Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 10:18 PM
24 online now:
Coragyps, kjsimons, Phat (AdminPhat), ramoss, Theodoric (5 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,129 Year: 5,166/19,786 Month: 1,288/873 Week: 184/460 Day: 29/97 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Starlight and Time---question that must be answered
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 84 (3195)
01-31-2002 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by lbhandli
01-30-2002 9:39 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by lbhandli, posted 01-30-2002 9:39 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by lbhandli, posted 01-31-2002 3:41 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 84 (3196)
01-31-2002 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by lbhandli
01-30-2002 9:45 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by lbhandli, posted 01-30-2002 9:45 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by lbhandli, posted 01-31-2002 4:05 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4518
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 18 of 84 (3201)
01-31-2002 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
01-30-2002 4:32 PM


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

"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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 01-30-2002 4:32 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4518
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 19 of 84 (3202)
01-31-2002 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
01-31-2002 9:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
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. 616-634

A 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.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 01-31-2002 9:17 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 84 (3218)
01-31-2002 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by John Paul
01-31-2002 9:26 AM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by John Paul, posted 01-31-2002 9:26 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 84 (3219)
01-31-2002 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by John Paul
01-31-2002 9:34 AM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John Paul, posted 01-31-2002 9:34 AM John Paul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by wj, posted 01-31-2002 7:40 PM lbhandli has not yet responded
 Message 26 by lbhandli, posted 02-05-2002 5:39 PM lbhandli has not yet responded

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 84 (3229)
01-31-2002 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by lbhandli
01-31-2002 4:05 PM


"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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by lbhandli, posted 01-31-2002 4:05 PM lbhandli has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2002 9:49 AM wj has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 23 of 84 (3232)
01-31-2002 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by TrueCreation
01-30-2002 5:03 PM


quote:
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.

Why don't you go to a library? They let you borrow the books for free, you know


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2002 5:03 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 02-05-2002 11:16 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3981 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 84 (3255)
02-01-2002 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by wj
01-31-2002 7:40 PM


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:
Reasons to Believe has kept a low public profile on this matter over the past three-plus years in the hope that the young-earth movement would have both the will and the skill to resolve this matter internally and thereby save itself the humiliation of being corrected by outsiders. We also wanted to keep the matter quiet in order to avoid attracting the attention of hostile unbelievers, for whom Starlight and Time would provide a persuasive example of "Christian incompetence" in the natural sciences, evidence which would aid their attempts to exclude Christian thought from the public arena. Such attention would be most harmful to the young-earth movement, but it would by association also harm the entire church and potentially discredit the church's gospel witness.

(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...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by wj, posted 01-31-2002 7:40 PM wj has not yet responded

  
ps418
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 84 (3352)
02-03-2002 3:46 PM


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


Message 26 of 84 (3482)
02-05-2002 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by lbhandli
01-31-2002 4:05 PM


Has John Paul fled the thread?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by lbhandli, posted 01-31-2002 4:05 PM lbhandli has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 84 (3494)
02-05-2002 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by nator
01-31-2002 8:48 PM


"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..
hehe (friendly, not sarcasm)
--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.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 01-31-2002 8:48 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by joz, posted 02-06-2002 8:54 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 84 (3514)
02-06-2002 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by TrueCreation
02-05-2002 11:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 02-05-2002 11:16 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2032 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 29 of 84 (3633)
02-07-2002 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
01-30-2002 4:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by 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.


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, based
upon 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 from
the 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 this
according to Genesis ?

if it wasn't then you're saying that you cannot take the account
in 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-scientific
explanation 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 01-30-2002 4:11 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 9:11 AM Peter has responded

    
joz
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 84 (3634)
02-07-2002 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Peter
02-07-2002 8:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
The 6000 year old earth calculation (as I understand it) stems from the 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 this
according to Genesis?


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Peter, posted 02-07-2002 8:52 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Peter, posted 02-07-2002 9:46 AM joz has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019