Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Once Again

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on May 24, 2002 14:02:32 UTC

I already covered this in a previous post but you were most likely busy with other posters. I am happy to finally get your attention.

First of all I have a PhD from Harvard in physics with a major in Electromagnetic Theory. Along with my major effort on light propagation and scattering for defense, I also published papers on solar astronomy and worked on the early adaptive optics efforts to correct ground-based astronomical observations for atmospheric turbulence. I am not expert in cosmology or relativity, but over the last 40 years I have followed the results in those fields as well as high energy physics very closely.


The link you provided does not indicate its author, but its statements are similar to ICR impact articles on astronomy. Lets review it one claim at a time.
1. Created light- This is the claim that god created the universe with light already on its way to the earth. This is impossible to falsify and therefore is unscientific. Between you and me, it's just plain silly.
2.Did light always travel at the same speed- We have direct measurements of the hyperfine structure constant from light the originated 12 billion years ago. These measurements indicate that light was one millionth faster at that time. Even though this is sufficient to shock astronomers and physicists- it puts the standard model into doubt- what is required for a 10,000 year old universe is light speed that increases exponentially. And even then, with an exponential increase, the light speed would be insufficient to explain light arriving in a days time after it was created. So this claim can be proven wrong by repeatable measurements. I posted this for you before and you just replied that you did not understand. Lack of understanding is not scientific- it's just stupid, if you will please pardon my bluntness.
3. Humphrey's White Hole Cosmology- This actually is not new. It has always been recoginized that the big bang could be a white hole. There is just no way to tell from available measurements if that is true or not.

There is one huge mistake in this cosmology as far as YEC is concerned. In order to have a white hole, you first have to have a black hole to begin with. So that means that something (matter) had to exist before the white hole exploded. I am suprised that the YEC have not noticed this. It undermines the idea that God created the unverse as with a white hole as then the universe had to exist before creation. It is equivalent to Smolin's hypothesis of universe creation in black holes.

Humphrey's claims peer review, but only YEC types have reviewed it. Faulkner, who is your best YEC astronomer type has panned it. You gave me that link - Impact # 121 if I remember correctly.

The present link also makes the following claim, and I quote

***What we can say is that at this point a pausible mechanism has been demonstrated, with considerable observational and theoretical support.***

This claim is entirely unsubstantiated. There is no data and no theory that could possibly yield a 10,000 year old universe.

The mechanism used by Humphrey is not the white hole but the assumption that the universe has a central portion of matter with lots of space outside. The claim then is that the speed of light is much faster in the space outside. But where did that light come from if all the stars are inside the empty space?

The theory claimed by Humphrey is that light changes speed with gravity. No problem there. In fact, that theory has been used to understand the images of distant quasars whose light is magnified by passing by galaxies in transit to the earth. So some current astronomical observations are based on that fact. But the speed of light in fact does not change. It is space itself that is distorted according to General relativity.

I am suprised by one statement. The link says that the Milky Way itself is 100,000 light years across. If so, how can the universe be just 10,000 years old or less.


That's all the link says. None of it is scientifically valid. In fact, as I hope you understand, it is ludicrous. Based on starlight, there is no way that the universe could be less than 10,000 years old. Faulkner, a YEC, admits this. So why don't you just face the music. YEC is untenable. Only OEC is tenable. Join the club with a belief that is consistent with god given truth. God gave us the ability to prove how old the universe has to be. How can you dispute what god has given us the ability to prove.??



Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins