Jump to content


Photo

Sorry Guys, Proof That The Earth Is Old...


  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#41 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 01 May 2007 - 03:45 AM


Details please. Are there any papers applying the results of the 2002 survey to Arp's observations?


I doubt it. Nobody else got the results Arp did. He's such a marginal figure that it'd be a waste of time writing a paper essentially just saying 'the survey shows no evidence of quantized redshift, it just looks like the initial interpretation of the data was right'. No-one's going to win a Nobel prize for that.

Again, assuming your point here, this doesn't completely dispense with Arp. Equally important, if not more so (at least in my opion), is his observations that high redshift quasars are physically connected to low redshift galaxies. This calls the reliability of the redshift/distance relationship into question, which has direct bearing on the validity of the Big Bang (regardless of how one makes sense of the observations).

Not sure I understand you.  'Cosmological Constant' foundational to BB?  Are you talking about quantum field theory, cosmic acceleration or somesuch?

View Post


My mistake. I meant the 'Cosmological Principal', not the constant. Sorry about that.

#42 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 01 May 2007 - 08:52 AM

Again, assuming your point here, this doesn't completely dispense with Arp. Equally important, if not more so (at least in my opion), is his observations that high redshift quasars are physically connected to low redshift galaxies. This calls the reliability of the redshift/distance relationship into question, which has direct bearing on the validity of the Big Bang (regardless of how one makes sense of the observations).


This isn't the claim that the quasars and galaxies are linked by gaseous bridges is it? That's been rather soundly thrown out.

May I ask where this is going? Are we moving towards a Universe with us at the centre? Or a Universe that isn't as old? Or both? As per relativity, wouldn't any standpoint look like the centre of the Universe?

The fact that Humphreys, Smoller and Temple use GR in their hypotheses doesn't seem relevant. Einstein used it in a steady state model and it is now used in the BB model. They can't both be true. The trouble with white holes is...where's the evidence? Humphreys quite obviously takes a 6000 year old Universe as a starting point and shoehorns his physics into it.

#43 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 01 May 2007 - 09:42 AM

This isn't the claim that the quasars and galaxies are linked by gaseous bridges is it?  That's been rather soundly thrown out.

That is what I am talking about. Do you have any references for your assertion that it has been '...rather soundly thrown out'? Here is a 2005 article by John Hartnett that details such a case: http://www.creationo...ntent/view/2679

May I ask where this is going?  Are we moving towards a Universe with us at the centre?  Or a Universe that isn't as old?  Or both?

As to 'where this is going': I jumped in earlier to support the point made by a previous poster that there is bias inherent in the Big Bang and it went from there.
Humphreys. Hartnett and Gentry have all proposed 'Milky Way galcto-centric' relativistic cosmologies, with Earth near the center of the universe. There are observations that support this hypothesis:

New evidence for a rotating cosmos :
http://www.creationo...ntent/view/3845

More on the ‘Rotating Cosmos’!
http://www.creationo...ntent/view/3846

Addtionally, the cosmologies of both Humphreys and Hartnett result in Gravitational Time Dilation (a well tested relativistic effect, distinct from Velocity Time Dilation). The upshot of this point is that the universe is young as measured in 'Earth Time', while it is billions of years old in 'Cosmological Time'. But that's all beside my original point.

As per relativity, wouldn't any standpoint look like the centre of the Universe?

This is where I think you have a misunderstanding. Relativity does not imply or demand that '...any standpoint look like the centre of the Universe'. This is the 'Cosmological Principal' that I mentioned earlier; it is also the 'homogeneity' postulated by Hubble in the quote above.

Hubble wrote:

the density of nebular distribution increases outward symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy within the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, …to escape the horror of a unique position….”
[...]
…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…such a favored position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.


Hubble understood that his observations implied that Earth was at the center of the universe - and that 'horrified' him. Therefore he retreated to the 'Cosmological Principal' in order to 'restore homogeneity' - in other words, to make sure everything is everywhere the same. That way, it looks like you're in the center no matter where you are.

The fact that Humphreys, Smoller and Temple use GR in their hypotheses doesn't seem relevant.  Einstein used it in a steady state model and it is now used in the BB model.  They can't both be true. 

It is relevant to my point that GR does not demand a boundless universe (one without a unique center and edges). I cite the above to point out that if GR does imply such, there are scientists (and their peer-reviewers), both secular and otherwise, who are unaware of it.

The trouble with white holes is...where's the evidence? 

The Big Bang postulates that the universe began as a black hole which exploded (for some unknown reason via some unknow mechanism). Where is the evidence that a black hole can just suddenly explode. What are the mechanisms?

Humphreys quite obviously takes a 6000 year old Universe as a starting point and shoehorns his physics into it.

