Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,214 Year: 5,471/9,624 Month: 496/323 Week: 136/204 Day: 6/4 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pesky Starlight
Peter
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 16 of 37 (7795)
03-25-2002 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Paul
03-15-2002 6:04 PM


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 the
conclusion that the story in Genesis is NOT strictly speaking
the literal truth.
Why ?
Genesis says that from nothing to a fully populated Earth
took 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 light
be 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 compatible
with Genesis. Admittedly I haven't read the book ... so perhaps JP
(who has?) could answer this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 03-15-2002 6:04 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by John Paul, posted 05-28-2002 4:46 PM Peter has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5146 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 37 (10318)
05-24-2002 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
03-15-2002 11:33 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-15-2002 11:33 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 37 (10503)
05-28-2002 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Peter
03-25-2002 9:40 AM


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 Earth
took 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 light
be 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 compatible
with 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Peter, posted 03-25-2002 9:40 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Philip, posted 05-29-2002 12:43 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 21 by Peter, posted 05-29-2002 7:30 AM John Paul has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4836 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 19 of 37 (10525)
05-29-2002 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by John Paul
05-28-2002 4:46 PM


[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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John Paul, posted 05-28-2002 4:46 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 05-29-2002 4:39 AM Philip has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5309 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 20 of 37 (10542)
05-29-2002 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Philip
05-29-2002 12:43 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
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.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Philip, posted 05-29-2002 12:43 AM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by John Paul, posted 05-29-2002 9:10 AM mark24 has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 21 of 37 (10551)
05-29-2002 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by John Paul
05-28-2002 4:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
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 Earth
took 6 days.
John Paul:
Fully populated is a stretch. Is today's world fully populated?

Sorry ... using a software engineering definition of populate
there ... meaning all of the objects God wanted to be there
had been 'initialised' ... do that sometimes
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

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 light
be 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 compatible
with 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.

OK.
Let me get this straight ...
God creates the Earth, then goes 'Oops! Forgot to do the
stars ... 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 this
hypothesis 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. science
impasse.
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 gone
for 6000 years, tops. That's peanuts to the cosmos.
Was the whole solar system in this event horizon ... or just earth ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John Paul, posted 05-28-2002 4:46 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 05-29-2002 9:21 AM Peter has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 37 (10553)
05-29-2002 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by mark24
05-29-2002 4:39 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 05-29-2002 4:39 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 05-29-2002 10:42 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 37 (10554)
05-29-2002 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Peter
05-29-2002 7:30 AM


Peter:
OK.
Let me get this straight ...
God creates the Earth, then goes 'Oops! Forgot to do the
stars ... 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 gone
for 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Peter, posted 05-29-2002 7:30 AM Peter has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5309 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 24 of 37 (10559)
05-29-2002 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by John Paul
05-29-2002 9:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
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.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John Paul, posted 05-29-2002 9:10 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by John Paul, posted 05-29-2002 2:16 PM mark24 has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 37 (10571)
05-29-2002 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mark24
05-29-2002 10:42 AM


Mark:
How does a white hole have an event horizon?
John Paul:
How Long is a chinaman.
(sorry couldn't resist)
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 05-29-2002 10:42 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mark24, posted 05-29-2002 7:56 PM John Paul has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5309 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 26 of 37 (10591)
05-29-2002 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by John Paul
05-29-2002 2:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Mark:
How does a white hole have an event horizon?
John Paul:
How Long is a chinaman.
(sorry couldn't resist)

5’8
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

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.

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:
Originally posted by John Paul:

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.

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:
Originally posted by John Paul:

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.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John Paul, posted 05-29-2002 2:16 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Taco
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 37 (10788)
06-01-2002 10:53 AM


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


Message 28 of 37 (10857)
06-03-2002 12:44 AM


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]

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by joz, posted 06-03-2002 12:45 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 37 (10883)
06-03-2002 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tranquility Base
06-03-2002 12:44 AM


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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-03-2002 12:44 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 30 of 37 (20087)
10-17-2002 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
03-22-2002 12:02 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-22-2002 12:02 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024