Starlight and Time---question that must be answered

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:

​

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.

​

---

Sheesh, lucky we have distant starlight & radiometric dating then!------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:

​

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.

​

---

Obvious point, really, how do you have an event horizon without a "gravity well"?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:

In the context of scientific use, make that "theoretical" into "hypothetical".

​

Moose

​

---

It's not even hypothetical, given the directly contradicting physics. A white hole with an event horizon, that we were inside. Not even light can escape from inside an event horizon, let alone an entire solar system!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
yeah its all just crazy ideas, i doubt if it will ever be proven with tangible evidence. so maybe that is possible.

​

---

KP,The problem is, when tangling with well supported scientific theories, in this case the Big Bang, is that you have to "undo", or reinterpret a huge body of supporting evidence. So, unless this theory can explain away cosmic microwave radiation, relativity etc, it has NO chance of being proven. Now, I agree with "never say never", but it is a vanishingly small chance that relativtity is going to be disproven, after many predictions have been born out.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.