Distant Starlight Problem Revisited

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Sungenis is Right About Geocentrism, But Not Everything Else · Creation vs. Evolution: Distant Starlight Problem Revisited

KS wrote to CMI and got an answer by Keaton Halley:

Christian critic calls young-earth creationism “laughable and dangerous”
by Keaton Halley | Published: 21 October 2021 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/laughable-and-dangerous

KS

If the universe was only 6,000 years old, then the billions upon billions of galaxies and stars would be compressed into 6,000 light years—and the Earth would not even exist today since it would have been engulfed in a fireball of truly astronomical proportions. It would probably not have been created in the first place since the fireball would have prevented the formation of planets, let alone life.

KH / CMI

This assumes that the only way for starlight to arrive on earth in 6,000 years would be to start with closer stars, and for the light to make its journey the same way secular astronomers assume. But creationists have proposed a whole variety of means by which starlight could have arrived quickly, even given vast distances of billions of light-years. See How can we see distant stars in a young universe? for some of these, and you can search creation.com as well as the websites of other creation organizations for other possibilities.

If you don’t like any of the creationist solutions and insist that light can only traverse the same number of light-years as the number of elapsed years, then you would have to reject the big bang theory as well, since the big bang has its own light-travel-time problem.

I certainly do reject Big Bang. Solution to distant starlight per se first: the phenomenon known as parallax is performed by angels, in a more complex total movement mis-analysed by scientists as parallax X aberration X proper movement. Meanwhile, earth stands totally still. This means, the "phenomenon known as parallax" (or part of a phenomenon known as "parallax") has nothing to say in stellar distances. This means the set up between stars' apparent sizes and their distances following on parallax "measures for distances" is also moot etc. The universe could be two light days across.

Then, the questioner or heckler mentions a presumed consequence of a small universe:

the billions upon billions of galaxies and stars would be compressed into 6,000 light years—and the Earth would not even exist today since it would have been engulfed in a fireball of truly astronomical proportions.

This presupposes basically that the actual star sizes were to be the same, even if the distances were different. But what is pretended as "known" about star sizes is in fact deduced from the set up presuming "parallax" as parallactic. If the four light years to α Centauri are not four point three light years, but one light day, you have one dimension 4.3 * 365 times smaller than presumed, and this means all of them are so. The real size of α Centauri is therefore (4 * 365)³ times smaller. This is actually not quite right, since α Centauri is three stars. Now, go to 61 Cygni ... also a binary star system, not a real single star. But its size, if one, would be (11.4 * 365)³ times smaller. Now go to Wolf 359 ... it's considered a dwarf, but take a look at the size ... 0.16 of the Solar Radius. No, it would be in fact 0.16 / (7.856 * 365) = 0.000,055,798,9 of the Solar Radius. And, as this is one of the "near stars" it would very far from being a dwarf be one of the bigger stars. Some have said, "this wouldn't work, the stars would be to small to self ignite" but since God created the stars on day IV, self ignition and a size bigger than Jupiter's is very far from a requisite : God lighted them or told his angels (to which he confided them) to do so./HGL