Starlight and Time---question that must be answered

It seems this will need its own thread. Humphreys claims that the Earth was behind an event horizon and so time passed more slowly than in the rest of the universe and so he claims to solve the YEC problem of how light can travel so far when the Earth is only 6000 years old.Now, if Humphreys is claiming that the Earth is/was in a gravitational well--wouldn't the light we receive be blue-shifted?Where is the evidence of this gravity well? At only 6000 years old the light reaching us now would certainly have been affected by such a great amount of gravity in one direction. Where is the evidence for this?

I expect this will be my only posting to this topic, for I have no personal interest in getting into cosmological relativistic effects.My question is, even if Humphreys' hypothesis was to hold up, does it in any way effect the earthly evidence of a 4.6 billion year old planet? It certainly doesn't work to plug a very old earth into a very young cosmos.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-30-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lbhandli:
It seems this will need its own thread. Humphreys claims that the Earth was behind an event horizon and so time passed more slowly than in the rest of the universe and so he claims to solve the YEC problem of how light can travel so far when the Earth is only 6000 years old.

​

Now, if Humphreys is claiming that the Earth is/was in a gravitational well--wouldn't the light we receive be blue-shifted?

​

Where is the evidence of this gravity well? At only 6000 years old the light reaching us now would certainly have been affected by such a great amount of gravity in one direction. Where is the evidence for this?

---

John Paul:
Larry have you read the book? From your post I would have to guess you didn't. First it is when the event horizon reaches Earth and passes through it, that the clocking processes are different. Not when the Earth is behind it.Next I haven't read anything in his book about the Earth being in a gravity well.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I expect this will be my only posting to this topic, for I have no personal interest in getting into cosmological relativistic effects.

​

My question is, even if Humphreys' hypothesis was to hold up, does it in any way effect the earthly evidence of a 4.6 billion year old planet? It certainly doesn't work to plug a very old earth into a very young cosmos.

​

Moose

​

---

John Paul:
A 4.6 billion yo Earth was determined by the radiometric 'dating' of meteorites. And actually some of the methods used gave 'ages' of over 10 billion years. But we can't have an Earth that old now can we?You remove distant starlight from the 'age' speculation game and all you have is radiometric dating. Then all you have formulas based upon meteorites, which would have been subjected to the differing clocking/ general relativity processes. Add to that the fact that we have observed a billion fold increase in decay rates under certain conditions and you have more than enough for the objective person to be skeptical of that technique.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
You remove distant starlight from the 'age' speculation game and all you have is radiometric dating. Then all you have formulas based upon meteorites, which would have been subjected to the differing clocking/ general relativity processes. Add to that the fact that we have observed a billion fold increase in decay rates under certain conditions and you have more than enough for the objective person to be skeptical of that technique.

---

How long have these conditions existed on earth, JP?

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
How long have these conditions existed on earth, JP?

​

---

John Paul:
As far as I know, the conditions just had to have existed while the Earth was being Created.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:

​

You remove distant starlight from the 'age' speculation game and all you have is radiometric dating. Then all you have formulas based upon meteorites, which would have been subjected to the differing clocking/ general relativity processes. Add to that the fact that we have observed a billion fold increase in decay rates under certain conditions and you have more than enough for the objective person to be skeptical of that technique.

​

---

Sheesh, lucky we have distant starlight & radiometric dating then!------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I'm still awating the book to arive.... Untill I get it, would anyone like to give or sell me some of their old reading material, John paul, or anyone else? Creationary or Evolutionary work.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Add to that the fact that we have observed a billion fold increase in decay rates under certain conditions and you have more than enough for the objective person to be skeptical of that technique.

​

---

Unfortunately, the so-called "billion-fold increase" would not affect radiometric age unless the entire earth was superheated to a plasma state. I doubt that even the most catastrophic of catastrophists believes that the earth was heated to a plasma state at any point after it originated.Woodmorappe et al. didn't seem too eager to point that out. Wonder why? The following critique is from:Modifications of Nuclear Beta Decay Rates
From the thread "Decay Rates"
Post of the Month: March 2001
by David Ewan Kahana
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar01.html will now conclude with a few remarks on the relevance of this silly and massively dishonest article to radioactive dating and geological time scales. I am doing no more than to repeat points that others have made here, but I have added a couple of numbers, just for fun.

​

Large atoms as we know'em and like'em, namely at all temperatures important for questions of rock formation, can be thought of as being essentially neutral when it comes to calculating their beta decays.

​

It is these kinds of atoms that make up rocks, whether molten or solid, and that of course includes the rocks in Woodmorappe's head. One does not typically find Rhenium atoms in charge states like 75+. It took quite a few talented people working at a complicated and expensive facility, using an accelerator like the one at GSI, to produce a useable number of these exotic objects for their experiment. To see just how absurd the discussion Woodmorappe gives of the earth's origins actually is, it's worth making a couple of simple order of magnitude estimates.

