|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Starlight and Time---question that must be answered | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: 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. 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. 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. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: John Paul:This is proof you haven't read anything of Humphreys on this topic. 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. 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. About the heavier elements- thermonuclear fusion reactions ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: "Just HAD to," eh? Hmm, that's pretty compelling logic. What can I say?... So, after the earth was created you don't think these conditions existed. That means the decay rates have been constant since the creation of the earth and, ergo, radiometric methods are valid on this point. Somewhere else you said that the change of decay rates was observed. Do you have reference on this? Who observed the change?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: JP, can you give us a quote from this article where the authors suggest a major problem with the estimated age of the earth? I don't believe that they just let it drop without an explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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: With what? There is no hydrogen available in such a situation. [/B][/QUOTE]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
"Ummmm...no one serious has ever addressed his theory."
Ibhandli, I beg to differ. Conner and Ross have written a serious rebuttal of Humphreys' hypothesis. It is available at http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.html The battle for hearts and minds(?) between young earth creationists and old earth creationists continues. [This message has been edited by wj, 01-31-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Why don't you go to a library? They let you borrow the books for free, you know
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
WJ: Oh my aching sides. I haven't laughed so hard for a long time.
I know it's not really "gentlemanly" to snicker over the misfortunes of others, but mannnnnn. This is just too rich. The creationists have been beating up evolutionary biologists over internal bickering since Gould published "Wonderful Life". It's just too sweet to see the shoe on the other foot. quote: (From the article you referenced). Ah, me. On the up side for creationists, at least they're starting to try and police their own. When a theory is so bad even other creationsists think it stinks, it must be REALLY bad...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ps418 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
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. Howdy TC-I'm not sure what you're looking for in particular, but I have a load of books to sell -paleontology, geology and so on that I'd like to seel. Feel free to drop me a line anytime at ps418@aol.com. I'd be happy to help you find what you're looking for at a decent price. In general, you may also want to check out Amazon.com Zshops, Ebay, and Half.com. I've saved hundreds of dollars this way. Be Well, Patrick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
Has John Paul fled the thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Why don't you go to a library? They let you borrow the books for free, you know
--Oh my goodness, you know what schrafinator, I think that whenever I need amazing wisdom and knowledge, I will have to come to you.. --I do have a couple books out, including Stephen Hawking a breif history of time, Marine Geology by Jon Erickson which I am in the midtst of reading, Plate Tectonics, and I have a nice little cosmological book for astronomy. I would just like the more bulkier kind of books you don't find in highschool libraries, even the Marine Geology book has never been checked out, I probably could keep it without them noticing I ever had it if it werent for computers. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: If you can afford this I can`t recomend it enough.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201547309/qid=1013002856/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_66_1/103-7102899-7098227
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I'm a little confused by the majority of posts in this subject. I believe the discussion to be about the age of the earth, basedupon the age of the rest of the universe, and this incudes the time that light takes to travel from distant stars to us here on earth. The 6000 year old earth calculation (as I understand it) stems fromthe genealogy in Genesis taking us back to the time of Adam, and then adding the 5 extra days before Adam was created. Wasn't the rest of the Universe created at the same time as thisaccording to Genesis ? if it wasn't then you're saying that you cannot take the accountin Genesis literarlly ... and then your in a whole other discussion about what objective information CAN you get from Genesis. It also seems a little strange to be attempting a pseudo-scientificexplanation of divine action, and especially for JP to be advocating a theory with no evidence when that is his major argument against abiogenesis and evolutionary theory in other discussion threads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024