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?

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:\How do you know what is alleged by Humphreys if you haven't read his book or subsequent articles? He mentions nothing about a gravity well- which is what I stated in my post which you are allegedly responding.

---

I'm not responsible because you don't understand that a gravity well would be produced. As Mark pointed out, this is pretty much by definition of what Humphreys claims. You really should understand what you are supporting before arguing for it.

quote:

---

If objects are moving away from Earth, we can deduce those objects were at one time closer. Which means the originating light had to travel a shorter distance to reach Earth.

---

Irrelevant to the question. It should be blue-shifted--if we were hovering over a former white hole 'thingy''s event horizon. Space would be heavily distorted causing blue shifts to be present. This is pretty elementary to any understanding of relativity. If one is in an area that is within a gravity well, objects outside of it will be "sped" up relative to the observer.Indeed, the magnitude would be so great that if Earth was somehow magically in such a position, the Earth would be largely destroyed.

quote:

---

Also as the event horizon reaches earth, billions of years of processes would be taking place outside of the EH. That alone gives light plenty of time to travel great distances. The light should be red-shifted- just as observed.

---

Just because Humphreys claims this doesn't make it so. Remember he is saying that the Earth is hovering over a 'thingy' event horizon and as such, light would be heavily blue-shifted.[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul: John Paul:
This is proof you haven't read anything of Humphreys on this topic.

---

How so? Because I don't read uncritically and call it a white hole, but a white hole thingy? Given that divine intervention is cited as how the white hole thingy creates heavy elements, I'm not too afraid to make fun of him.

quote:

---

Yes, he does speak of a white hole. He says it is obvious from the evidence the universe was once in a white hole and the Earth was very close to the center of that white hole.

---

Thus, the question. If one is hovering over the event horizon of some white hole thingy, why is light reaching us not blue shifted? Even if the white hole thingy is now gone (magically), we should still observe rather drastic blue shifts. Where are they?

quote:

---

Why would the white hole wipe out the solar system? Humphreys cosmonogy has been out for about 8 years and no one has ever brought that up.

---

Ummmm...no one serious has ever addressed his theory. He is a joke. Let's start with, what is a white hole? A giant photon canon emitting gamma rays. And tidal forces. How the hell would any planet support life with that?

quote:

---

About the heavier elements- thermonuclear fusion reactions

---

With what? There is no hydrogen available in such a situation.[/B][/QUOTE]

Has John Paul fled the thread?

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.

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

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?

It would be helpful if you read the thread first. This is a thread concerning a specific scientific claim made by Humphreys.

And you haven't contributed to it substantively. Now what is your take on the theory? Do you understand how fusion takes place at singularity?