Wrong. Humphreys demostrates very clearly in his book that his Whitehole Cosmology (or something like it) is an inevitable consequence of his assumption of a bounded universe (one with a center and edges) and the equations of GR. Likewise, he points out that the Big Bang is an inevitable consequence of the assumption of an unbounded universe and the equations of GR. The difference is all made on the front end with the initial (and necessary) assumptions.

The question is: which set of assumptions is more valid? As Ellis (see above quote) states, such a question is philosophical as opposed to scientific.

#44 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 01 May 2007 - 06:34 PM

The 2002 survey pretty much destroyed Arp's findings anyway.  It didn't find the associations he needed.

View Post

Among the things that the 2002 survey supposedly proved was that the famous 'luminous bride' in NGC 4319/Mrk 205 is non-existent. Both Arp and colleague Dr. Jack Sulentic responded at the time.

- Arp's response here: http://www.haltonarp...cles/rebuttals;

- Sulentic's response here: http://uanews.ua.edu...astro100802.htm.

Here are 3 pics of these objects; the 2nd one is an Isophotal image and the 3rd is a false color image.

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Arp:

The Space Science Telescope Institute issued a press release with a picture of NGC 4319/Mrk 205 showing no bridge and with the imputation that it never existed. After all these years we suddenly learn there was serious evidence which has now been finally refuted. But wait a minute! The picture actually does show the bridge. If you just down load the web image and increase the contrast at faint levels, there it is! Actually the NASA "proof" picture was not even printed deeply enough to show the outer spiral arms of the galaxy! There is a narrower core to the bridge, a kind of umbilical cord which the higher resolution HST can now pick out. Many non professionals immediately produced very good pictures of the bridge from the same NASA picture.

Not so impressive. (Arp's response includes pics).

In that case Tang and Zhang (2005) used the 2dF and another survey from 2000 - present day and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence for intrinsic redshift models.  The fact remians that Arp could be right but the evidence is against him as it stands.

View Post


I couldn't access Tang and Zhang (2005) (need subscription), but here's the link to the page with their abstract:
http://www.journals....5037283169Guest

Abstract:

We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson log(1+z) model and Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell's previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high-completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support the hypothesis that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies.


I was able to find and access a paper by Bell and McDiarmid (2006). Here's the link: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0603169.

It is largely responding to Tang and Zhang (2005) and they do a very thorough job of making their case. Some excerpts:

There is now clear evidence for a power peak near a frequency of 1.6 in the lower half of the redshift data in Fig 8. Since Tang and Zhang (2005) made no effort to remove the overwhelming effects of the strong low-frequency components when they examined the lower half of the redshift data, they would not have been able to detect this feature. But this should not be too surprising since these authors also failed to detect a significant power peak near z = 0.62 in the high redshift sample, even though one is clearly visible. The reason for this is easily seen. For some reason these authors extended the redshift range down to z = 2, which covers a portion of the much more highly populated low-redshift source sample. By so doing they included the large transition step between the two redshift samples that is produced solely by this selection effect. This would clearly wreak havoc with the transform. The resulting strong, longer-period power peak near 0.75 introduced by the portion of the redshift distribution between z = 2 and z = 2.4 (see their Fig 11 (d)) has simply overwhelmed the peak at z = 0.62, and prevented its detection. We demonstrate this in Fig 9, where the solid line represents the spectral power obtained for 32 bins above z = 2. The dashed line represents the power spectrum obtained for 32 bins above z = 2.4. There is no evidence for a power peak at z = 0.62 in the former, but one is clearly visible in the latter.

[...]

The failure by Tang and Zhang (2005) to detect a strong power peak at z = 0.62 in the upper half of the redshift range is also a strong argument that dividing the data into smaller sub-samples can give misleading results if not done carefully.

[...]

Recently Tang and Zhang (2005) used a quasar-galaxy pairing analysis to investigate the question of whether or not high-redshift quasars are likely to be born through ejection from a parent active galaxy. It is difficult to assess the significance of this approach in finding parent galaxies since the required assumptions are rather poorly known. The Tang and Zhang (2005) analysis could thus have missed, or miss-identified, many of the parent galaxies, which could explain why the pairs they found differed little from what would be expected for a random distribution. In spite of this, although it was not pointed out by these authors, their pairs did show a slight excess near the expected value of 200 kpc

[...]

Although Tang and Zhang (2005) concluded that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies, it seems unlikely that the pair-finding technique they used could lead to a conclusion whose significance can approach that already obtained by others (Arp, the Burbidges, etc.), whose parent galaxy claims have been simultaneously backed up by other independent observations. As an example, we refer here to the case of the high-redshift QSO in front of the galaxy NGC 7319 (Galianni et al. 2004). In fact, most of the conclusions reached by Tang and Zhang (2005) appear to have resulted because they have assumed that many of the values estimated in Bell (2004) are much more accurate than they really are.


