The not so distant star light problem

shalamabobbi writes: when they look at the sun, the light they are seeing had its origin before their creation event took place.

Are you sure about that?
(An honest question, I really don't know).

Perhaps you mean the other stars?
I was under the impression that the sun's light is about 7 minutes old or so... by the time it hits us.

Please correct my understanding of star-light origin if there's some aspect I'm missing, though.

Please correct my understanding of star-light origin if there's some aspect I'm missing, though

8.3 minutes is the time it takes light to travel from the surface of the sun to the earth. However, the sun's energy is generated exclusively in the core of the earth, and it does indeed take thousands of years for that energy to travel from the core to reach the surface of the sun.

Nonetheless, shalamabobbi's statement is probably not completely accurate. Energy is likely absorbed and re-radiated as it travels from core to surface, and any visible light photons that reach us are likely of fairly recent vintage.

ABE:

The sun's energy is generated in the core of Sol and not earth... I'm an idiot.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

NoNukes writes: However, the sun's energy is generated exclusively in the core of the sun, and it does indeed take thousands of years for that energy to travel from the core to reach the surface of the sun.

Interesting. Thanks for the information.

And, as I slap my forehead, I see that shalamabobbi already even stated this in his original message. Which, at the time of my last post, I just didn't connect the dots:

shalamabobbi in Message 1 writes: For our sun those many years are between 10,000 and 170,000 years as the photons generated in the core make a "random walk" to the surface.

Oops.

Hi Stile,

Are you sure about that?

Yes, I'm sure about that.

(An honest question, I really don't know)

If I'm sure about that? Yes, I'm quite sure about that.

Perhaps you mean the other stars?

Yes, I'm sure about those as well.

I was under the impression that the sun's light is about 7 minutes old or so... by the time it hits us.

Travel time is 8min 10.3sec perigee, 8min 27sec apogee from the surface. But photons don't age.

Please correct my understanding of star-light origin if there's some aspect I'm missing, though.

It seems that is no longer necessary.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Thanks for stopping by and posting. I apologize that my post wasn't as clear as I thought it was.
I am talking about the sun in particular but for the YEC position this is also an issue for the other stars as well. (I'm guessing that YEC is not likely to be your position so the 2nd post after this is directed to those holding to the YEC world view)

Nonetheless, shalamabobbi's statement is probably not completely accurate.

Well yes, there are a lot of details that are not mentioned in the OP.

Energy is likely absorbed and re-radiated as it travels from core to surface, and any visible light photons that reach us are likely of fairly recent vintage.

Yes, and necessarily so.

The photons released within the core are high energy gamma rays that get absorbed and re-emitted by nuclei at a particular frequency, so to get from this initial high energy state to the energy distribution of photons released at the surface there has to be inelastic scattering taking place as well. The energy transferred by scattering then gets re-emitted at the lesser frequencies. So the initial gamma ray becomes many photons by the time they leave the surface.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=677683

Since the travel time is not of great interest/importance to the astronomical community this amount of detail isn't taken into account in the calculation which simply tracks the progress of a single photon making a random walk to the surface. They even assumed for simplicity a fixed mean free path between direction changes. The model has only more recently been improved by using concentric shells.

Here's a pretty good overview of the calculation that is easy to follow for those who are interested
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2009022214242...

Thanks for deepening the discussion.

Let me reiterate that I am well aware that one can arbitrarily posit that the sun was created supernaturally with light already at its surface and in transit from the core towards the surface. In this viewpoint the YEC admittedly wins. I'm well aware of this same argument for the creation of starlight in transit to answer the distant starlight problem.

But notice the article by answers in genesis and what they say about this explanation.

But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.

So even THEY don't like it. (But I think it's better than the alternative non-answers they come up with)

So the question I ask of YECs, and perhaps particularly of the folks at answers in genesis, is the following: Why did God create the sun as the source of light for the earth when all the daylight that has been provided to the earth for the last 6,000 years wasn't generated by that source? It's sort of like buying a savings bond to provide money for your child's education that matures well after the time it is needed to attend the university.

Let me reiterate that I am well aware that one can arbitrarily posit that the sun was created supernaturally with light already at its surface and in transit from the core towards the surface

There is a substantial difference between star light and sunlight.

In the case of star light, there are actually events such as distant supernova that would have to be complete frauds in order for the fake starlight explanation to work. And the fraud results from the fact that there are stars further away from earth than 6000 light years.

