McDonald

“On the other hand the white hole cosmogony of Humphreys [29], [30] is a very detailed scientific model that seeks to answer the light travel time question. As with the big bang or steady state theories, this model assumes modern relativity theory, but with a different set of initial conditions for the universe. One of the big differences is that the universe started as a white hole. Humphreys assumes that the matter of the universe is bounded. He had chosen to call his model a white hole cosmology, because he perceives that the initial condition is similar to what is called a white hole. Most people have heard of black holes: regions of space where matter and light are falling inward and cannot escape. Most people are not aware that the same theory predicts the possibility of white holes, regions of space very similar to black holes except matter and light are streaming outward. Such a condition is unstable, and so unlike black holes which may exist forever once they form, white holes exist for a relatively short time before ceasing to exist. That is one reason why white holes largely have been largely ignored. Another reason they have been ignored is that we have a theory of how black holes can form naturally at this time in the universe, but not white holes. Any primordial white holes should have ceased to exist by now.

The Humphreys cosmology assumes that the universe began as a white hole. Sometime during late in the creation week the white hole ceased to exist, giving us our present universe. The particle horizon swept past the distant stars on day four when the starlight reached the earth on that day. The important point is that through relativistic effects, time proceeds at very different rates in different parts of the universe. While only a few thousand years elapsed near and on the earth, billions of years could have elapsed elsewhere.   This would allow light to travel millions or billions of light years to reach the earth while only a few thousand years occurred on the earth. This all happens because of the different rate at which time passes in different reference frames in general relativity. Not only does this cosmogony purport to answer the light travel time problem, it also provides creationists with a Biblically based cosmology as well.

However, several questions remain. For instance, why does the solar system, which is not the product of stellar nucleosynthesis, and the rest of the universe, which has undergone stellar nucleosynthesis, have the same basic composition? As mentioned earlier, most creationists reject stellar evolution, but the Humphreys cosmology seems to demand that it has occurred. The Humphreys cosmology also demands that the universe is indeed Gyr’s old, though only a few thousand years has elapsed since the beginning of creation in the reference frame of the earth. It would seem those indicators of a young universe, such as sprial structure in galaxies, the break up of clusters of galaxies, and the ages of SNR’s cannot be reconciled to the Humphreys cosmogony. While only six days occurred on or near the earth, exactly when in those six days did the creation of the stars take place? If the particle horizon swept past the distant stars on the fourth day so that the stars first became visible on the earth, then how is that different from those who argue the same thing (that stars were created earlier, but only became visible on the surface of the earth on day four), but that the cause was a clearing of the atmosphere.

While the Humphreys cosmogony met with little discussion or opposition at first, the level of debate has increased tremendously. Several critical papers have been written [11], [13], and Humphreys has responded [32]. Humphreys' critics have charged that he has either misunderstood or improperly applied general relativity in his model. Byl [11] has argued that while time dilation effects are real, the sense of time corrections are always in the wrong direction and/or are too small to solve the light travel time. Byl, along with Connor and Page [13], concludes that the approach that Humphreys is attempting would more properly describe the time difference between an observer in the universe to one outside of the universe. If this is true, then the Humphreys model certainly does not succeed in addressing the question as framed. This criticism has led the editorial staff of the ICC to conclude that there was a failure in the peer review process of Humphreys' 1994 paper [29] in which he first publicly presented his model. Humphreys is convinced that his model is still viable and is continuing to correct and refine his model. Whether this model survives or not, we should applaud this very serious effort that Humphreys has made.

So what is the state of creationist astronomy? We have seen that it has some good points to make. We have also seen that there have been some false starts and some problems. We must go beyond arguing what is wrong with evolutionary models. What is needed is an overall model or paradigm to describe the universe. A formation and history of the solar system must be explored. A particularly important question to address here is when and how the cratering that we see in the solar system occurred. Did the cratering occur during creation, at the fall, during the flood, or at some other time? A few authors have begun work on this question [25], [39]. If we are not satisfied with stellar evolution, then we must provide physical arguments against it and supply our alternative. For the universe as a whole we must explain the light travel time in a plausible way.

