Starlight and Time

        §1    The philosophy of evolution is "the present is the key to the past."  This credo is called uniformitarianism.  In practice, this means that evolutionists believe that ancient processes occurred at the same rate they do today.  In keeping with this philosophy, it is believed that the present locally measured speed of light (186,000 miles/second) is valid for ancient dates, and that the present atomic processes occured at the same rate both then and now.  Skip discussion of philosophy and science.
                        This philosophy is questioned in II Peter:
 

            §1.5    Peter points out that history includes catastrophes such as the flood (2480 b.c.e), and that prophecy predicts a catastrophe of fire upon the earth.  Yet evolutionists argue that since it takes light at currently measured speeds eons of time to cross the expanse of heaven, then that heaven must be eons of time old.  In some respects "the present is the key to the past," but evolutionary scientists without God to fill in the gaps with divine revelation are left in the dark as to which proccesses have been interrupted by catastrophe, and which proccesses have not.
           §1.75    The word "science" means knowledge.  The only science that can be trusted aside from divine revelation to determine truth is empirical science.  Empirical science involves observation, hypothesis, and experiment.  It does not call something scientific "fact" until it is demonstrated by observation and experiment, preferably experiments that test only the variable in question, and can be repeated elsewhere if the results are called into doubt.  The hypothesiss part is only in the scientific method to get the searcher started on the search for scientific fact.  Hypothesis, which means an educated guess, is itself, not scientific fact.
            §1.80     For the above reason, science can only tell us that light went the speed stated, or close to it in the various experiments that were done to determine the speed of light.  As many of the experiments were performed in the past, the constancy of the velocity of light question quickly becomes a question of historical investigation.  The study of origins is a question of historical investigation.  The study of history does utilize the scientific method to establish important facts in the chain of reasoning toward its conclusions, but the results of historical investigation are not empirical.
                             The study of history relies on records of the past and witnessess.  In the final analysis, it boils down to whether we can trust the witness to tell the truth about what happened.  Witnessess do lie and fabricate evidence.  So a valuable componenet of historical research is the exposing of false witnessess.  Some witnesses are led astray, and others come up with faulty theories to explain what they observed.
            §1.85      In  the final analysis a historical theory can only be exposed as faulty based upon three criteria.  (1) It is logically flawed or self contradictory.  (2)  It relies on testimony that has been proven false by empirical science, (3) It relies on a component that contradicts divine revelation.  Having passed these tests, a non faulty hypothesis can then enter the realm of possibility, and if it  can avoid contradicting empirical science long enough, it can enter the realm of probability.  At that point, reasonable investigators conclude that the theory is true, and they believe it.  We conclude then, that faith is required.  It does not take any faith to know when you stubed your toe, or that the car coming down the road will hit you if you step in front of it.
            §1.95        Persons who deny the validity of empirical science  do not trust in the validity of immediate observation or logic.  We can them existentialists or mystics.  These people have given up on trying to find any historical truth, and then they have also given up on trying to find any empirical truth, or so they try to.  Such cases are one of the unfortunate results of the abberrant exercise of the free will God has given us, and repeated failure in the search for knowledge, which is in part caused by swallowing too many errors.  The result is a general system crash in the logic and reason component of the mind.
            §1.97 If light was created enroute to earth, then we have a biblical problem.  God created light to see with.  That should be obvious.  He created eyes to receive light.  If light had been created enroute to earth, then the images of exploding supernovas would have to be created en route.  This would be like saying God had manufactured the images on a computer, and they they really do not reflect reality.  Humans engage in the the art of creating images that do not exist in reality for entertainment and planning purposes, but know better than to call them reality.  Therefore, we must dismiss this theory on the basis of divine revelation.
            §1.98        The theory that light went continuously 186,000 miles/second from the farthest reaches of heaven to come here in billions of years must also be rejected on the basis of divine revelation.  Such a hypothesis is not possible, since it would contradict the fact that God created the heavens and the earth in six days (Exodus 20:8-11).  It then seems reasonable to believe that light either came to us by a shorter path, or that it crossed the distance at a faster rate.  Those who hold to a shorter path theory only do so because they want the speed of light to be a constant.  It is a matter of semantics.  In reality, a shorter path theory is a faster rate theory.  There are two types of faster rate theories.  First is that light currently travels through deep space at a faster rate, and the second type of theory is that it did so in the past, but does not do so now.
                                The first theory I call the Setterfield hypothesis (after Barry Setterfield), and the second we can call the non-constant light hypothesis (e.g. Moon and  Spencer), because light has to to travel faster in the middle of its journey.  The non-constant light hypothesis needs the Setterfield hypothesis to survive the biblical test.  For we will soon know that it takes more than a day for light to get here at current rates, even if the velocity of light is much greater in deep space.  God created the stars on the fourth day to give light on the earth.  If they were not visible, then it would not make sense to say that he made them to give light.  Therefore, the light had to get here in less than a day.
                                Another theory, we can call the Humphreys hypothesis (after Dr. Russell Humphreys).  In this theory, the rest of the Universe is speeded up so fast that it took light only hours to reach earth.  Humphreys uses Einstein's theory to accelerate the rate at which events happened elsewhere.  Galaxies would spin faster,  fusion would proceed quicker, and atomic decay at a faster rate elsewhere.  This all ceased on the fourth day when light reached earth according to Humphreys hypothesis.  Humphreys has made valuable contributions, but this theory must be rejected on scientific grounds.  (1)  The number of supernova remnants indicates that only thousands of years worth of processess have occured at current rates, and (2) The twist in distant galaxies is the same as the twist in nearby galactic arms:
 
