Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 74:
Line 74: + + +
→Young earth?
:::::I understand the concept, not the maths, unfortunately. But even so I can question yours. 10s of billions of years is what the Big Bang theory would give, which assumes an unbounded universe. But Humphrey's idea is for a bounded universe, and an initially-small one. Even without doing the maths it's clear that the time would not be 10s of billions of years. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I understand the concept, not the maths, unfortunately. But even so I can question yours. 10s of billions of years is what the Big Bang theory would give, which assumes an unbounded universe. But Humphrey's idea is for a bounded universe, and an initially-small one. Even without doing the maths it's clear that the time would not be 10s of billions of years. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::: That doesn't make sense. Time dilation is a local effect. It depends on the gravity at the point in space that the light is propagating at. It has nothing to do with a bounded or unbounded universe, only the amount of gravity along the light propagation line. Again, simple integrating the GR equations along such a path should give the answer. Why doesn't Humphrey just do the math? The math is done in many GR textbooks and the answer is on the order of billions of years.--[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 09:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::: That doesn't make sense. Time dilation is a local effect. It depends on the gravity at the point in space that the light is propagating at. It has nothing to do with a bounded or unbounded universe, only the amount of gravity along the light propagation line. Again, simple integrating the GR equations along such a path should give the answer. Why doesn't Humphrey just do the math? The math is done in many GR textbooks and the answer is on the order of billions of years.--[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 09:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::: You clearly do not understand [[white hole cosmology]]. We're not talking about time dilation in the present space-time continuum. We're talking about conditions as they existed ''during the initial explosion of matter'' from that now-closed white hole. The matter was so densely packed that the entire space-time continuum was fundamentally different. It did not have the three dimensions of space and one of time that it has today. Instead it has ''four'' dimensions of space and ''none'' of time. We're not talking about time retardation. We're talking about complete and absolute ''stasis'' of time. Indeed, time ''qua'' time ''did not exist'' during that event.
::::::: And then, as the matter began to thin out at the edges, a conventional space-time continuum came to be. Time began to flow at the edges--but not near the center. So that--by our own clocks--the universe beyond our galaxy simply endured accelerated aging. And on Day Four of [[creation]], the [[star]]s appeared for the first time--and set in recognizable patterns so that they could reliably give us seasons. By this model, many of those stars had existed (though most of them existed in our galaxy and are therefore much younger than are the quasars and so on in the far beyond), and the light from them would reach us shortly after time ''qua'' time came to be on earth.
::::::: Many other arguments remain to show that ''this galaxy'' is certainly much younger than the geologists insist. They are beyond the scope of an article on the "Jurassic period." But they strongly militate against conventional geologic understanding. --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
That article oly quotes Dr. humprey (who i Dr. humprey?), why it didn't quoted different sources; like stephen hawkings?
That article oly quotes Dr. humprey (who i Dr. humprey?), why it didn't quoted different sources; like stephen hawkings?