|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pesky Starlight | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I'm not entirely sure of JP's full position re: YEC,
but even if Humphrey's were right (I've not read his book yet, although I'll search it out) it poses a problem for MANY YEC's. Effectively, if right, Humphrey's hypothesis leads to theconclusion that the story in Genesis is NOT strictly speaking the literal truth. Why ? Genesis says that from nothing to a fully populated Earthtook 6 days. The earth itself is created on day 1 ... before light is created,and three 'days' before any stars are created (on day 4). How could stars be created AFTER the earth, and yet their lightbe millions of years old, when the earth is only thousands of years old ? We either have a Young Earth, but the bible is wrong. OR A young earth and Humphrey's is wrong. (OR an old earth, natch I cannot see any way that Humphrey's hypothesis could be compatiblewith Genesis. Admittedly I haven't read the book ... so perhaps JP (who has?) could answer this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
The outside lock ability is a JAVA gui accessibility and has not come to pass as to what it means for learners. But I get it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Peter:
I'm not entirely sure of JP's full position re: YEC, but even if Humphrey's were right (I've not read his book yet, although I'll search it out) it poses a problem for MANY YEC's. John Paul:If you had read the book you would have seen it is exactly what YEC requires. Peter:Effectively, if right, Humphrey's hypothesis leads to the conclusion that the story in Genesis is NOT strictly speaking the literal truth. John Paul:I don't have to book with me so if I have time later I will fill in some points. Regardless the way he writes it goes along with a literal Genesis. Peter:Why ? Genesis says that from nothing to a fully populated Earthtook 6 days. John Paul:Fully populated is a stretch. Is today's world fully populated? Peter:The earth itself is created on day 1 ... before light is created, and three 'days' before any stars are created (on day 4). How could stars be created AFTER the earth, and yet their lightbe millions of years old, when the earth is only thousands of years old ? John Paul:It all has to do with event horizons, time dilation and relativity. Peter:We either have a Young Earth, but the bible is wrong. OR A young earth and Humphrey's is wrong. (OR an old earth, natch ) I cannot see any way that Humphrey's hypothesis could be compatiblewith Genesis. Admittedly I haven't read the book ... so perhaps JP (who has?) could answer this one. John Paul:The cool part about the book (now in video) is Humphreys puts down his version on how he believes God Created the cosmos, day by day. If his premise is correct as the event horizon of the white hole reaches earth, although only 24 hours of earth time go by, billions of years of processes take place outside of the event horizon. He uses Stephen Hawking's idea of an astronaut and a astronomer. That is as the astronomer watches the astronaut fall towards an event horizon of a black hole the astronomer notices the astronauts time piece is moving slower and slower. Once the astronaut gets to the EH the astronomer observes the astronaut's time piece has effectively stopped. What Humphreys does is to turn that around and use the astronaut observing the astronomer. As the astronaut nears the EH he observes the clock on the astronomer's wall speeding up. As the astronaut reaches the EH the astronomer's clock becomes a blur because the hands are moving too fast. IOW God used relativity to Create the universe in 6 days, earth time. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b] It all has to do with event horizons, time dilation and relativity IOW God used relativity to Create the universe in 6 days, earth time.[/QUOTE] This makes perfect sense; YEC from earth’s perspective presumably; OEC from without the event horizon (in Humphrey’s model).Yet, I would think it more correct to say, God created the heavens and the earth and the event(s) followed relativistic ‘laws’. Several relativistic scenarios I perceive support Genesis ch 1, without violating that chapter’s integrity: 1. General relativity (Humphrey)2. Special relativity (E=mc^2) at the instant after the ‘big bang’ with increasing gamma at the periphery of the universe. 3. Atomic/Molecular clocks set well ahead of ‘solar time’ at the instant (the when) after the ‘big bang’ 4. Speed of light (c) being perhaps infinite at the time of the creation before the first instant occurred. 5. Varying ‘maturities’ of substrates (stellar and biological) were integrated into the mechanism(s) of the creation process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Just a quickie. Does Humphreys explain how the earth escapes the gravity well causing the event horizon, & is it scientifically supported? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Sorry ... using a software engineering definition of populatethere ... meaning all of the objects God wanted to be there had been 'initialised' ... do that sometimes quote: OK. Let me get this straight ... God creates the Earth, then goes 'Oops! Forgot to do thestars ... I know I'll hold up time on Earth by putting it in an event horizon while I fill in the rest of the cosmos.' Well, God moves in mysterious ways, and can do anything. So thishypothesis basically says 'God can do whatever He wants because He's omnipotent' (apologies to any feminists who object to God as He). That makes this thread a traditional creationist Vs. scienceimpasse. If this event horizon had existed ... what evidence of itspassing should we expect ? There must be some remnants ... after all it's only been gonefor 6000 years, tops. That's peanuts to the cosmos. Was the whole solar system in this event horizon ... or just earth ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Mark:
Just a quickie. Does Humphreys explain how the earth escapes the gravity well causing the event horizon, & is it scientifically supported? John Paul:What gravity well? You do realize we are talking white hole and not black hole. A white hole is a black hole running in reverse. IOW, things leave it. As it stands it appears to be as scientifically supported as the big-bang. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Peter:
OK. Let me get this straight ... God creates the Earth, then goes 'Oops! Forgot to do thestars ... I know I'll hold up time on Earth by putting it in an event horizon while I fill in the rest of the cosmos.' John Paul:You don't have it straight. According to this premise God Creates a ball of water 2 light years across, with an EH that extends another .5 LY from it. God starts it rotating and as it rotates it collapses. Nuclear fusion starts. God stops the collapse and starts the expanse- the white hole is born. Peter:Well, God moves in mysterious ways, and can do anything. So this hypothesis basically says 'God can do whatever He wants because He's omnipotent' (apologies to any feminists who object to God as He). John Paul:Perhaps, but that is not the issue. What we do now is to use science to understand God's Creation. Peter:That makes this thread a traditional creationist Vs. science impasse. John Paul:Funny Newton didn't see it as an impasse. He was a Creationist ya know. Peter:If this event horizon had existed ... what evidence of its passing should we expect ? There must be some remnants ... after all it's only been gonefor 6000 years, tops. That's peanuts to the cosmos. John Paul:I doubt 6,000 is the correct number, but that would be Earth time. Billions of years worth of processes would have taken place outside of the EH as the EH passes Earth. What would we expect to see- an expanding universe. Peter:Was the whole solar system in this event horizon ... or just earth ? John Paul:Everything, as in all the matter in the universe. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: How does a white hole have an event horizon? Is anti-gravity supported in science? What prediction, exactly, produces a white hole? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Mark:
How does a white hole have an event horizon? John Paul:How Long is a chinaman. My understanding is that anything with enough mass would have an EH. If all the mass of the universe were in one location I would think that would qualify. As the matter exits the white hole its EH shrinks until it is gone. Mark:Is anti-gravity supported in science? John Paul:Is anti-gravity part of the big-bang? My understanding is the same gravitatioal forces were at work in this scenario as in the big-bang. Mark:What prediction, exactly, produces a white hole? John Paul:1st this white hole is very different than any other theoretical white holes. White holes have been theorized to be at the other end of the worm hole created by a black hole. Matter enters the black hole, travels through the worm hole and exits the white hole. But that is NOT what Humphreys is theorizing. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 5’8
quote: Yup, anything with enough mass would, but you aren’t talking mass, but anti-mass, anti-gravity. How does 2 light years diameter of water equal anti mass/gravity?
quote: Your understanding is wrong, gravitons are not predicted to exist as in big bang, until after expansion, when the universe had cooled enough to allow their existence. Even so, please point me to anti-gravity scientific papers.
quote: So,.. What is he theorising? AND, to answer my question, what prediction, exactly, produces a white hole? Does this scientific theory require God, or not? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taco Inactive Member |
I was reading through the previous posts in this forum and have some questions to anyone who feels like answering.
1) If the earth has time going slower than the rest of the universe (i.e. days versus billions of years) then it must have been in an incredibly high gravitational field, right? Yet how could the earth have existed in such a high field? Surely it would have been crushed or something like that. 2) In a previous post I read that Humphrey's theory postulates a expansion that is slowing down because of a central point of gravity. How does that correspond to recent discoveries of an increasing rate of expansion? 3) I read about 'spheres of water' 2 LY across in order to create 'white holes'. Is there any reason to assume such a thing? I am interested in the dicussion between creation science and mainstream science, and would appreciate any comments people might have. Cheers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
It's undoubtedly true that time dialtion is a reality. Mulitiple general relativistic phenomena have been demonstrated. Some one near a black hole will definitely be able to watch civilisations develop through their telescopes while having breakfast. Humphrey's white hole apears to be able to do the same thing for the universe although I haven't studied GR in 15 years. I personally think Humphrey's is onto something and it basically means that just about all of astrophysics is compatible with YEC and that it is only on the Big Bang vs White Hole that there is remaining controversy.
I have always believed that the galaxies were somehow billions of years old and that GR would be the solution. I never agreed with the creationists who tried to show that galaxies woudln't be stable for more than a few revoltuions. I may even pre-date Humphrey's on this! He then went and did the hard work though. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
I found a nice no nonsense document on Gen Rel (maths thereof) here http://www.home.gil.com.au/~praxis/gr/gr.pdf I`ll look through it to see if I can`t work out why Hugh Ross thinks Humphrys is so wrong aboout the maths...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mike Holland Member (Idle past 514 days) Posts: 179 From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia Joined: |
Humphrey's theory has also been discussed under the topic 'Quantized redshifts indicate that the earth is at the centre of the universe'. Members following this discussion might like to check out the criticisms there (some are my own). No point in repeating it all.
Mike Holland.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024