 
Cited from, "In the Beginning" (pg. 159).  More details there.
 
 

            This leaves us with the Setterfield hypothesis.  See http://www.best.com/~dolphin/cdkgal.html for a mathematical analysis of historical measurements of the speed of light.  Setterfield's critics are many, but the hypothesis can be neither refuted on biblical or scientific grounds.  Even Humphreys admits that CDK, "C" decay, is a possibility.  The theory also requires other fundamental atomic constants to change with time, affecting such things as radioactive decay rates.  It is important to note that more than one curve can be fit to the measurement data, and if necessary the velocity of light can be kept nearly constant all the way back to the flood, or just prior to it if necessary.
            Evolutionary critics are going to howl at the last sentence in the previous paragraph.  They will say that we introduce assumptions into our theory such that it removes it from the realm of testability.  This is hardly the case.  Evolutionists introduce assumptions into their theories to accomodate the facts, so why shouldn't we.  Divine revelation is just as much a fact as empirical science.
            We know that radiocarbon (C14) dating is more or less valid back to the time of the flood (2480 b.c.e., 4477 B.P.), and that it has been calibrated by dendrochronology back to the same time period (The oldest bristlecone pine, "Methusela,"  is supposed to be 4600 years old [allow 123 years, viz 2.7%] for double growth rings).  Therefore, 90% of CDK must have occured prior to that time.  In fact the deviation of C14 from dendrochronology indicates a greater production of C14  in the past, because a C14 1800 b.c.e. date translates into a real date of 2050 b.c.e., and a 2580 b.c.e. C14 date translates into a 3050 b.c.e. real date.  Therefore, the uncalibrated C14 date is too young by 250, and 470 years respectively. (cf. G.W. Pearson, "High Precision 14C Measurement of Irish Oaks to Show the Natural 14C Variation from AD 1840 to 5210 BC" in Radiocarbon 28:2B (1986), pp. 911-34 < David M. Rohl, "Pharoahs and Kings: A Biblical Quest," pg. 387).
            Hugh Ross, in A New Look At An Old Earth, claims that "carbon-14 dates for 4000 year old wood turn out to be about 500 years too young" (pg. 62).   He does not document his claim, but promises to exlain it in the the next chapter.  In the next chapter he claims, "What had previously been measured and thought to be a mere 6000 years old, was now known to be about 7000 years old" (pg. 93).    Again the documentation is weak.  But note Ross' conclusion on pg. 62, "This observed fact refutes the Norman-Setterfield theory of light speed decay" (emphasis original).  Even if Ross' high deviations for C14 is correct, (I prefer to side with Pearson and Rohl), it proves no such thing.  All it may prove is that C14 levels were higher then than now, or that most CDK was well before the flood.  The point is that Ross has invoked the claims of empirical science (fact vs. theory) to put down his opponents.  We must not let Ross uniformitarian assumptions about C14 equilibrium in the atmosphere mislead us.  The fact is that C14 levels have not been uniform.  Can the fact that C14 levels were higher than expected be argued in our favor?  The answer is yes!
            Dr. Russell Humphrey's has shown that the earth's magnetic field went through a period of instability at the time of the flood [IMPACT No. 242, THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD IS YOUNG,  by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.].  He includes the below cited diagram:

