https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/2026/02/supernova-sn1987a-and-time.html
Many creationists turn to Jason Lisle, a PhD in Astrophysics no less, to answer what they call the "Distant Starlight Problem". I'll let Lisle explain what the "problem" is, and what possible answers there may be, and then I will offer my own solution.
"Let me provide a classic example of this issue. In 1987, astronomers observed a supernova (an exploding star) in the Large Magellanic Cloud – a nearby galaxy. This galaxy is 168,000 light years away, which may seem like a lot, but is practically “next door” by galaxy standards. So, when did this explosion actually happen? In the standard secular view, the event really happened about 168,000 years ago, and the images of that explosion traveling at the speed of light took 168,000 years to arrive at earth in the year 1987." - Jason Lisle, Distant Starlight in a Young Universe: An Introduction [1].
Astronomers initially detected a sudden neutrino burst and an intense increase in visible light from the star. The supernova was dubbed SN1987A.
240 days later, a bright ring appeared around it, and assuming it was a ring of material illuminated by the supernova, and assuming that light travels at - er - light speed, and using simple high school mathematics, it does indeed work out that the star went nova 168,000 years ago. And not just for "secular" scientists. All god-believing astrophysicists also agree - all except you, Jason.Lisle briefly discusses problems with attempted answers to the "problem", but then links on to a fuller examination of them @ Distant Starlight in a Young Universe: Attempted Solutions [2]. So let's go there. He names the attempted answers as,
CDK - speed of light (c) decay.
Gravitational Time Dilation
Dasha - from the Hebrew word from "spout"
All of which he rejects, saying why he rejects them. In rejecting CDK he says,
"However, only a small fraction of the light from this explosion was directed toward the earth. Some light went off in other directions and reflected off of the surrounding gas which then redirected the light toward earth – a “light echo.” This light arrived after 1987 because it took time to go from the supernova to the surrounding gas. By measuring the distance between the supernova and the surrounding gas, and dividing by the time between the two events, we can compute the speed of light when the supernova happened. And we find it is consistent with the current value of c and is not 28 times faster. In fact, as astronomers continued to collect images of the echo over the years, and playing these images in sequence (see the figure) we can actually see the light traveling away from the supernova position at the current speed of light (c)."
He includes the following GIF with its caption.
 |
| Pulses of light stream away from SN1987A. These light echos show that the speed of light perpendicular to our line of sight was the same at the time and distance of the supernova as here and now. |
It is like the image at the head of this piece. We do not see a stone falling in the water and the ripples appearing at exactly the same time. The image was AI generated. It is not real. It is ridiculous. Noting as Lisle does, that we did not see the rings surrounding SN1987A until 240 days AFTER the initial supernova burst puts paid to the idea that the speed of light could be any different.
He says,
"...the speed of light is very special and unlike other speeds. It essentially sets the relationship between space and time, the relative strengths of magnetic fields to electric fields, and the relationship between matter and energy. But our very existence depends on these things being essentially constant."
Yet astonishingly, incredibly, he forgets or abandons the SN1987A "problem" altogether and the fact, as he himself says, that the constant speed of light is an inextricably necessary part of that all we understand about physics (which works), and gallops off on his totally unparsimonious incoherent (deliberately so, I suspect) hobby horse of "simultaneity" and speculations about infinite light speed with "Distant Starlight in a Young Universe: Concepts of Simultaneity" [3].
I have an answer to your "problem", Jason, and it is a very simple and obvious one. Admit that there is no problem at all. Admit that the world is exactly as it appears to be, and that God is not a liar, creating a false impression of a young world, an impression that does not work in any case, as you yourself have explained. In the words of your illustrious predecessor - there is no need for me to attribute it,
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
Why can't creationists just be honest and say they believe what they believe, not because of their pseudoscience, but just because they want to or think they should. It is because they think they can distract and fool us with their sciencey sounding gaffleblab. THAT is what is dishonest, Jason, not your God.
Links for more information, SN 1987A[4], The Age of the Universe and SN1987A[5]
1. https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/distant-starlight-in-a-young-universe-an-introduction/
2. https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/distant-starlight-in-a-young-universe-attempted-solutions/
3. https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/distant-starlight-in-a-young-universe/
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A
5. https://web.archive.org/web/20180119005626/https://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/sn1987a.html
No comments:
Post a Comment