Lets not let facts get in the way of a stupid cosmology derived from the bible. To mix a dash of science with your creationism to try and make it acceptible is just plain dishonest. You believe scientists when they use "very precise fine measurements" to estabilish the time dilation effect but you ignore them when they use the same measurements to tell you that the age of the universe is 13.7 Gy old. You cant cherry pic your science just like you do with your bible!
no. stars were created in th ewhite hole, then "pushed" out past the event horizon. when that happened, relative to the earth, time for the stars spead up as they red shifted..
Wouldn't Humphries White Hole hypothesis need a universe that is blue-shifted?
And given the unbelievable amount of space/time curvature needed to create this kind of time dilation, wouldn't matter be pulverized by it and release energies well above the x-ray and gamma ray emission levels (in fact at levels seen nowhere in the universe today)? Wouldn't the universe be unliveable?
day 1:created night and day, a 24 hour period. day 2:Seperated the waters from the land and the expanse of water above. day 3:Land and sea, vegitation. day 4:The Sun, Moon, heavens day 5:all non man creatures. day 6:man and women in His image day 7:rest After everyone of the days right before the day it clearly points out 'And there was evening and there was morning, day(n). How can you possibly misinterpret that? Either you beleive it or you dont.
Other problems stem from a bizarre misapplication of time dilation; for time to pass more quickly in the distant reaches of space earth would need to be close to a black hole, not a white hole.
The gospel-motivated gerrymandering of General Relativity hawked in "Starlight and Time" places the earth and a white hole, the inverse of a black hole (white holes emit matter and energy, black holes voraciously ingest matter) at the center of the universe. Humphreys traipses over the inconvenient fact that X-ray and energetic particle emissions from a nearby white hole would incinerate the earth, but happily for the planet no observational evidence of a nearby white hole has been discovered.
cut and paste from Amazon like I said I tend to go with John Harrnets model check you out part 4. Russel has answered criticism of his cosmolgoy and it was posted at True orgin site
Even if you put a black hole (Ridiculous) centered on Earth, there would be no time dilation for all the other planets (or the Sun). The Gravity well wouldnt extend that far out. Even if there was a black hole, then everything on Earth would be swallowed up by it.
And again, the only reason God would do this is to give the Illusion (deceit) That the Universe is OLDER than it is.
I don't know about you Kut77Less, but I don't believe in a God that Lies.
I know where your going with part six. it is like watching a train wreck. Just to reempt you think about this.
Yes, the two atomic clocks are different becasue of Gravity. But in order to compress Billions of light years into "Days" You would need a Gravity well of equal strenght.
And not just the Earth, if you contend that the whole solar system is also less that 6k years old.
"In the eyes of the many, descredits the word of God."
I am finding the greatest threat to scripture comes from its strongest advocates. By insisting the universe must conform to the text of scriputre, fundies has elevated scripture to the level of idolatry, where the text of scripture is the object of worship and not God. In the end, science is no threat to scripture. Instead, the only thing truly threaten is very, very bad theology.
"By insisting the universe must conform to the text of scriputre"
Of course it does, and if it deosn't that means god lied.
"scripture is the object of worship and not God"
No
"science is no threat to scripture"
I agree watch part 4 for the solution to Distant starlight (this is just a expansion and so will the next video and I will show why distant starlight is a problem for evolutionist also.)
You either did not read or did not comprehend my comment.
The threat to scripture comes from individuals - like you kut77less - who is deliberately misleading people with bad information to support a very bad theology.
By attempting to lie about the sciences, you have opened the door for those to ridicule scripture by claiming that scripture represent something which clearly does not. This is precisely what Saint Augustine warned against.
A quick follow-up, now that You Tube has finished with their maintenance period.
"I will show why distant starlight is a problem for evolutionist also."
This should be interesting, considering that evolution is an explanation for changes in allele frequencies through time. I must had missed the part in Origins of Species where Charles Darwin included cosmological physics to his theory. So just HOW distant starlight is a problem to evolution, when evolution says nothing about starlight?
//This should be interesting, considering that evolution is an explanation//
You know what I meant. I was talking about the "big bane" which evolutionist do believe in, and I was talking about the General theory of evolution (which is cosmic evolution) not just simply neo-Darwinism.
" General theory of evolution (which is cosmic evolution)"
My background is geology, but even I know there is no such creature as the "general theory of evolution." Do you care to enlighten us on this novel idea?
"By insisting the universe must conform to the text of scriputre"(sic)
"Of course it does, and if it deosn't (sic) that means god lied."