Some progress has been made in creationist astronomy, but there is much work to be done. Older arguments must be continually reevaluated and expanded. The words of the late George Mulfinger in his early review are just as true today as they were 25 years ago [38]:

“In order to understand what you would see if you were watching a star collapse to form a black hole, one has to remember that in the theory of relativity there is no absolute time. Each observer has his own measure of time. The time for someone on a star will be different from that for someone at a distance, because of the gravitational field of the star. Suppose an interpret astronaut on the surface of the collapsing star collapsing inward with it, sent a signal every second, according to his watch, to his spaceship orbiting the star. At some time on his watch, say 11:00, the star would shrink below the critical radius at which the gravitational field becomes so strong nothing can escape I, and his signals would no longer reach the spaceship. As 11:00 approached, his companions watching from the spaceship would find the intervals between successive signals from the astronaut getting longer and longer, but this effect would be very small before 10:59:59. They would have to wait only very slightly more than a second between the astronaut’s 10:59:58 signal and the one that he sent when his watch read 10:59:59, but they would have to wait forever for the 11:00 signal. The light waves emitted from the surface of the star between 10:59:59 and 11:00, by the astronaut’s watch, would be spread out over an infinite period of time, as seen from the spaceship” (pp. 88,90).

Hartzog continues…
As one physicist put it, once you fix all the mathematical
errors in Humphreys' "white hole" cosmology you are left with a
standard Big Bang model.

So if you don't mind, Jerry, I won't be throwing my money away
on pseudoscience nonsense. That stuff is written to sell to
people like you, not me.

Hartzog continues…
McDonald quotes Humphreys:

Typical creationist misdirection. Just because we know about
relativistic effects does not in any way suggest that starlight
is traveling hundreds of thousands of light-years across space
in one "Earth year". Humphreys says General Relativity is the
"physics framework for all modern cosmologies". Do you see
any modern cosmologists proposing that Time is or has been
moving along a million times slower here on Earth than elsewhere
in the Universe? Of course not. Do you think it is because
those modern cosmologists forgot to take relativity into
account?

Hartzog continues…
As I said in my previous post, time dilation happens for a
*reason* -- differences in gravitational fields and/or velocity.
Jerry McDonald (and Russell Humphreys) seems to be unable to
provide a reason, and subsequently any evidence, for time
dilation in the region of the Earth during the Creation week
and again during the Flood year.

“At some time on his watch, say 11:00, the star would shrink below the critical radius at which the gravitational field becomes so strong nothing can escape I, and his signals would no longer reach the spaceship. As 11:00 approached, his companions watching from the spaceship would find the intervals between successive signals from the astronaut getting longer and longer, but this effect would be very small before 10:59:59. They would have to wait only very slightly more than a second between the astronaut’s 10:59:58 signal and the one that he sent when his watch read 10:59:59, but they would have to wait forever for the 11:00 signal. The light waves emitted from the surface of the star between 10:59:59 and 11:00, by the astronaut’s watch, would be spread out over an infinite period of time, as seen from the spaceship” (A Brief History of Time pp. 88,90).

Hartzog continues…

Look, McDonald: Humphreys' "time dilation" doesn't make any sense
to *anyone* -- not just me. Humphreys has known since 1994 that
his theory won't hold water, and here it is all these years later
and you are still endorsing it. It is dishonest of Humphreys
to take advantage of you like that. Snake oil won't cure what
ails you, McDonald.

Hartzog continues…

No, not really. Just everything that pretends to be science.
That's what science is. And that is why "young-earth creation-
science" is not science. It does not offer empirically-verifiable
answers. It fails all testable hypotheses. *It is not
self-correcting*. If you would just say "I believe what I believe
because the Bible tells me so," and let it go at that, then fine;
then we could talk about whether that is really what the Bible is
trying to tell you; but as soon as you start making claims about
the real world, and pretending that there is any science that
supports those claims, your "scientific" claims become subject to
scientific verification. The real-world claims of "young-earth
creation-science" FAIL on every count.

Hartzog continues…

And what is Jerry McDonald's response to my comment here?

Begin irrelevant rant:

I'm not going to respond to any of that. Jerry McDonald is
supposed to be telling us why "evolution isn't science", and he
is supposed to be explaining to us how, if the Universe is only
a few thousand years old, we see light from objects and events that
are hundreds of thousands and millions of light-years distant.

He is absolutely free to say that it is because of a miracle if
he wants to, thereby admitting that he has no "scientific
explanation" for it, and that would be fine -- then we could go
off into a philosophical discussion about what kind of God would
pull "apparent age" tricks on His created beings.

If this post wasn't going to be so long already I would take
time to answer some of these irrelevancies and self-contradictions
from McDonald, but for now I think most readers will be able to
see them for themselves. I will only note that this is one of
McDonald's worn-out tactics -- when faced with a question he can't
answer he will often go off into one of these irrelevant rants
and try to draw attention away from the fact that HE CAN'T ANSWER
THE QUESTION!