Pesky Starlight

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.

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.

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.