Issues of light

how many people laughed at some of the greatest men and women of science? and considered them an insult to there intelligence?

So this is your criteria for identifying great scientists? Find someone upon whom scorn and ridicule is being dumped by the rest of the world, and he's your great scientist?I have a feeling your strategy would correctly identify a great scientist only one out of several million times at best. Far more accurate strategies are available, such as the number of other scientists referencing someone's work. How well do you think Humphreys does by this measure?--Percy

You tell me how many laughed at great men of science. I have not heard of any!
They did not laugh at Newton, Darwin, Einstein, or any others I can think of.
Peter Wegener's original theory of continental drift was rejected because he could not provide a mechanism for the process. But as far as I know, he was not laughed at.Humphries' theory is ignored because it does not solve any known problem. His problem is how we can see billion-year old light when the Earth is only 6000 years old. This is not a problem for scientists, because all dating methods - tree rings, varve counting, radiocarben, uranium-lead, clay flourescence - all indicate that the earth is much older. So his problem is a non-starter.Next he starts with two assumptions for which there is absolutely no evidence - that the universe is bounded in an infinite space and therefore has a centre, and that the earth is very near this centre.
He then supposes that the universe can expand through an event horizon. This is totally in conflict with Einstein's relativity and all our understanding of gravity and space. Time stops at an event horizon. Nothing happens there (at least, from the viewpoint of the rest of the universe). Within an event horizon space and time get swapped around so that future time is the line pointing to the centre of mass. There is only one future - inwards.Finally, he supposes that the event horizon would contract and that it passed the earth 6000 years ago, at which time the earth clocks started ticking. Assuming his other ridiculous assumptions to be true, one can calculate how far out the event horizon would be from the centre of the universe, and the result is that it would cease to exist after about 10 million years because the gravitational field of the expanding 'finite' universe would no longer be sufficient to sustain it. So it would not have been around 6000 years ago.So the theory solves a non-problem, makes unjustified assumptions, uses flawed logic and draws erroneous conclusions. Do you expect any scientist to take him seriously?Mike.[This message has been edited by Mike Holland, 03-28-2003]

For one thing Humphreys did not state that an event horizon expanded the universe it is a white hole...
Now just so you know I do conclude that Humphreys is a scientist, I myself do not believe everything that he said...
I agree with most but I differ in these areas;
1. I do not think that water, even a vast amount of it, would collapse on itself if there was not gravity,
2. Gravity came into being when God said 'Let there be light'
3. The light of day one was covered by the solidifcation of the serface of the earth.
4. The Sun, moon, and stars of day 4 are the reason why I believe in the above statement...Now I think I may be an insult to your intelligence because you have no desire to know what I am thinking, and you certainly have no desire to help me along the way in my travel unless I conform to your way of thinking... now on account of a few million or billion people who may support uniformitarianistic thought I will not toss out my the development of my theory, and neither will I be daunted by any insults that can and will be thrown at me... God is real... you prove to me that he is not... I have the proof I need to believe this... all things will be revealed in time...I appeal to you whom know where I can gain more information on the basis of light.. its origination and how it is effected by gravity...
I do find reading a delight and would much rather further my theory by having solid works to further my own enlightenment on these issues.... insulting me does nothing but give us both a bad taste in our mouths...[This message has been edited by Jesuslover153, 03-29-2003]

OK, Jesuslover, in answer to two of your points, firstly no one has found any evidence for white holes, but the Russian cosmologist Novikov has proved that a white hole would quickly generate enough mass around it to form an event horizon and turn it into a black hole. Books of his that I have in my library are 'Black Holes and the Universe', 'Evolution of the Universe' and 'The River of Time'.Humphries does talk about a the earth being trapped in a space with a Klein metric where there is no time, and a Klein metric only exists within the Schwartzchild radius, ie. within the event horizon. See fig 3 of 'New Vistas of Space-Time', and just before table 1 - 'Notice that the signature change surface is deep inside the event horizon'.
So the earth is within an event horizon, which means inside a black hole. No escape!The behaviour of light in a gravitational field has been described in many popular scientific works for the 'intelligent layman'. General Relativity is way beyond my mathematics. Light rays are bent by gravity. This has been measured during eclipses, when stars on either side of the sun appear a different distance apart compared with when the sun is not between them. Galaxies have the same effect on the light from more distant galaxies beyond them, sometimes giving us double images.
Light is slowed down near an event horizon (for a remote viewer), and comes to a complete stop at the event horizon, as does time. So no light (or anything else) can escape an event horizon (except the gravitational field?!). A 'fuzzy black hole' is not an exception, as the emitted particles are formed by quantum fluctuations near the event horizon, and do not pass out through it (but some go inwards).I do not exactly believe all this myself, but that is another story. This is the official version, and I am sure your local library will have many books on the subject.Mike.[This message has been edited by Mike Holland, 03-30-2003]

thankyou for leading me in a more positive direction...I look forward to the day my understanding is made complete... more so though I look forward to the perfection of the love that is in me...a gentle answer will divert calm anger...

Actually, Humphries has addressed all critiques brought against his theory. He has answers posted on both the AiG and ICR websites. None of the "faults" have stood up to scrutiny. In fact, were there any problems it would be just as bad for the Big Bangers because his theory uses the exact same mathematics as that which produced the BB theory. He just starts with a different initial assumption (yes, the BB theory is based on an arbitrary assumption)

You might want to give the post you replied to another read, because Mike provided links to this exact information, including a link to Russell Humphreys answers Various Critics.What is the arbitrary assumption upon which BB is based?--Percy

The only assumption any scientifc model is based on is the assumption that natural phenomenon have natural explanations. To say that this has been largely bourn out is an understatement ot the extreme.

The assumption is that the universe is infinite and unbounded. Using this assumption with GR the BB theory falls out. Using the assumption that the universe is finite and bounded with GR, Humphries White-hole cosmology falls out. Both are arbitrary assumptions based on the believers philosophy.

Have you considered the possibility that the universe is finite but unbounded? This particular point of view is one proposed by and, I believe, still by defended Stephen Hawking.>
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 04-19-2003]

Sure, choosing different values for the variables in Einstein's equations yields different universes. But Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe and Wilson and Penzias's discovery of the BB background radiation tells us that white-hole cosmology doesn't match the observational evidence and that Humphreys is therefore choosing the wrong values.Once there's observational support for a specific solution to the equations it is no longer an assumption.--Percy

Hey isn't stephen hawkings wife a christian now? Interesting that his own wife isn't onside with him. ------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

quote:

---

Hey isn't stephen hawkings wife a christian now?

---

I don't know for sure but I think she always has been.

quote:

---

Interesting that his own wife isn't onside with him.

---

Yeah, she went and made up her own mind. Don't you hate that?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Have you considered the possibility that the universe is finite but unbounded?"

---

Can you, please, elaborate on this? What is meant by "unbounded"? If there is a limited amount of energy in the universe, and limited amount of quarks (I suppose that "Quark Confinment" still applies here) then how is there no bounds?Just want to understand this concept alittle...