Talk:Horizon problem

FACT
Do we have a discussion of why AiG got basically all their facts wrong about the early universe and don't know what the hell they're talking about? (Apart from the basic "They're AiG, of course they don't know what they're talking about) So far as I can tell, they make the assumption that the early universe must have had random conditions, and therefore the uniformity of the cosmic background is a problem... except that currently basically everyone thinks the universe was almost uniform, so... they're wrong. Yeah. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 16:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no refutation
In the debate against Nye, Ken Ham used this argument to solve the problem of starlight. This "rebuttal" included in the article seem obsolete. Ken Ham shows that the problem is not resolved and that the facts favor biblical creationism. I think you better be truthful to yourself and say that there is no refutation.

Thank you for your attention.

--201.8.154.188 (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No thanks. I think we'll be keeping it as is (i.e. truthful and accurate). - Grant (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ham didn't even say that inflation doesn't solve the horizon problem, much less give a detailed rebuttal. He said the Big Bang has a horizon problem just like the creationists' starlight problem, and "That's why they have inflation theories". That's it; one short sentence.


 * And that sentence was very carefully worded. Ham couldn't possibly have been refuting inflation, or he'd be refuting young-earth Creationism as he understands it, at least according to what he was linking to at the time. He believed the cosmologists' horizon problem and the Creationists' starlight problem are the same thing, inflation is the correct solution, and Moses knew that answer (God "expanded the Heavens" after creating them in Genesis) thousands of years before atheists figured it out, or even found the problem, proving he was given the answer directly by God. And passages like the ones in Isaiah and the Psalms that talk about God "spreading out" the Heavens prove that they were successfully using Genesis as a textbook, so obviously modern science would work better if we all did the same. But, if that's what Ham believes, he knew tactically it would be a bad idea to try to reference it, because he knew most of his audience hadn't just read Lepley's "On Our Origins", so he kept things vague, so they could think he "won" even if they didn't believe the same facts as him.


 * This was clever debating (especially compared to Nye, who assumed everyone had just read Ridley's "The Red Queen" because he had, and went into a baffling digression on "traditional fish sex"), but it's not even remotely a rebuttal to the point in this article; it's not even intended to be one. --157.131.168.209 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Most Distant objects
This article needs a little work to help those who are new or not-so-familiar with cosmology. An explanation is needed of the top image and the 15 billion light years arrow.

Most people would assume the most distant object observable would be about 13.8 billion light years away, the age of the universe times the speed of light. This isn't the actual case due the speed of the expansion of the universe being faster than the speed of light. The diameter of the observable universe is somewhere in the area of 92 billion light years.

I'm working on a note to add to the top image to educate and clarify everything and would like input before adding:

''The expansion of spacetime is faster than the speed of light. This means that the most distant objects in the observable universe are much farther away than than 13.8 billion light years, the age of the universe times the speed of light. Hence we can observe an object 15 billion light years away. '' --Vital Forces (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)