I'm not saying that this is the final word, I'm sure it's not. It is to say that the issue is not settled; Arp and his observations are far from obsolete.

Anyone interested in Arp can go to his site: http://www.haltonarp.com/

Here's a link to an online gallery of 'Arp's Objects': http://338arps.com/

#45 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 May 2007 - 08:48 PM

But the current state of the universe doesn't reflect that.  From what we observe of the cosmos there is no way things could have occured they way you say they have.

View Post


To how we understand time, you would be right on that issue. But time during creation, without the curse of death is eternal time.

Eternal time = time with no death, and aging (aging is the path to death). Eternal time also has no birth. Nothing is born into eternal time because birth is the begining of a time-line that requires aging, then death. This is why all things in eternal time have to be created. Because when there is no birth (nothing is born), how else are things going to come to be unless they are created?

Birth vs creation:

Now since it is understood that nothing can be birthed into eternal time. Now to understand the creation even further. Things being created and not birthed also affect the time-line of age as we know it. This is why everything during the first 6 days of creation is out of the time-line of 6,000 years.

What was created in the 6 days that does not fit in the 6,000 year time-line?

1) Earth.
2) The solar system.
3) The universe.
4) The first life of everything created.

Time with no aging process requires a creation to where age is already added. Why? Want to be born an infant and never grow up? This is why God's word refers to things that sound funny because they do not go along with the current time-line, as we would understand. Eternal time for the first 6 days is what makes this sound this way.

Example:
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Here we have "generations" being spoke of when how many days have actually past? About 6 or 7 days, correct? So where does generations come from, when that many days have not passed to make them?

Notice the verse does not say: Generations of man, or any other living thing. It says: Generations of the heavens (universe) and of the earth (our planet), when they were created. So generations of age were a part of the creation when they were created. But the verse even repeats itself in another way for better understanding. Not only does it say when they were created, but: in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

What this means is that because things cannot be birthed into eternal time. On the first day of creation, the earth was created with generations of time already added. Why? When could life ever exist on a earth birthed in eternal time that would never age, and never cool down?

ps 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

How can you lay a foundation of old the same time you lay it, inless age is already added to this foundation?

ps 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

The earth out of course can only mean two things:
1) Out of orbit (direction of course). Which would kill all life.
2) Out of the course of time.

A 4.5 billion aged earth in a 6,000 year old time-line would be out of the course of time as we would understand it. Here again we have eternal time where all things created have to have age already added. The verse above confirm this.

Now notice the word foundation. What is the foundation of the earth? It is the make up of what the earth was created with. Science in order to explain this age thing came up with the geologic column. Which is a look into the foundation of old. So upon digging into this eternity time creation evidence. It is interpreted to go along with time as we understand it. And is the very reason it will always contradict what God's word says.

For when eternal time is denied, how eternity works is misunderstood. I have no problem with how things date, the current dating methods etc... But to accept only one way interpretation is a bias view. One that says: I'm not looking for truth, I'm looking to be right. Because I did not figure out all these things until I took a non-bias view. One where I allowed the dating methods to work, and then look for the word of God to explain why it was created this way. If I had never done this, you would not see here what I have written and I still would be in the dark about how this works.

God actually gives a warning about not understanding, and looking for other explainations:

mt 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

Seed in God's word means two things:
1) The seed of a plant.
2) Information or knowledge.

So if we replace the word seed with knowledge, this is how it sounds:

mt 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received knowledge by the way side.

This is what happens when people decide not to wait on God for knowledge. But want fast explainations instead. Quick knowledge is not always the truth.

#46 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 02 May 2007 - 01:50 AM

Sorry if this is all a bit muddled. I don't really have the necessary time to devote to this at present.

That is what I am talking about. Do you have any references for your assertion that it has been '...rather soundly thrown out'?


N.A. Sharp, "Anomalous Redshift Companion Galaxies: 0213-2836", Astrophysical Journal 297, October 1985.

N.A. Sharp, "Anomalous Redshift Companion Galaxies: NGC 7603", Astrophysical Joutnal 302, March 1986.

W.I. Newman & Y. Terzian, "Combinatorics and Companion Galaxies: Paradox lost", Astrophysical Journal 441, March 1995

A.E. Wehrle, C.W. Keel & D.L. Jones, "The Nature of the Optical "Jets" in the Spiral Galaxy NGC 1097", Astronomical Journal 114, July 1997.

C.S. Crawford, I. Lehmann, A.C. Fabian, M.N. Bremer & G. Hasinger, "Detection of X-ray emission from the host clusters of 3CR quasars", Monthly Notes of the Royal Astronomical Society 308, October 1999.

