quote:
By the way, there is another flaw in Humphrey's theory that I haven't seen mentioned yet. As his universe expands, the density drops. Initially, the event horizon is beyond the bounds of the universe, then the expansion goes beyond the event horizon (several contradictions here - time stands still at this place! Nothing can excape a black hole!) and the contained mass drops, to the event hgorizon shrinks towards the centre. But there comes a point where the gravitational field at the event horizon drops too far to maintain it, and voila! - no more event horizon. One could assume a uniform density to the universe, and calculate when this would happen, but I am quite certain it would be billions of years ago, when the event horizon was still way beyond our supergalaxy.
This argument is from Conner and Page-the argument from a shrinking event horizon. However, Humphrey rebuts this in this article-
New Vistas ofSpace- Time Rebut the CriticsHowever, this argument is based on a misunderstanding of Humphrey's model-Humphrey posits that that during creation, the energy differences in gravitational potential energy between variously places where enough to produce a region of space in which time did not exist. Instead of talking about an event horizon, he talks about an Euclidian signature, based on the Klein metric (invented by theoretical physicist Oskar Klein) instead of Conner and Page's use of the Robertson-Walker metric. According to this model, this "timeless zone" shrank until it disappeared at the center-the earth. This "timeless zone" conclusion is also strongly supported by a recent article by general relativity theorists Charle sHellaby, Ariel Sumeruk and George Ellis in the 1997 journal of modern physics, who used a different approach to the Klein metric and have thus provided independent evidence for the existence of this "timeless zone". And why are you certain that when this zone shrinks to nil that it would have happened billions of years ago?
Samuel Conner's and Don Page's original criticism of Humphrey can be found
here
Humphrey's reply to this is the link I placed above, -
New Vistas ofSpace- Time Rebut the Critics
Samuel Conner continues his criticism of Humphrey and Humphrey responds
Starlight-Time and Again
E.D. Fackerell & C.B.G McIntosh with further criticisms of Humphrey's position and Humphrey responds
Errors in Humphreys’ Cosmological Model
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-01-2002]