Here's a cute little piece of trivia for the technically minded. It turns
out that there is a formula for the relationship between the age of the
universe and the redshift, z, due to the stretching of space. Here z is
Here's a cute little piece of trivia for the technically minded. It turns out that there is a formula for the relationship between the age of the universe and the redshift, z, due to the stretching of space. Here z is defined as:
Then the age is given as:
Now, if instead of "age" we say the "time since the light was emitted," nothing is really changed, for the relation is arbitrary, meaning that the only solid data point is that light emitted today has a value for z of 0. Hence, since when z = 0, (1 + z)-3/2 = 1, we can just as well say that the age is 6,000 years as the evolutionists can claim the age to be 16,000,000,000 years.
Doing so gives us the age of the universe at the time that the light was emitted from the star or galaxy by the formula:
Now, what does this mean? This means, for example, that if one reads in the newspaper about the most distant galaxy ever observed, with a redshift of 4, whose light was emitted when the universe was but a tiny, tiny baby, that one can take the value of 4 and substitute it into the above formula to discover that the light left the galaxy 536 years after the creation or 5,464 years ago.
Likewise there is a formula for the size of the universe:
This is equally a measure of the distance to the object, so if the universe
is 20 billion light years across, then the formula is:
For the case z=4, the object is 5 billion light years away (1/5 of 20 billion).
Actually, this is all quite nonsensical if one assumes that all redshifts are due to the Doppler effect, but this one is in addition to the Doppler effect and is only due to the stretching of space. Given that, even, it's still nonsense except, maybe, for values of z greater than 1 or 2, for if this were to hold, then the light from the nearest galaxies left early this century (too short a time). For the evolutionary case this is 500,000,000 years (too long a time). In this tongue-in-cheek analysis we've made the same assumption that the evolutionists make, and that is that we've assumed the speed of light to be constant over time, despite evidence to the contrary. Indeed, in a geocentric universe the speed of light may even be a function of the distance from earth (the center of the universe).
Seriously, though, one thing was noticed in cosmology some time ago and that was that the expansion rate of the universe determines the speed of light. So at the creation, when the Lord stretched out the heavens, the speed of light would actually have been tremendously high. That observation is at the heart of the inflationary universe models. One of the consequences of a high value for the speed of light is to rapidly decay the radioactive materials. This means that such nuclei, and even the stars, could age billions of years in a matter of a few days at most.
For example, if on the fourth day, when the sun, moon and stars were created, the creation event started from the earth and accelerated outward, then this amounts to an expansion of the universe even if space itself did not expand. As the creation of stars reached the outer limits of the universe, the speed of light from those stars to earth was immense, allowing their light to reach earth during the creation week, but as they were near the time when the expansion slowed, their aging was interrupted. So we can see them and they'll appear young. The nearby stars would be found to be old, although their age would be a strong function of their atomic composition, mass and size.
We've showed how the cosmic redshift is applied with really no solid
foundation when linked to the age and size of the universe, and we saw
that the underlying assumptionthat the speed of light is constant contradicts
the Bible since the heavens were stretched forth at the time of
creation. Such stretching would make stars, elements and galaxies look
billions of years older than they actually are.