M.J. Hardcastle, "Determining the Reality of X-ray Filaments", Astronomy and Astrophysics 357, May 2000.

They all say no - it's more likely we are seeing objects superimposed on each other due to their position in the sky. Is there any way that *we* are going to come to any agreement on this if this lot can't? I don't know.

As to 'where this is going': I jumped in earlier to support the point made by a previous poster that there is bias inherent in the Big Bang and it went from there.


But Hubble and Einstein (not to mention half of the scientific establishment) weren't keen on having a non-static model. I can't see why they'd be biased in favour of BB? The fact that both models have been used makes it rather puzzling to me that people still think there's some sort of unwillingness to change by science.

The problems with Humphreys' model are a whole other thread - in fact I think there is one already. Suffice it to say, when I asked where the evidence was, I meant where's the white hole at the centre of the Universe now? Where's the evidence for it?

This is where I think you have a misunderstanding. Relativity does not imply or demand that '...any standpoint look like the centre of the Universe'.


It states that there's no such thing as a fixed, static point. It also fits best with a Universe displaying quasi-Euclidean geometry. I'm not sure quite what that does to the idea of bounded and unbounded.

The Big Bang postulates that the universe began as a black hole which exploded (for some unknown reason via some unknow mechanism). Where is the evidence that a black hole can just suddenly explode. What are the mechanisms?


Good grief! Tell me that isn't your understanding of BB! That's a cartoon! BB says nothing about the "spark" that started everything. I'd have thought the theory would be attractive to religious folk on that basis. That's the bit where you can say 'I believe it was God and you can't show me otherwise'.

#47 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 02 May 2007 - 09:09 AM

They all say no - it's more likely we are seeing objects superimposed on each other due to their position in the sky. Is there any way that *we* are going to come to any agreement on this if this lot can't? I don't know.

View Post

Thanks for the references. That aside....

Eugnenics, Phrenology, Phlogiston, Spontaneous Generation, etc., etc. What have these in common? They were all once the 'prevailing view' heralded as fact by the gatekeepers of scientific orthodoxy; unitl they were debunked and abandoned.

Truth of any stripe is not decided by a popular vote. Further, scientific 'truth', by definition, is always provisional and subject to change. And I think it's pretty clear, whether you agree with them or not, that Arp and company have solid scientific reasons for their conclusions.

Suffice it to say, when I asked where the evidence was, I meant where's the white hole at the centre of the Universe now?  Where's the evidence for it?

View Post

Apparently, you haven't read Humphreys' book nor are you familiar with 'whitehole theory'. After all the matter contained within a whitehole is expelled, by definition, it disappears.

It [relativity] states that there's no such thing as a fixed, static point.  It also fits best with a Universe displaying quasi-Euclidean geometry.  I'm not sure quite what that does to the idea of bounded and unbounded.

View Post

I don't think that is quite right. I think it basically states that there is no preferred frame of reference from which to measure physical phenomona. In other words, the measurements taken at point A and point B, while they may differ, are equally valid.

Good grief!  Tell me that isn't your understanding of BB!  That's a cartoon!  BB says nothing about the "spark" that started everything. I'd have thought the theory would be attractive to religious folk on that basis. That's the bit where you can say 'I believe it was God and you can't show me otherwise'.

View Post

First, my statement was not meant to be a comprehensive ecapsulation of Big Bang theory. Regardless, by definition, the Big Bang must have started in an infinitely dense blackhole. If all the space and matter where compressed into one 'spot', that would have been a 'cosmic blackhole'.

It might be technically true that BB theory, per se, doesn't say anything about the 'spark' that started it all (though I don't know that for certain). I think, however, that it should; without a sufficient cause (spark) nothing would have happened. In any case, cosmologists have recognized that it is a problem with the Big Bang that needs to be addressed. Hence, the nonsense about the Big Bang being 'sparked' by a 'quantum fluctuation'.

#48 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 03 May 2007 - 02:55 AM

Eugnenics, Phrenology, Phlogiston, Spontaneous Generation, etc., etc. What have these in common? They were all once the 'prevailing view' heralded as fact by the gatekeepers of scientific orthodoxy; unitl they were debunked and abandoned.

Truth of any stripe is not decided by a popular vote. Further, scientific 'truth', by definition, is always provisional and subject to change.


I couldn't agree more.

Apparently, you haven't read Humphreys' book nor are you familiar with 'whitehole theory'. After all the matter contained within a whitehole is expelled, by definition, it disappears.


That's even worse! I'd always assumed Humphreys meant a white hole plugged into the reverse of a blackhole. Where does the matter come from and why does it disperse if not from a converse black hole? This is before we've even got into the maths, which have been comprehensively torn apart by mainstream scientists AND creationists. Humphreys isn't trained in cosmology or relativity.

I don't think that is quite right. I think it basically states that there is no preferred frame of reference from which to measure physical phenomona. In other words, the measurements taken at point A and point B, while they may differ, are equally valid.


Indeed but they only apply within whatever framework you dictate. They aren't absolutes because there's nothing 'at rest' anywhere.

First, my statement was not meant to be a comprehensive ecapsulation of Big Bang theory. Regardless, by definition, the Big Bang must have started in an infinitely dense blackhole. If all the space and matter where compressed into one 'spot', that would have been a 'cosmic blackhole'.


This implies matter. I'm not sure it makes any sense to suggest there was matter at the very beginning

It might be technically true that BB theory, per se, doesn't say anything about the 'spark' that started it all (though I don't know that for certain). I think, however, that it should; without a sufficient cause (spark) nothing would have happened. In any case, cosmologists have recognized that it is a problem with the Big Bang that needs to be addressed. Hence, the nonsense about the Big Bang being 'sparked' by a 'quantum fluctuation'.


BB certainly doesn't say *anything* about the beginning. The actual beginning is just a curiosity. It matters not one whit to BB itself. Why should it? It's quite possible we'll never be able to look back beyond Planck Time at the beginning because there would've been *no* time at the very beginning. I don't see why our inability to answer how it got going need be an obstacle to a working theory. That's pretty much *why* all science is tentative.

Why is an explanation based on quantum fluctuation, 'nonsense' in your opinion?

#49 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 03 May 2007 - 09:00 AM

That's even worse!  I'd always assumed Humphreys meant a white hole plugged into the reverse of a blackhole.  Where does the matter come from and why does it disperse if not from a converse black hole?

View Post

I already stated that a whitehole is a reverse blackhole. Humphreys’ model postulates an initial blackhole which then ‘bounces’ into a whitehole. The ‘bounce’ idea is supported by work from (I believe) Hawking.

A Black Hole cannot exist without matter within its event horizon, nor can a White Hole. Therefore, once all the matter of a White Hole is expelled beyond the event horizon, it ceases to exist.

This is before we've even got into the maths, which have been comprehensively torn apart by mainstream scientists AND creationists.

View Post

Not quite that simple. First, the only ‘official’ debate that I am aware of occurred in the pages of CEN TJ (now Journal of Creation). In that debate Page & Conner (‘progressive creationists who hold to the Big Bang) vigorously contested Humphreys on his theory. Not only did Humphreys soundly answer their criticisms, he extended his theory with new possibilities. The interchange ended when Page & Conner let Humphreys have the last word. To read the entire exchange, go here:
Other than that, there was one paper in the pages of CRSQ that disputed Humphreys’ theory; and again, Humphreys ably answered the criticisms.

Here is a page with .pdf links to all of the papers in the debate (except for the CRSQ one) if you are interested: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

As they adhere to the Big Bang, Conner & Page can be considered mainstream. What other mainstream scientists are you talking about? Where else has his work ‘been comprehensively torn apart’? (and I don’t mean at places like Talk.Origins)

Humphreys isn't trained in cosmology or relativity.

View Post

Nor was Einstein; which didn’t seem to matter much. Further, as Humphreys has pointed out, those who peer-reviewed his papers do have such training. In fact, Humphreys has stated that he has received private encouragement from others who have such training.
John Hartnett, Special and General Relativity being among his specialties, has taken Humphreys' general idea and formulated a similar, though different (and more detailed) cosmology.

Indeed but they [measurements] only apply within whatever framework you dictate.  They aren't absolutes because there's nothing 'at rest' anywhere.

View Post

Even if there was a point ‘at rest’, Relativity would still apply; the measurements taken from such a point would be just as valid as any other.

My point here all along has been that the ‘Cosmological Principal’ (that there are no edges and thus no unique center of the universe) is completely separate from GR. This principal, a philosophical one [see Ellis above] is absolutely foundational Big Bang. Hawking & Ellis make the same point:

‘However we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology. In the earliest cosmologies, man placed himself in a commanding position at the centre of the universe. Since the time of Copernicus we have been steadily demoted to a medium sized planet going round a medium sized star on the outer edge of a fairly average galaxy, which is itself simply one of a local group of galaxies. Indeed we are now so democratic that we would not claim that our position in space is specially distinguished in any way. We shall, following Bondi (1960), call this assumption the Copernican principle [another name for the ‘Cosmological Principal]’
[…]
‘A reasonable interpretation of this somewhat vague principle is to understand it as implying that,
when viewed on a suitable scale, the universe is approximately spatially homogenous’
[…]
‘… in which the universe is isotropic about every point in space time; so we shall interpret the
Copernican principle as stating that the universe is approximately spherically symmetric about every
point (since it is approximately spherically symmetric around us).

Hawking, S.W. and Ellis, G.F.R., The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 134, 1973. Their reference is to: Bondi, H., Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1960.
(as quoted in Humphreys, R., Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show, TJ 16(2):95–104, 2002)

Hawking states as much in his A Brief History of Time (at least the illustrated edition). Thus, whether or not one chooses to employ the Cosomological Principal in their cosmology, is not a emprical scientific issue, but a philosophical one. This being the case, it is completely acceptable to reject the principal (as Humphreys and others do).

Note that the discussion of the Cosmological (or Copernican) Principal here is in the explicit context of the necessity of an 'admixture of ideology' in comological models. GR & SR are not ideology, the Cosmological Principal is.

Why is an explanation based on quantum fluctuation, 'nonsense' in your opinion?

View Post

How can ‘nothing’ fluctuate? I can say it no better than David Darling:

What is a big deal—the biggest deal of all—is how you get something out of nothing. Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either—despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. ‘In the beginning,’ they will say, ‘there was nothing—no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which ’ Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.

Darling, David, “On Creating Something from Nothing,” New Scientist, vol. 151 (September 14, 1996). p. 49


I think our discussion here has strayed from the original topic of this thread. If you want to continue, we should probably start a new thread.

#50 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 03 May 2007 - 10:19 AM

Even if there was a point ‘at rest’, Relativity would still apply; the measurements taken from such a point would be just as valid as any other.

View Post

D'Oh! That was a misstatement. Your 'fixed point' is equivilant to my 'preferred point of reference' (mentioned earlier). Sorry about that.

#51 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 04 May 2007 - 06:48 AM

Hasn't Dr Humprey's White Hole cosmology been thoroughly debunked? The predictions it makes bear no resemblence to reality.

#52 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 04 May 2007 - 09:20 AM

Hasn't Dr Humprey's White Hole cosmology been thoroughly debunked?  The predictions it makes bear no resemblence to reality.

View Post


As I said in a previous post, the only rigourous, scientific interchanges between Humphreys and his detractors that I am aware of have taken place in the pages of the jourals I cited. The main debate ended with the opposition giving Humphreys the last word. I've read those papers several times and, though I am no physicist, I think Humphreys clearly came out on top.

That's not to say that he is definitely correct, but that he successfully answered the challenges of his opposition.

Also, as I mentioned, Dr. John Hartnett has extended the basic premise of Humprehys' work ('Time Dilation Cosmology', so to speak) and formulated his own model. In Hartnett's model, he has incorporated the work of Moshe Carmeli (Cosmological General & Special Relativity) which extends standard GR & SR and successfully explains comological phenomena that otherwise have caused cosmologists to resort to unobserved entities like Dark Matter and Dark Energy. These papers, to my knowledge, are not freely available yet.

If you know of any other critiques of Humphreys' work, let me know. I would love to read them.

As for the 'predictions it makes bear no resemblence to reality', please be more specific.

#53 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 06 May 2007 - 04:45 PM

As I said in a previous post, the only rigourous, scientific interchanges between Humphreys and his detractors that I am aware of have taken place in the pages of the jourals I cited. The main debate ended with the opposition giving Humphreys the last word. I've read those papers several times and, though I am no physicist, I think Humphreys clearly came out on top.

That's not to say that he is definitely correct, but that he successfully answered the challenges of his opposition.

Also, as I mentioned, Dr. John Hartnett has extended the basic premise of Humprehys' work ('Time Dilation Cosmology', so to speak) and formulated his own model. In Hartnett's model, he has incorporated the work of Moshe Carmeli (Cosmological General & Special Relativity) which extends standard GR & SR and successfully explains comological phenomena that otherwise have caused cosmologists to resort to unobserved entities like Dark Matter and Dark Energy. These papers, to my knowledge, are not freely available yet.

If you know of any other critiques of Humphreys' work, let me know. I would love to read them.

As for the 'predictions it makes bear no resemblence to reality', please be more specific.

View Post


As far as I was aware he never got around the time dilation problems with his work. Also, Dark Matter has been observed. It's a standard part of any cosmological model now.

#54 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 07 May 2007 - 09:28 AM

As far as I was aware he never got around the time dilation problems with his work.  Also, Dark Matter has been observed.  It's a standard part of any cosmological model now.

View Post


Which problems? The objections raised by Conner & Page in the journal debate? Those raised by Byl in CRSQ? Those pointed out by Hartnett (primarily, the expectation of 'blueshifted' as opposed to 'redshifted' starlight), which he has subsequently resolved in his own cosmology?