​

First, the gravitational binding energy of the earth can be roughly estimated from the formula for a uniform sphere:

​

B = 3/5 G m^2 / r

​

Taking approximate values r=6500 km, m=6x10^24 kg, and G = 6.67 x 10^-11 m^3 / kg / s^2, this gives:

​

B = 2.2 x 10^36 J.

​

This corresponds to a binding energy per unit mass of:

​

b = 3.7 x 10^7 J / kg,

​

or a binding energy fraction (dividing b by c^2) for the earth of:

​

f (earth) = 4 x 10^-10.

​

What sort of conditions are required to make 75+ the expected charge state of Rhenium? Here I am going to play very fast and loose with my estimates. If the separation energy of the first electron in Rhenium is about 9 eV, and that of the last is about 90 keV, that suggests a total binding energy of about 500 KeV for all of the electrons. To separate the last electron we thus need a temperature at least on the order of 10^9 K, while smaller temperatures would suffice for ionizing the rest of the outer electrons. We shall need to approach charge states of 72+, 73+ or more preferrably 74+, I'ld bet, in order to see very strong effects on the beta decay lifetime. If the K-shell is completely empty in Osmium, then capture to the L-shell is energetically allowed, but it is greatly suppressed over K-capture. So perhaps T = 10^8 K might be sufficient. To approach this kind of temperatures in the current universe, we shall need to make a descent into the core of a supergiant star. Or perhaps we could wait around for the shock wave of a supernova explosion to hit us. So while the result discussed in the article concerning bound state beta decays of fully ionized Rhenium seems possibly to be very interesting for astrophysics, it is certainly quite irrelevant for any estimates of the age of terrestrial rocks. Patrick

​

[This message has been edited by ps418, 01-30-2002]

How is that relevant to what happens to light before it reaches Earth? Your complaint doesn't address how light that would have been say 7000 years away when Earth emerges from this "hole" thingy would be blue shifted. Please address the question as stated, not as you contorted it. A gravity well is simply a short handed way of describing a phenomenon that Humphreys made up out of thin air.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
A 4.6 billion yo Earth was determined by the radiometric 'dating' of meteorites. And actually some of the methods used gave 'ages' of over 10 billion years. But we can't have an Earth that old now can we?

​

You remove distant starlight from the 'age' speculation game and all you have is radiometric dating. Then all you have formulas based upon meteorites, which would have been subjected to the differing clocking/ general relativity processes.

---

How so. Please be specific. Unless you are trying to claim that the Earth was in some sort of a white hole, but not really a white hole, thingy, and the rest of the solar system was developing, your objection makes no sense whatsoever. If you are claiming the solar system was beyond the white hole thingy why wouldn't the white hole of wiped out the entire solar system? You are holding mutually impossible claims as true.Secondly, how would heavy elements emerge from what essentially is a big bang? This is especially curious?

JP, can you provide evidence to support your assertion that some materials were dated at 10 billion years old?I don't see great difficulty with a 10 billion year old earth per se, although it means that the sun is a similar age and the theories on the formation and evolution of stars would need to be reviewed in the light of such evidence, if the evidence were valid.

ps418:
Unfortunately, the so-called "billion-fold increase" would not affect radiometric age unless the entire earth was superheated to a plasma state. I doubt that even the most catastrophic of catastrophists believes that the earth was heated to a plasma state at any point after it originated.John Paul: (from an earlier post)
As far as I know, the conditions just had to have existed while the Earth was being Created.Now we can infer the whole Earth went through a superheated plasma state while it was being Created. You really don't think God just went "Poof" and the earth appeared do you?------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:

​

John Paul:
Larry have you read the book? From your post I would have to guess you didn't. First it is when the event horizon reaches Earth and passes through it, that the clocking processes are different. Not when the Earth is behind it.

​

Next I haven't read anything in his book about the Earth being in a gravity well.

​

---

Obvious point, really, how do you have an event horizon without a "gravity well"?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
JP, can you provide evidence to support your assertion that some materials were dated at 10 billion years old?

​

I don't see great difficulty with a 10 billion year old earth per se, although it means that the sun is a similar age and the theories on the formation and evolution of stars would need to be reviewed in the light of such evidence, if the evidence were valid.

---

John Paul:
Tatsumoto, M., Unrch, D., and Desborough, G., "U-Th-Pb and Rb-Sr Systematics of Allede and U-Th-Pb systematics of Orgueil," Geomechanica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol 40, 1976, pp. 616-634A 10 billion y Earth would cause a re-write of most, in not all, of what 'main-stream science' holds as true about the universe.------------------
John Paul