Ok then, JP
Let's begin... You tell me how wonderful this book is, and you tell me how you understand the concepts presented- obviously you can answer his critics (including nearly every highly-qualified physicist).
Here are a few problems:
1) The first problem and most obvious is that the entire theory is dependent on the presumption that the universe has a limit. Although this is not a proven flasity, it is still an assumption, one that is much debated. This, I should stress, is not a major issue.
However, the doc's argument is that in a bounded universe, the creationist model would work quite well, in relation to an unbounded universe. But is this true? Are these two types of universes really different?
2) Here is one of the first major problems: the Scharzschild clock. This is so important to his argument, that, if I am not mistaken, he called it the essence of his argument.
Prob: the Schwarzschild time coordinate has no physical significance at all on the behavior of physical clocks in a bounded universe. Basically, using it is irrelevant, and is useless to his argument.
3) Dr. Humphreys alleges that in a bounded universe, the closer you get to the center, the more powerful gravity, and thus the greater the effects of time dilation. He claims that this does not occurr in a universe that is infinite- really?
unfortunately for creationists, there is no difference in the gravitational properties of a bounded and unbounded universe. To make a very long story short, bounded and unbounded universes have the same spacetime curvature, and spacetime curvature is directly responsible for time dilation, which Dr. Humphreys holds vital in his theory.
Now remember, the doc is dependent on supposed differences in spacetime curvature between a bounded and unbounded universe. Demonstrate that bounded and unbounded universes possess the same spacetime curvature, and his argument rapidly deteriorates.
4) Another major problem is the effect of event horizons in a bounded universe on time- according to the doc, the earth's clock may be static, while in a more distant area of the universe (where gravity is weaker), billions of years will pass.
But in a bounded universe, the event horizon has no effect on physical clocks in such a universe.
5) The final theory, which is easily dismatled, is the doctor's claim that an unbounded universe does not possess gravitational fields. Wrong.
This assumption is very dangerous. It requires that an unbounded universe expands forever at the same speed. On the other hand, it asserts that a bounded universes, with the prescence of a gravitational field, decelerates over time. Why? Because gravity is the only known force responsible for deceleration- without a gravitational field, there is nothing to restrict infinite universal expansion.
What's wrong with that? It contradicts the general theory of relativity, which in no way states that an unbounded universe would expand infinitely. In actuality, the general theory of relativity predicts the deceleration of an unbounded universe.
This is foolish. Dr. Humphreys has demonstrated that he possesses a measured understanding in cosmolgy and/or the theory of relativity. To make an assumption that contradicts the theory of realtivity is to assert inescapable claim that you possess more knowledge and understanding of the previously mentioned fields, compared to any other individual on earth.
But of course you know gall the above mentioned.
JP- you seem very keen to cling to books, but you fail to quote them, or assert arguments presented in the books. All you can say is "this explains this" or "that explains that". This is a debate, and I will not listen to your rambling- I do not have to read any books to argue my point. All I have to do is understand the concepts presented.
If you want to engage in a productive debate, give me evidence to work with, and not worthless rhetoric.
Please respond to the issues I have brought fourth.
™ Version 4.2
