Here is some of Jason Lisle. I'm not sure if this is what Humphries proposes, but it does use accepted science as an explanation. Before you criticize too much, just remember the big bang has a horizon problem that had to be answed with hypotheses which are not able to be proven. Lisle uses the theory of relativity to explain how light may not be rigidly fixed in "our" time.
Hi, This "Hypothesis" is similar to what Humphries proposes, but both could easily proven wrong.
Both set the earth or our Solar system in the center of the universe in a big gravitational well. It is true that according to general relativity time in gravitational wells runs slower than in free space unaffected by gravitation. This is measurable: For 20,000 km above earth surface thats about 40 ms per day. So if this proposal is true you should see it depending on the form of the gravitational well. Things should happen faster in space than calculated here on earth, for example rotation around gravitational centers of galaxies, star clusters, planets etc. We donÃ‚Â´t see that at least not in a very big measurable amount. Second, light arriving from things outside of that gravitational well should be very much blue shifted. The characteristical frequencies of electron excitations should be blue shifted. We donÃ‚Â´t see that either. And very important at last, mass rotates around gravitational centers, so we should see everything rotationg around us and that in different speeds depending on the distance to us.
It is easy to propose a hypothesis, but you have to think about the consequences and check them against reality. So the hypotheses of these two guys have no basis in reality.