Humphreys, to my knowledge hasn't worked on his cosmology (until recently) since the debate in the journal ended. Here, he provided a basic 'mapping' of the Time Dilation phenomon in his cosmology:

How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model?

Presently, I believe, he is back working on it with John Baumgartner (who will be helping with the numerical modeling) using ICR's new supercomputer system.

For more up-to-date work on Time Dilation Cosmology, you'd have to read Hartnett's papers.

As for the 'prrof' of Dark Matter, I guess it depends on which 'proof' you're talking about. Dr. John Hartnett has commented on Clowe, D., M. Bradac, et al, A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter, 2006 here:

Has ‘dark matter’ really been proven?

Hartnett:

The main problem I see hinges on where the x-ray-emitting gas is. The shock heating from the collision of the clusters might well bias the mass calculations for the normal matter. The determination of the mass from x-ray emission is linked to the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium, and the equation used to calculate the location of the mass is the collisionless Boltzmann equation. But by the authors’ own admission, the system is not in equilibrium. Also, they claim one cluster passed through another, so the x-ray gases are heated to hundreds of millions of degrees, hardly collisionless. That is why it was named the Bullet cluster. There is a clear picture9 of the x-ray emission shaped like a bow shock wave. The article says:


‘The cluster is also known as the bullet cluster, because it contains a spectacular bullet-shaped cloud of hundred-million-degree gas. The X-ray image shows the bullet shape is due to a wind produced by the high-speed collision of a smaller cluster with a larger one.’


It seems that the 'proof' is quite tenuous.

Here is one of Hartnett's recent papers on his cosmology. This one in particular deals with the integration of Carmeli's work into his model and how it renders the need for Dark Matter obsolete:

Dark matter and a cosmological constant in a creationist cosmology?

Here is another in which he integrates Arp's observations into his model:

The heavens declare a different story!

Here is his page on CMI's site. If anyone is interested, about halfway down the page is a list of 5 comology papers employing Carmeli's work that he has published in secular journals (all but one are accessable). A couple of the papers deal explicitly with Dark Matter and Dark Energy as rendered unecessary by Carmeli's physics:

Dr John Hartnett

#55 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 07 May 2007 - 12:18 PM

Has ‘dark matter’ really been proven?

It seems that the 'proof' is quite tenuous.

View Post


Since there are already experiments underway to use the gravitational lensing effects of dark matter to search for more of it, it is no longer a question of "Does dark matter exist?" and more of a question of "Where is it?".

http://astro.ic.ac.u...earch/Extragal/
http://www.astro.gla...ch/lensing.html
http://www.astr.ua.e...darkmatter.html

btw. I like your avatar :) All Hail the Hypno-Toad!

#56 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 07 May 2007 - 07:46 PM

Not "directly" in Genesis, but if you consider:

GEN 1:6 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
GEN 1:7 And God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
GEN 1:8 And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

with,

ISA 42:5 ¶ Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it,

ISA 45:12 "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host.

ISA 51:13 That you have forgotten the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens, And laid the foundations of the earth; That you fear continually all day long because of the fury of the oppressor, As he makes ready to destroy? But where is the fury of the oppressor?

JER 10:12 ¶ It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens.

JER 51:15 ¶ It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens.

then its pretty obvious that the Bible claims that the universe has expanded in the past.

Terry

View Post


The word used there in scripture is shamayim which means sky.

#57 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 08 May 2007 - 03:39 AM

btw.  I like your avatar :)  All Hail the Hypno-Toad!

View Post

I was just watching some of my Futurama DVDs the other night and there was the mighty Hypno-Toad! I thereafter had an sudden and irresistable urge to use him for my avatar. :) All Hail the Hypo-Toad, All Hail the Hypno-Toad, All Hail...

#58 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 08 May 2007 - 05:47 PM

The word used there in scripture is shamayim which means sky.

View Post


Humphreys points out in Starlight and Time:

[Genesis 1:20 states '...and let the birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.'] The phrase "in the open expanse," used in most English translations, implies that the expanse is  what birds fly in. In my early years as a creationist, I thought that was a sufficient justification for the canopy model. However, one day I discovered that the actual Hebrew phraseology is quite different. On the following page I have reproduced the last part of Genesis 1:20 form an interlinear Hebrew Bible. [Humphreys then displays the Hebrew text, which I cannot duplicate here. The word for word, literal translation he shows is as follows:


and birds/let fly around over the earth/on/the face of/the expanse of/the heavens

Humphreys' then goes on to cite further such examples in Genesis and Exodus. Earlier, he had pointed out that the stars and sun are said to be in the expanse. His poinit is this: the birds are not flying in the expanse, but 'on its face'. If the expanse is interstellar space, one 'face' of that expanse would be our sky, the other being the edge of interstellar space.

btw, thanks for the Dark Matter links Jason - printing them out now :)

#59 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 09 May 2007 - 01:43 AM

The main debate ended with the opposition giving Humphreys the last word. I've read those papers several times and, though I am no physicist, I think Humphreys clearly came out on top.