            Therefore, we may expect the occurance of C14 in the Atmosphere to have been progressively higher from the flood until the time of Yeshua, because the magnetic field sheilded earth less from neutrons which produce radiocarbon.  Uncalibrated C14 dates for the period would range from much too young to a little too young between the flood and the first century.  An this is exactly what we find by comparing C14 with dendrochronology.  We know what the past magnetic field intensity was from archaeomagnetic research, i.e. the study of magnetic remanants of old pottery and brick.
            Now if the actual rate of C14 decay  was slowing (as proposed by Setterfield)  then we would expect the C14 curve to register dates that were too old (if there was no change in the quantity of C14 in the atmosphere, i.e. it was in a state of equilibrium).  But since we have just shown  that C14 was not in equilibrium, because of the increasing magnetic intensity, then it follows that CDK would be masked, and that we would not detect anomalously old C14 dates.  And in fact we cannot tell how much of the deviation from dendrochronology is due to possible change in the decay rate, and how much is due to change in atmospheric levels.  All calibration with tree rings tells us is the total deviation.
            The moral of the story is that the "uniformitarian principle" is only a relative guide to change with time.  As soon as we introduce catastrophe, then all bets are off.  It is a good place to start, but it must be abondoned as soon as we know that a catastropohe intervened, e.g. the flood.  And in this case, we see that the catastrophic fluctations of the magnetic field actualy explain the relation between C14 and dendrochronology.  It also shows that the calibration curve cannot be argued against CDK (e.g. Ross' argument).
            Tree Ring sequences prior to 4000 B.P. are on very shaky theoretical ground.  But I shall discuss this elsewhere.         
            §2         Actually, the speed of light is not the absolute speed limit of the universe. Gravity is faster, much faster:

                Here are excepts from another article that indicates the light speed limit is not absolute:

        " We might as well start with gravity. Suppose the Sun were to disappear "poof." How long will it take the Earth to notice? "About eight minutes," someone yells from the audience, for that is how long it takes light to reach us from the Sun. But what about the force of gravity holding us in orbit? "Same thing!" comes the cry.  "The Earth won't fly off on a tangent until eight minutes after the Sun disappears."
        " But this is wrong.  Go ahead, look it up - find the equations we use to calculate orbits, even for items as far away as Pluto, where it takes sunlight 5 hours to reach. There is no light-speed delay built into the equations. "Ah, but that's just because even a five-hour delay is trivial for something as big as the Solar System." Uh uh. Try running a computer simulation assuming a light-speed delay on gravitational force. Know what happens? the Solar System falls apart. In fact, about 200 years ago, Laplace calculated that the maximum propagation delay allowable to gravity would require a speed of something like ten million times the speed of light. With modern measurements, we can now set the limit at about ten billion times c.   
        "But, Einstein showed that spacetime is curved, you might say. The planets follow geodesics in spacetime, so what is really happening is that the planet isn't being attracted by the Sun so much as it's following a deformation set up by the Sun. But, the Sun is moving. That curvature of space due to the Sun is constantly moving with the Sun - so for Pluto to know how to orbit, the Sun is somehow going to have to properly distort the bit of space that represents the relative positions of Pluto and the Sun as they move five hours from now.  To do that, you would still have to invoke something moving at 10 billion c. It would be better to look at direct observational evidence. Because of the light-speed delay of the light leaving the surface of the sun, the radial rays that strike the surface of the Earth arrive a tad bit bent. This is called aberration and amounts to about 20 arc seconds. Now, if gravity were mediated by gravitons traveling at light speed, you would expect to find the gravitational force vector pointing from the Earth to the Sun to deviate by 20 arc seconds from the true geometric position of the Sun. This forces vector can be measured by radar ranging to other planets. As best we can measure, the deviation is zero.
        " If you are wondering from where I get this stuff, I'd like to point you in the direction of "Dark Matter, Missing Planets, & New Comets" by Tom Van Flandern. Tom used to direct the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office of the US Navel Observatory."

Above quote from: Jeffery D. Kooistra "Paradigm Shifty Things" Analog magazine June 1997.  [http://www.skeptic.com/oldboard/messages/1843.html]. [I have ordered Van Flandern's book through Barnes and Noble, so hopefully I will have more on this later.]
                   §3        So, if the force of gravity acts at >> 10,000,000,000 x 186,000 miles/second (>>10x109c), then 20 billion light years would become < 2 light years as far as gravity is concerned!  How does one body know that there is a nearby mass which it must orbit according to the laws of gravity?  Somehow a "message," or force of some type  acts between the two at >>> speed of light.
                  §4        Gravity is not the only thing that is faster than the speed of light: