Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 2/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Starlight and Time---question that must be answered
Peter
Member (Idle past 1557 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 31 of 84 (3644)
02-07-2002 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by joz
02-07-2002 9:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
I think what they are trying to do is postulate that the universe was created 6,000 years ago as measured by a clock on earth.
They then claim that the earth was seperated from the rest of the universe by an event horizon (presumeably the result of sitting in the gravitational field of an extremely massive body) Then under general relativity the rest of the universe would age faster than the earth giving them a 6,000 year old earth and a universe with an age of the order of 10`s of billions....
Which is an interesting exercise in mathmatics but lacks any proof whatsoever.

And creationists say that evolutionists run headlong into convenient
unsubstantiated fantasies!!
For life to survive I would guess that at least the Sun would
have to be in this white whole thingy too then, and that the
orbit of the earth around the sun would have to be maintained,
in an extreme gravitational field ... hmm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 9:11 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by lbhandli, posted 02-07-2002 8:25 PM Peter has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 84 (3748)
02-07-2002 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Peter
02-07-2002 9:46 AM


The sheer number of problems with the theory boggles the mind. I wonder whether the author's intent was to have actual physicists laughing so hard that:
1) they bought the book for jokes at professional conventions
2) they'd be too busy laughing to offer the problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Peter, posted 02-07-2002 9:46 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by wj, posted 02-07-2002 9:53 PM lbhandli has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 84 (3761)
02-07-2002 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by lbhandli
02-07-2002 8:25 PM


For those who may not be aware, the author, D. Russell Humphreys has a PhD in physics. Here is a biography at answersingenesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp
He does not restrict his creationist science to cosmology. He has also adduced evidence for a young (6,000 year) earth from such diverse sources as cosmology, geology, geophysics and archaeology. See http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
It appears that you only need a PhD in one area of science to be an expert in all areas of science and be able to point out the errors of the fools who specialise in such fields.
Do physicists have a good sense of humour?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by lbhandli, posted 02-07-2002 8:25 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by lbhandli, posted 02-07-2002 10:54 PM wj has not replied
 Message 35 by Peter, posted 02-08-2002 7:39 AM wj has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 84 (3773)
02-07-2002 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by wj
02-07-2002 9:53 PM


wj
o physicists have a good sense of humour?
Yes, though I will not comment on the quality of that sense of humor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by wj, posted 02-07-2002 9:53 PM wj has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1557 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 35 of 84 (3798)
02-08-2002 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by wj
02-07-2002 9:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wj:
For those who may not be aware, the author, D. Russell Humphreys has a PhD in physics. Here is a biography at answersingenesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp
He does not restrict his creationist science to cosmology. He has also adduced evidence for a young (6,000 year) earth from such diverse sources as cosmology, geology, geophysics and archaeology. See http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
It appears that you only need a PhD in one area of science to be an expert in all areas of science and be able to point out the errors of the fools who specialise in such fields.
Do physicists have a good sense of humour?

11. History is too short
Strange leep in logic here. Just because no written records survive from prior to 5000 years does not mean they did not once exist. The dark age upheavals mean that we have little written from that period,
which is only a few hundred years ago, it's not inconceivable that
6000 year old records have been lost.
There are those who date the pyramids in egypt to more like 10,000 years (I believe based upon astronomical alignments) .. controversial
that though.
10 Agriculture is too recent
African tribes only started farming within the last 300-400 years
after the white settlers forced them to abandon their nomadic life.
African tribes have been about for several thousand years and only
adopted agriculture because it was thrust upon them.
9 Not enough stone age skeletons
A global population of 10 million would be spread pretty thin (the
UK population alone is about 60 million currently I believe), and
w still know very little of funeral practices. Certainly some of
the stone age cultures buried their dead (the graves have been
found), but we have no way of knowing how ALL stone age corpses
were disposed of.
Cremation has been common among cultures and could leave little more
than teeth, burial in lakes or the see is possible and I don't know
of any archealogical digs on the sea/lake beds.
Not having found something does NOT mean it does not exits. The ceolocanth was presumed extinct because we hadn't seen them, then
they turned up alive and well in places we hadn't looked.
American cities are relatively young, European ones aren't. Try
digging deep enough under Rome, London, Paris, Milan, Berlin, etc.
and I'm sure you'd find more stone age burials.
8 Helium in the wrong places
The rate of helium loss from the atmosphere presumably would have
been different when the atmoshpere was different, which it was when
the earth was young (whenever that may have been). Extrapolating
that loss rate back over millions of years is hardly valid.
What about cosmogenic helium contamination ??
7 Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years
I thought young earth theorists discounted radioactive decay as
a method of dating materials.
6 Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.
This one's an unsubstantaited assumption. We do not know the exact
conditions under which the Rockys were formed and so cannot
comment in either direction on the likely time it would take
for the sandstone to solidify.
5 Many strata are too tightly bent
I can find nothing in non-creationist literature to suggest that
tight anticilines or synclines cannot be formed by sustained pressure
over time. Please show me where this exists in non-creationist
literature.
4 Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast
See http://earth.agu.org/sci_soc/hoffman.html
According to research mentioned on this site the polarity of the
earth's magnetic field reverses every few million years, at which
time the dipole field appears to re-energize.
3 Not enough sodium in the sea
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/salt.htm
For an explanation of why the sodium output considered in creationsist
literature is incorrect.
2 Not enough mud on the sea floor
What about the ocean trenches ? We do not know how deep they are
or how much mud they contain.
1 Comets disintegrate too quickly
I don't really follow the logic of this one for the following reason:
Saying that a comet CANNOT exist for more than 10,000 years pre-supposes a maximum size AND minimum orbital period.
Comets only disintegrate when in proximity to the sun, and have
been observed to split into several seprate comets at times.
---------------------------------------
I've got a PhD too, but I doubt you will be as quick to accept
my explanations as you were the descriptions of the problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by wj, posted 02-07-2002 9:53 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by wj, posted 02-08-2002 8:06 AM Peter has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 84 (3800)
02-08-2002 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peter
02-08-2002 7:39 AM


Peter, I don't want to send this thread off at a tangent. Let me say that you have padded up to Warnie like Gatting without realising you've been clean bowled. Or, you've scored an own goal.
I was simply providing information on Humphreys' background and his other ventures into "evidence" against evolution and an old earth.
I've noticed that, as well as engineers and physicists offering gratuitous advice on evolutionary science, there now appears to be a flood of computer scientists. Great to see such interdisciplinary interaction. It seems that biology, genetics, molecular biology, geo;ogy etc. are percieved to be lower on the pecking order and therefore physicists can offer insights which biologists etc. have been too dumb to realise. Or are certain disciplines more prone to egotripping?
Back to the white hole thingy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peter, posted 02-08-2002 7:39 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by lbhandli, posted 02-08-2002 10:38 AM wj has not replied
 Message 51 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 5:33 AM wj has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 84 (3825)
02-08-2002 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by wj
02-08-2002 8:06 AM


Since Humphreys is clearly not talking about a white hole, well at least any white hole theorized by physics, perhaps a new name should be created for it. While I find white hole thingy quite descriptive, perhaps we could have a white hole thingy naming contest?
Any ideas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by wj, posted 02-08-2002 8:06 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by joz, posted 02-08-2002 10:56 AM lbhandli has not replied
 Message 39 by joz, posted 02-08-2002 11:51 AM lbhandli has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 84 (3828)
02-08-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by lbhandli
02-08-2002 10:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
Since Humphreys is clearly not talking about a white hole, well at least any white hole theorized by physics, perhaps a new name should be created for it. While I find white hole thingy quite descriptive, perhaps we could have a white hole thingy naming contest?
Any ideas?

Well if physicists have a sense of humour you could say it would be the butt of a lot of jokes so butt hole...
Or you could argue that he postulated it for the glory of God so glory hole.
Ah the possibilities....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by lbhandli, posted 02-08-2002 10:38 AM lbhandli has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 84 (3836)
02-08-2002 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by lbhandli
02-08-2002 10:38 AM


And then there is the fact that the whole theory is *A Rather Silly Empty* theory (I think you can guess the acronym that would precede the hole)...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by lbhandli, posted 02-08-2002 10:38 AM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by wj, posted 02-08-2002 11:06 PM joz has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 84 (3897)
02-08-2002 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by joz
02-08-2002 11:51 AM


joz, maybe it should be americanised (in view of its author's nationality) to a silly starlight theory?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by joz, posted 02-08-2002 11:51 AM joz has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7961 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 41 of 84 (3955)
02-09-2002 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
01-29-2002 7:28 PM


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?

curiousity again. can someone explain gravity wells and event horizon. a link along with it would be awesome.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 01-29-2002 7:28 PM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by joz, posted 02-10-2002 1:22 AM KingPenguin has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 84 (3968)
02-10-2002 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by KingPenguin
02-09-2002 11:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
curiousity again. can someone explain gravity wells and event horizon. a link along with it would be awesome.
Look here:
http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/blkhole.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 11:24 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 1:32 AM joz has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7961 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 43 of 84 (3971)
02-10-2002 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by joz
02-10-2002 1:22 AM


thank you much
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by joz, posted 02-10-2002 1:22 AM joz has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7961 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 44 of 84 (3974)
02-10-2002 2:22 AM


okay i finally read all of this thread and i guess im coming to the conclusion that all of this is purely theoretical. I also think we should cut off humphreys hands and sew his mouth shut so no one will ever hear of his "crazy talk" ever again. its pretty bad when the people hes trying to support think hes a moron.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 8:36 AM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 46 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-10-2002 12:11 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5273 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 45 of 84 (3979)
02-10-2002 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 2:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
okay i finally read all of this thread and i guess im coming to the conclusion that all of this is purely theoretical. I also think we should cut off humphreys hands and sew his mouth shut so no one will ever hear of his "crazy talk" ever again. its pretty bad when the people hes trying to support think hes a moron.

LOL, you speak for all of us!
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 2:22 AM KingPenguin 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