That's not to say that he is definitely correct, but that he successfully answered the challenges of his opposition.


These 2 bolded points aren't the same thing. Just because nobody bothered to counter his counterpoints doesn't mean he was right.

If you know of any other critiques of Humphreys' work, let me know. I would love to read them.


The trouble is, serious cosmologists just laughed at his work. They've got better things to do with their time than debunk work which they don't see as passing muster. That left it to the creationists and other Christian groups to write the critiques because they saw Humphreys' work as detrimental to the image of "Christian Science".

As for the 'predictions it makes bear no resemblence to reality', please be more specific.

View Post


Forget predictions for a moment. Take a step back. He *assumes* a 6000 year old Universe and then bodges the figures to fit it. He *admits* that in order to get matter from the white hole, in the first place, requires divine intervention because the laws of physics wouldn't allow it.

btw it's far from clear that Humphreys' white hole and yours are the same thing. He seems to be suggesting a white hole without the reciprocal black hole. Introducing a black hole [effectively] in another Universe just brings up too many problems.

Having set up his model, he just doesn't do anything useful. The BB explains things, WH just begs too many questions. I'm happy to accept a different model if one comes up that fits the picture better but WH isn't it. Steady state, expanding, whatever - it's all the same to me.

#60 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 09 May 2007 - 09:17 AM


The main debate ended with the opposition giving Humphreys the last word. I've read those papers several times and, though I am no physicist, I think Humphreys clearly came out on top. That's not to say that he is definitely correct, but that he successfully answered the challenges of his opposition..

These 2 bolded points aren't the same thing. Just because nobody bothered to counter his counterpoints doesn't mean he was right.

View Post


I was simply saying that I think Humphreys clearly came out on top because he successfully answered the challenges of his opposition. I did not mean to imply that simply because his detractors unilaterally withdrew from the debate, that that means Humphreys is right (as I acknowledged).
I think Humphreys came out on top based on the substance of the debate. Perhaps I should have been clearer.

The trouble is, serious cosmologists just laughed at his work.  They've got better things to do with their time than debunk work which they don't see as passing muster. 

View Post

Lots of assertions here: First, your stipulative definition of 'serious cosmologists' just begs the question; second, are you implying that Page is not a 'serious cosmologist'? And last, that 'serious cosmologists 'just laughed' at his work is an awfully poor argument.

They don't take his (or any other creationist's) work seriously because they know they don't have to. The materialists have a government-sanctioned virtual monopoly on access to tax-payer money and the education establishment as well as control of all of the mainstream science journals. They are insulated from any serious competition that might threaten their materialist paradigm.

Forget predictions for a moment.  Take a step back.  He *assumes* a 6000 year old Universe and then bodges the figures to fit it.  He *admits* that in order to get matter from the white hole, in the first place, requires divine intervention because the laws of physics wouldn't allow it.

View Post

Bodges figures? Hardly. He demonstrates that given his starting assumptions of a bounded universe with a unique center (as opposed to the opposite assumption of the Big Bang model) that GR dictates that time dilation will occur at the center of the mass distribution of the universe. This, the difference in the 'admixtures of ideology', is the operative distinction in the two models,

As for his invocation of divine intervention, why is that any worse than materialists invoking a 'quantum fluctation' in a spaceless, timeless, matterless 'nothing' to jumpstart the Big Bang?

btw it's far from clear that Humphreys' white hole and yours are the same thing.  He seems to be suggesting a white hole without the reciprocal black hole.  Introducing a black hole [effectively] in another Universe just brings up too many problems.

View Post

Apparently, you haven't read all of his work. He has proposed an initial blackhole (as a result of all the matter in the universe being initially coalesced into a 'big ball') which then 'bounces' into a whitehole.

Having set up his model, he just doesn't do anything useful.  The BB explains things, WH just begs too many questions.  I'm happy to accept a different model if one comes up that fits the picture better but WH isn't it.  Steady state, expanding, whatever - it's all the same to me.

View Post


And what would you consider 'useful'? The Big Bang explains things, but it also has many intractable difficulties. For instance, all of the 'finely-tuned' constants coming from a huge explosion. Materialists have been driven to postulate a 'multi-verse', where, among countless parallel universes, we just happen to be the lucky one. These other universes are unobservable and undetectable. They are not demanded, or even implied, by the evidence but by the assumption of a materialist paradigm. Thus, this is bald metaphysics - not science; the materialist's own special brand of the supernatural.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users