One more time.... scripture is not wrong, only man's interpretation of it. I have said this before and I will keep saying it until you understand it. Scripture can be INTERPRETED to say the earth is flat (it isn't), The sun goes around the earth (it doesn't) and finally that the Earth and Universe is 6000 years old (IT IS NOT).
man has any business telling God how He created anything. Genesis puts it pretty straight forward. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
That's EVERYTHING. Done already....
now.... 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3gdosrsfs said "That's EVERYTHING. Done already....
now.... "
oh? Then how come it wasn't unti day three that God got around to makeing the sun, moon and all the Billion, Billion, Billion other stars? We have to assume that since god created The earth on day one, but didn't create the sun until day three that sometime he had to give earth a kick to get it to rotate around the sun also.
"A sophisticated Aether is nessicary for it to work".
WRONG.
A very small number of physicists continued research on the aether into the first decades of the 20th century. However, NO EVIDENCE of the sort sought by these individuals has ever passed the tests of modern scientific standards. Today the MAJORITY of physicists hold that there is no need to imagine that an aether (as a medium for light propagation) exists.
Another one of your myriad problems. I don't need a source. I don't cut and past blindly. I am intelligent, rational and can investigate, and research all on my own. I don't have to parrot what others have said.
Sometimes it is easier to cut and paste, especially when someone as said something more eloquently than I can.
Quite simply Light is both a particle (photon) and a wave. BUT it is not a wave of anything. Scientists have tried everything they can to detect it.
Lets not let facts get in the way of a stupid cosmology derived from the bible. To mix a dash of science with your creationism to try and make it acceptible is just plain dishonest. You believe scientists when they use "very precise fine measurements" to estabilish the time dilation effect but you ignore them when they use the same measurements to tell you that the age of the universe is 13.7 Gy old. You cant cherry pic your science just like you do with your bible!
aden302000 2 months ago
This guy stole my white hole theory. thats why his voice is covered hes a thief lolz.
chthuluforprez2012 1 year ago
This guy stole my white hole theory.
chthuluforprez2012 1 year ago
Aether?! Are you kidding me? Appealing to the work of Einstein will not make something true. He made mistakes too.
gardener68 2 years ago
The video quality is as shoddy as your thinking.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
no. stars were created in th ewhite hole, then "pushed" out past the event horizon. when that happened, relative to the earth, time for the stars spead up as they red shifted..
hhodgson116 2 years ago
Wouldn't Humphries White Hole hypothesis need a universe that is blue-shifted?
And given the unbelievable amount of space/time curvature needed to create this kind of time dilation, wouldn't matter be pulverized by it and release energies well above the x-ray and gamma ray emission levels (in fact at levels seen nowhere in the universe today)? Wouldn't the universe be unliveable?
jhbbunch 2 years ago
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
" After everyone of the days right before the day it clearly points out 'And there was evening and there was morning, day(n).
How can you possibly misinterpret that?"
How???
There was a morning and a evening and light BEFORE there was a sun???
GregQzag 2 years ago 2
Other problems stem from a bizarre misapplication of time dilation; for time to pass more quickly in the distant reaches of space earth would need to be close to a black hole, not a white hole.
GregQzag 3 years ago
The gospel-motivated gerrymandering of General Relativity hawked in "Starlight and Time" places the earth and a white hole, the inverse of a black hole (white holes emit matter and energy, black holes voraciously ingest matter) at the center of the universe. Humphreys traipses over the inconvenient fact that X-ray and energetic particle emissions from a nearby white hole would incinerate the earth, but happily for the planet no observational evidence of a nearby white hole has been discovered.
GregQzag 3 years ago
//The gospel-motivated ge//
cut and paste from Amazon like I said I tend to go with John Harrnets model check you out part 4. Russel has answered criticism of his cosmolgoy and it was posted at True orgin site
kut77less 3 years ago
Even if you put a black hole (Ridiculous) centered on Earth, there would be no time dilation for all the other planets (or the Sun). The Gravity well wouldnt extend that far out. Even if there was a black hole, then everything on Earth would be swallowed up by it.
And again, the only reason God would do this is to give the Illusion (deceit) That the Universe is OLDER than it is.
I don't know about you Kut77Less, but I don't believe in a God that Lies.
GregQzag 3 years ago
"Even if you put a black hole (Ridiculous)"
No black hole white hole, but like I said in part 4 john harnnet model is a little better but I am trying to present bolth.
kut77less 3 years ago
I know where your going with part six. it is like watching a train wreck. Just to reempt you think about this.
Yes, the two atomic clocks are different becasue of Gravity. But in order to compress Billions of light years into "Days" You would need a Gravity well of equal strenght.
And not just the Earth, if you contend that the whole solar system is also less that 6k years old.
