past to lend credability to YEC views.  It'd be best to avoid it here.  --Plumbago 15:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to whoever removed the offending section.  --Plumbago 17:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time, distance, and the speed of light 

message: Your formatting choice is actually not in conformity with Wikipedia policy on external links and references. --ScienceApologist 06:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Wikiformatting"

message: I won't revert again just yet.  But your point is unnecessary since it's covered earlier in the same section where Omphalos is discussed.  And no-one's saying that the in-transit theory is "unbiblical", merely that it has some unfortunate theological implications.  If God created in-transit light or belly buttons on Adam and Eve, then He has effectively created a "false history" of the heavens and Adam and Eve's birth (in the latter case, since neither Adam nor Eve were born, there's no need for belly buttons).  Some (such as Charles Kingsley; see here) see this interpretation of the Bible as repellent, since it implies that God lies.  --Plumbago 18:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will revert. We don't need to pepper our articles with tit-for-tat arguments for and against. Omphalos can be discussed in regards to its definition and should not be placed in as a counter-criticism. --ScienceApologist 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with using Omphalos is that he is only talking about Adam, Eve, and earth geology, and it is original research to connect Omphalos' 1857 work with the starlight problem which is a recent development.  You have to go with ICR which makes the connection, in order to play by WP rules. Ruby 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosse is not the sole provider of Omphalos creationism. --ScienceApologist 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I withdraw since the other editors see fit to use original research to justify the existence of this article.
 Ruby 21:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Original research"?  Aside from its subject, the meat of the starlight problem is identical to that posed (and "solved") in Omphalos.  It's hardly original to point that out.  --Plumbago 22:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Care to explain why the "false history" objection lacks logic?  It's a simple point : were Adam and Eve created with bellybuttons / were the heavens created with the remnants of supernovas, etc.?  If they were, then God arranged things such that they appear to have (but don't really) a history behind them.  Where's the problem with that argument?  As for Adam and Eve's genes, is there a gene for bellybuttons?  I think not.  --Plumbago 09:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omphalos 

message: I have two questions about this sentence in the article: "Big bang advocates have proposed cosmic inflation as well as light being much faster."
# wouldn't it be better to say that cosmic inflation is hte solution to the "horizon problem"?
#is it correct that big bang advocates propose that light was much faster? Bubba73 (talk), 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inasmuch as there are those who propose Variable speed of light hypotheses and accept the expanding universe paradigm, there are Big Bang advocates who argue for a speed of light that was faster. However, I'm not sure they do this in the context of the horizon problem, though VSL will solve the horizon problem. --ScienceApologist 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do they think that the speed of light could have been enough faster to make things that occurred 12,000 years ago appear to have been 12,000,000,000 years ago? (I doubt it) Bubba73 (talk), 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right. --ScienceApologist 12:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  faster light? 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://sunsite.nstu.nsk.su/sun/sunflash/november.1994/flashback/1107.sun-observer-feature.html
** In Starlight problem on 2007-06-02 20:21:31, Socket Error: (10061, 'Connection refused')
** In Starlight problem on 2007-06-03 14:30:01, Socket Error: (10061, 'Connection refused')
** In Starlight problem on 2007-06-10 16:24:15, Socket Error: (10061, 'Connection refused')
--Stwalkerbot 16:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I've been working on this section in an effort to more clearly explain what Humphreys says in his book. That's difficult because I don't actually have it, I'm simply re-arranging the pre-existing text to make it flow better. I'd appreciate it if someone who is knowledgeable about the material could make sure I haven't clipped out something vital, or misrepresented it in some way.
Maury 21:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up Humphreys section 

message: The entire premise of this article is based on physical nonsense. The "speed of light" is not a fundamental constant of physics, as many nonphysicists believe it to be. It is merely a conversion factor that relates conventional units of time and distance (the "meter" and the "second"). In fact, the speed of light is no longer measured. In SI units it is defined as 299792458 meters/second; the meter is no longer defined by the distance between two lines scratched onto a platinum-iridium bar stored in a vault in Paris; it is defined as 1/299792458 of the distance that light travels in vacuuo in one SI second. The number 299792458 meters/second is an absolute constant and by definition does not change over time. 
Now it is true that at one time the speed of light was measured relative to the Paris artifactual meter, and it is possible that the speed of light might change if that were still the definition of the meter. There is no evidence that this is the case and strong evidence against it. But  modern physics would not regard any such variation as a "change in the speed of light," but rather as a change in the length of the above-mentioned Paris artifactual meter.
In any case, such a variation would not be due to a "change in the speed of light," but instead due to a change in one or more of the actual fundamental constants of physics, all of which are dimensionless. The two that are most likely to be important are the fine structure constant and the ratio of electron to proton mass, both of which could affect the length of the above-mentioned artifactual meter.
Unfortunately for "speed of light changing" enthusiasts, there is direct evidence from various sources that there have been no significant variations in these constants for hundreds of millions and even billions of years. Bill Jefferys (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Bill.  Any chance that you can try to integrate these points (with sources) into the article?  Though the article does state in the lead that its subject is pseudoscience (as of an edit of mine yesterday), the main body currently presents the so-called "creationist cosmologies" without much comment to this effect.  Your points would help here, so please edit away!  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 14:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bill, you are clearly informed on this issue. With reliable sources cited (per Plumbago's comment above), and a neutral point of view, you could make some good contributions. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical nonsense