JonF. have you even read what Humphreys proposes?
Yes.
The gravity well is gone due to the fact the white hole has emptied its contents.
What Humphreys proposes is not a white hole. And the "emptying of its contents" is an ad-hoc hypothesis for which there is no evidence. Of course, the original "white hole: is not compatible with our observations, e.g. of light that was in transit wnhe the "white hole" existed.
And where did the imagined singularity of the big bang come from? Magic. Again your double standards are obvious.
No. it's quite different. We admit that we don't know where the Big Bang came from ... but we have gobs of evidence that it happened, and we're working on where it came from. Humphreys has no evidence outside of his prejudices.
Humphreys has a PhD. in physics. It wasn't just a side course on his way to another degree.
Appeal to authority fallacy. The fact that he has a PhD leads us to think that he might know what he's talking about, but then examination of his work shows us conclusively that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
As for reasons to believe Humphreys has answered them and they refuse to debate him, even via written correspondence.
Really? Please explain how he has answered them, in your own words, and present evidence that RTB has refused to discuss the matter further. And debates or proposed debates don't count, science isn't done by debate.
Which would satisfy your criteria of peer review.
Nope. You don't understand peer review.
BTW there was a recent peer reviewed paper that supports some of Humphreys premises.
ROTFLMAO! You'll fall for anything, won't you! Of course, that paper (
Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole doesn't support Humphreys' lunacy at all. One of the authors was questioned about this and replied (as quoted at
Re: Can anyone help me with this?, and with emphasis added by me):
quote:
Dear Adam:
Thanks for the e-mail and the interest in our paper. I do not think that the idea that some sort of time dialation reducing the age of the universe to 6000 years has anything whatsoever to do with our paper. In our paper, we explore the possibility that the explosion of the Big Bang that caused the outward motion of the galaxies, was an explosion of finite total mass, instead of the infinite mass explosion as touted by the standard model based on the Friedmann universe since the 1930'3. In our model, the explosion of the Big Bang generated a shock wave that went out from the center of the explosion, (like the outward shock wave of a nuclear explosion), and the expanding galaxies correspond to the region inside the outgoing spherical wave. What is new here is that when the shock wave is far enough out to be consistent with observations, (beyond one Hubble length--the distance light can travel since the Big Bang explosion), the whole explosion begins inside a (time reversed) black hole----a black hole in which everything is running backwards, exploding outward instead of collapsing inward. In our model, the universe eventually emerges from the black hole, and from then on expands like a huge finite ball of matter into empty space----we are inside the explosion, but to someone far out, this would look like a giant supernova explosion. It also follows from our model that information about the shock wave propagates inward from the shock wave, into the large central region of uniform expansion----and thus to an observer (like us) on the inside of the bubble, everything would look exactly like the Friedmann universe up until the time when the shock wave came into view from the farthest field of observations. In particular, up until the shock wave comes into view, everything looks the same as in the Friedmann model, inclulding the age of the universe---so I see no connection to a new idea on the age of the universe.
We believe that there very likely is such a shock wave out there---and that a model like ours is pretty much forced on you once you assume that the Big Bang was an explosion of finite total mass. (Assuming finite mass, the only other alternative is that the spacetime is not simply connected--this was the topic of Geoffrey Weeks talk in Berkeley last monday. We think this is much less likely that the existence of a wave way out there.) Our model shows that if this shock wave were close enough, it could conceivably have already come into view---that is, could be visible in the far field in the direction nearest the wave. We expect that this would be a region in the sky of lower temperature. (Shock waves always propagate into regions of lower density and pressure, so the temperature would be lower on the far side of the shock----that radiation would reach us when the wave came into view----when the shock wave got within one Hubble length of us.) One of the questions asked of Jeffry Weeks last Monday, was the question of whether there is a center to the universe, and he answered, based on the standard model---and his non-simply connected version of it--- there is no center. In our model, it is much more mundane---there is a center---but within the bubble like region near the center before the wave has appeared, all points ``appear'' the same observationally.
As far as we know, no one has ever looked for the shock wave at the edge of the expanding galaxies. We are researchers coming from the mathematical theory of shock waves, and this work is very controversial, and not accepted by cosmologists---although we have given many international talks explaining this model, and have heard no physical observation that rules this model out. To us, the FINITE explosion part makes a whole lot more physical sense than other alternatives.
You can download my radio interview on Quirks and Quarks and NPR, and some popular articles on this from my web page: Index of /~temple/articles
Good luck with your argument!
Blake Temple
IOW, they wrote a purely theoretical paper proposing a model in which the universe is 14-ish billion years old, in which everything we see is identical to the standard model, but predicts that at some time in the future we might see something that differs from what the standard model predicts.
So, why don't you explain to us
exactly how this paper supports Humphreys?
Still waiting for your reply in
Distinguishing Pb from Pb???.
™ Version 4.2
