Starlight and Time---question that must be answered

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?

---

John Paul:
Larry have you read the book? From your post I would have to guess you didn't. First it is when the event horizon reaches Earth and passes through it, that the clocking processes are different. Not when the Earth is behind it.Next I haven't read anything in his book about the Earth being in a gravity well.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I expect this will be my only posting to this topic, for I have no personal interest in getting into cosmological relativistic effects.

​

My question is, even if Humphreys' hypothesis was to hold up, does it in any way effect the earthly evidence of a 4.6 billion year old planet? It certainly doesn't work to plug a very old earth into a very young cosmos.

​

Moose

​

---

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. Add to that the fact that we have observed a billion fold increase in decay rates under certain conditions and you have more than enough for the objective person to be skeptical of that technique.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
How long have these conditions existed on earth, JP?

​

---

John Paul:
As far as I know, the conditions just had to have existed while the Earth was being Created.------------------
John Paul

ps418:
Unfortunately, the so-called "billion-fold increase" would not affect radiometric age unless the entire earth was superheated to a plasma state. I doubt that even the most catastrophic of catastrophists believes that the earth was heated to a plasma state at any point after it originated.John Paul: (from an earlier post)
As far as I know, the conditions just had to have existed while the Earth was being Created.Now we can infer the whole Earth went through a superheated plasma state while it was being Created. You really don't think God just went "Poof" and the earth appeared do you?------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
JP, can you provide evidence to support your assertion that some materials were dated at 10 billion years old?

​

I don't see great difficulty with a 10 billion year old earth per se, although it means that the sun is a similar age and the theories on the formation and evolution of stars would need to be reviewed in the light of such evidence, if the evidence were valid.

---

John Paul:
Tatsumoto, M., Unrch, D., and Desborough, G., "U-Th-Pb and Rb-Sr Systematics of Allede and U-Th-Pb systematics of Orgueil," Geomechanica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol 40, 1976, pp. 616-634A 10 billion y Earth would cause a re-write of most, in not all, of what 'main-stream science' holds as true about the universe.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by lbhandli:
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.

​

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by lbhandli:
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?

---

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