GregQzag 3 years ago
Yes I will make a part 6 but it will be more part of the video clip and i will show how it is a problem for evolutionist
// if you contend that the whole solar system is also less that 6k years old.//
Radiometric dating is a whole different topic
kut77less 3 years ago
"In the eyes of the many, descredits the word of God."
I am finding the greatest threat to scripture comes from its strongest advocates. By insisting the universe must conform to the text of scriputre, fundies has elevated scripture to the level of idolatry, where the text of scripture is the object of worship and not God. In the end, science is no threat to scripture. Instead, the only thing truly threaten is very, very bad theology.
lawilson200 3 years ago
"By insisting the universe must conform to the text of scriputre"
Of course it does, and if it deosn't that means god lied.
"scripture is the object of worship and not God"
No
"science is no threat to scripture"
I agree watch part 4 for the solution to Distant starlight (this is just a expansion and so will the next video and I will show why distant starlight is a problem for evolutionist also.)
kut77less 3 years ago
You either did not read or did not comprehend my comment.
The threat to scripture comes from individuals - like you kut77less - who is deliberately misleading people with bad information to support a very bad theology.
By attempting to lie about the sciences, you have opened the door for those to ridicule scripture by claiming that scripture represent something which clearly does not. This is precisely what Saint Augustine warned against.
The only threat here is your theology.
lawilson200 3 years ago
A quick follow-up, now that You Tube has finished with their maintenance period.
"I will show why distant starlight is a problem for evolutionist also."
This should be interesting, considering that evolution is an explanation for changes in allele frequencies through time. I must had missed the part in Origins of Species where Charles Darwin included cosmological physics to his theory. So just HOW distant starlight is a problem to evolution, when evolution says nothing about starlight?
lawilson200 3 years ago
//This should be interesting, considering that evolution is an explanation//
You know what I meant. I was talking about the "big bane" which evolutionist do believe in, and I was talking about the General theory of evolution (which is cosmic evolution) not just simply neo-Darwinism.
kut77less 3 years ago
" General theory of evolution (which is cosmic evolution)"
My background is geology, but even I know there is no such creature as the "general theory of evolution." Do you care to enlighten us on this novel idea?
lawilson200 3 years ago
"By insisting the universe must conform to the text of scriputre"(sic)
"Of course it does, and if it deosn't (sic) that means god lied."
One more time.... scripture is not wrong, only man's interpretation of it. I have said this before and I will keep saying it until you understand it. Scripture can be INTERPRETED to say the earth is flat (it isn't), The sun goes around the earth (it doesn't) and finally that the Earth and Universe is 6000 years old (IT IS NOT).
GregQzag 3 years ago
That is scripture being Mis -interperted.
Scripture is not wrong. I dont think any
man has any business telling God how He created anything. Genesis puts it pretty straight forward. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
That's EVERYTHING. Done already....
now.... 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
There was a surface and waters.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Dear Blithering idiot.
3gdosrsfs said "That's EVERYTHING. Done already....
now.... "
oh? Then how come it wasn't unti day three that God got around to makeing the sun, moon and all the Billion, Billion, Billion other stars? We have to assume that since god created The earth on day one, but didn't create the sun until day three that sometime he had to give earth a kick to get it to rotate around the sun also.
That is hardly everything.
Fail.
GregQzag 2 years ago
"Flatlanders can't actually perceive the dent, but it is there anyway none the less and the bending of their space they perceive as gravity."
No wonder this guy has been debunked to heck and back. Do you actually listen to what he is saying and ,even for a moment think about it?
They can't perceive something, but they do perceive it.
Holy Double-speak Batman!
GregQzag 3 years ago
Yea! Another Crackpot
/facepalm
"A sophisticated Aether is nessicary for it to work".
WRONG.
A very small number of physicists continued research on the aether into the first decades of the 20th century. However, NO EVIDENCE of the sort sought by these individuals has ever passed the tests of modern scientific standards. Today the MAJORITY of physicists hold that there is no need to imagine that an aether (as a medium for light propagation) exists.
GregQzag 3 years ago
Source please?
kut77less 3 years ago
"Source please?"
Another one of your myriad problems. I don't need a source. I don't cut and past blindly. I am intelligent, rational and can investigate, and research all on my own. I don't have to parrot what others have said.
Sometimes it is easier to cut and paste, especially when someone as said something more eloquently than I can.
Quite simply Light is both a particle (photon) and a wave. BUT it is not a wave of anything. Scientists have tried everything they can to detect it.
GregQzag 3 years ago
// I don't need a source.//
Yes you do
Yes you do and you don't even watch my video. Common I refuted the argument by talk origins in that VIDEO and you didn't even watch it
kut77less 3 years ago