But no fraudulent cosmological events are associated with some method of getting sunlight to us quickly from the sun back at the beginning of creation. Accordingly, those who don't like the fake starlight issue might have absolutely no problem with there being some cause for light to be created at the sun surface during the early days of the sun or alternatively with the light escaping the sun's core quickly back then.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The sun was faster then.

I noticed they said 'Peer reviewed'.

Yet, I bet not ONE got published in a scientific journal.

Being reviewed by idiots is still 'peer reviewed' though.

Come young earthers and let your light shine, however dimly. The brain operates on about 8 watts of power so it is indeed dim compared to the output of a star. I meant it as no slight. Enlighten me. Call me back from the brink!

Hi shalamabobbi, I don't believe we've met before. You'll surmise from my very low member rating that I'm a creationist, though I'm not necessarily bound to a "young earth" belief.

The following appears in your opening messages link;

quote:

---

God created the universe supernaturally. He created it from nothing, not from previous material (Hebrews 11:3). Today, we do not see God speaking into existence new stars or new kinds of creatures. This is because God ended His work of creation by the seventh day. Today, God sustains the universe in a different way than how He created it. However, the naturalist erroneously assumes that the universe was created by the same processes by which it operates today. Of course it would be absurd to apply this assumption to most other things. A flashlight, for example, operates by converting electricity into light, but the flashlight was not created by this process.

Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural. We cannot assume that past acts of God are necessarily understandable in terms of a current scientific mechanism, because science can only probe the way in which God sustains the universe today. It is irrational to argue that a supernatural act cannot be true on the basis that it cannot be explained by natural processes observed today.

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale.

---

What specific question do you have that the above doesn't answer?

And finally if supernaturalism is required to explain your world view to begin with, why even bother dabbling in naturalistic explanations to support your beliefs?

You'll notice by the absence of creationists at EvC that most of them don't bother. It's seldom pleasant to stir up the atheist hornets nests at forums like this, but a few of us feel compelled, sometimes.

But to answer your question, the paragraphs above that I referenced from your AIG link explain that some acts of God are explainable by current scientific mechanisms, and some are not. Two classifications. Why shouldn't creationists try to identify/specify naturalistic explanations, especially when the angry scientific community draws them into it?

If 'God did it' is your explanation, doesn't coming up with naturalistic explanations really mean 'God didn't do it'?

Not at all, God can guide naturalistic processes. He can also guide processes that the human mind cannot understand. It's easy to understand that atheists don't think guidance is necessary for naturalistic processes. What's not so easy to understand is how they can attribute all of reality to naturalistic processes, as if there can only be one time, and three space dimensions. Many people find it logical to believe there's more to reality than that.

Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural. We cannot assume that past acts of God are necessarily understandable in terms of a current scientific mechanism, because science can only probe the way in which God sustains the universe today.

What specific question do you have that the above doesn't answer?

I have such a question.

The light from the explosion of the star that became super nova SN1987 did not reach earth instantly during Creation Week. Instead that light reached earth in February of 1987 and we observed the explosion at that point. SN1987a is about 168,000 light years away from earth.

Now perhaps things were different during Creation Week, but somehow, people on earth were receiving light from a blue giant that did not exist at that time. Shouldn't they instead have been getting light from a supernova? Why did God speed up fake light?

So how is the arrival of light from a blue giant prior to Feb. 1987 explained in a universe that is only 6000-10000 years old.

quote:

---

A flashlight, for example, operates by converting electricity into light, but the flashlight was not created by this process.

---

Is this really an accurate characterization of what anyone thinks? Surely not. What people actually think is that the laws of physics are unchanged, and not that the same events produce different results.

quote:

---

Today, we do not see God speaking into existence new stars

---

Nope? Then apparently all of the new stars we see being created happen via natural processes.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Dear NoNukes,

Thanks for the reply and for taking up the debate on behalf of the missing YECs.*
I will do my best, with gentle kindness, to force my argument down your throat. I will also add a disclaimer that I may be wrong, (just in case), after all I was a YEC once myself at one point in time.

I want to rearrange your comment.

those who don't like the fake starlight issue might have absolutely no problem with there being some cause for light to be created at the sun surface during the early days of the sun

Well of course they don't. Otherwise we'd still be waiting on that light to get to the surface if it had a natural cause rather than a supernatural one. So, poof! A fully functioning sun. We can't sit around and wait because, POOF! What have we here? A fully functioning man to dress the garden with a brain filled with fake memories so he knows how to walk and talk and get into trouble with Eve. Memory of clothing wasn't included however. God didn't have an Internet connection.

And poof! Fully functioning stars. Never mind that the sun and these stars vary in lifespan from 1 million years to 200 trillion years and that they are observed to populate the universe at various stages of these lifespans.

http://stellar-database.com/evolution.html

or alternatively with the light escaping the sun's core quickly back then.

In the beginning the sun was lubricated with holy water and this allowed the light to escape quickly. The situation changed when God removed the water for the flood.

OR

I'm picturing all the atoms lining up holding hands just outside the inner core, "OK, let 'em fly boys, we have an earth to light up, get on with it."
Of course these are high energy gamma rays, something the early inhabitants of the earth would likely rather avoid. "Give us night, night is fine!"

But OK, why not!! I'll go with it! I'm feeling better already as my inner fundie rises from its place of exile. Yes, I'd like to know more. And leave a pamphlet if you have one.

no fraudulent cosmological events are associated with some method of getting sunlight to us quickly

Well I have to disagree here. (Of course I do, this is my thread.)

The sun itself is an assembly of cosmological events at the atomic scale.
With the stars there is no difference between falsely portraying an exploding star and falsely portraying an aging star.
The deception is the same. The 1st star never exploded and the 2nd never was that age.

Likewise with the sun. The photons never were the result of nuclear fusion within the core. They portray events that never took place. It's the same deception.
In one case the photons focus upon the retina to make a picture, in the other they do not. But in both cases we infer the reality of events that never really took place as a result of the existence of those photons.

IOW if we accept the initial supernatural creation of the sun with sunlight in transit from the core, the core need not actually exist (at least for the reason of creating the initial gamma rays).

*Oh, but I see now that I've actually snagged one.

Hi marc9000,

Hi shalamabobbi, I don't believe we've met before. You'll surmise from my very low member rating that I'm a creationist,

Shalamabobbi looketh not upon the outward appearance of your member rating, but upon your heart. Fear not my son. Shalamabobbi loves you.

though I'm not necessarily bound to a "young earth" belief.

Whaaat?? Ah then, go to hell.

some acts of God are explainable by current scientific mechanisms,

If they are explainable by scientific mechanisms, naturalism, how then are they acts of God?

God can guide naturalistic processes

If they are guided in part by God then that part of the process is not naturalistic and a wholly naturalistic explanation would come up short.

It's easy to understand that atheists don't think guidance is necessary for naturalistic processes.

It has nothing to do with atheism really. It has more to do with the definition of a natural process.
Maybe what you are trying to say is everything is upheld by God and there really are no natural processes? In which case there is no need to waste your energy coming up with any explanations at all.

as if there can only be one time, and three space dimensions

Actually there is some science that deals with more spatial dimensions than three. Check it out it's really cool.
http://www.pbs.org/...hysics/imagining-other-dimensions.html

Hey marc9000, sorry you got hooked in with my post #10. As you probably now realize it was a bit sarcastic. I hope you enjoy your romp here and begin to see further than your initial knee jerk reaction to posters. You may be surprised to find that many who self-identify here as atheists began their journey with beliefs not dissimilar to your own. You may also be surprised to discover that some here are theists and they are treated with respect despite this area of disagreement. Have fun and learn to shoot with a rifle rather than a shotgun, it will reveal more about your target.

Likewise with the sun. The photons never were the result of nuclear fusion within the core. They portray events that never took place. It's the same deception.

I must be misunderstanding you. Perhaps it is because we are working from different premises.

In the case of the sun, all that's needed is some mechanism for light to escape the sun quicker than you say, and the photons could then have been produced by fusion. In your explanation you simply deny that such a thing could occur. But what I think you should really be doing is explaining a bad consequence from a creationists insistence that such a speed up really did happen.

By contrast, having light on earth now arrive from stellar objects that did not exist in their current from 6000 years ago requires not just speeding up light transit time, but actually generating light from an object, for example the blue giant that became SN1987, that simply did not exist 160,000 years before Creation Week.

Oh, but I see now that I've actually snagged one

You did. I don't think he's a keeper, but I'll butt out.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, I completely misunderstood you.

But I take your point and understand why you disliked this thread now. Random walks take no time at all with infinite c.

E=mc^2, so now with a very large value of c, the fusion in the sun generates a very large value of E . Earth is toast. Is this good enough? Or does the hypothetical YEC get to speculate that the mass was less in the early history of the earth as well?

(Take that, Barry Setterfield)