Grey Thoughts
Is Creation Scientist Dr Russell Humphreys Todays Einstein
Albert Einstein dramatically changed Cosmology with his theories of relativity. Dr Russell Humphreys certainly seems in line to duplicate that feat, even though the secular scientific community has been very reticent to credit him for his revolutionary ideas.

In 1984, Humphreys published a paper predicting the magnetic fields of both Uranus and Neptune. Subsequently, the Voyager mission measured these planets fields, and Humphreys predictions were confirmed, whilst secular sciences predictions were not. The only problem that the secular world had with Humphreys work was that it was based on the Bible and his young earth beliefs, including the idea that water formed the building blocks of the planets.
To calculate the magnetic moment of a planet at creation, we must know the original material. In the previous article I presented Scriptural evidence that God originally created the Earth as a sphere of pure water. One of the Scriptures is the last part of 2 Peter 3:5 (NASB): ". . . and the earth was formed out of water and by water." Shortly after that, God must have transformed much of the water into other matter, such as iron, silicon, minerals, and rock.

I know of no explicit Scripture which says that God created the heavenly bodies in the same way He did the Earth. But there is a hint, perhaps. The Hebrew word translated "heavens" in Genesis 1 consists of two other Hebrew words which mean "there, waters."5 Let us assume that God created the Sun, Moon, and planets as water, which He then transformed.

Now, two articles in the March 14th issue of Science are discussing recent discovery of evidence for water around the star AA Tauri. The cosmologists of course, are still operating on many existing assumptions about the structure of the universe, but are quite excited about the possibilities of water being a principle component of planet formation.

Later, in 1994, Humphreys published his ideas of White Hole Cosmology, where he discarded two antitheistic assumptions of current cosmology, that the universe isotropic, unbounded and homogeneous (AKA, the Cosmological Principle). This new cosmology used Einsteinian relativity to show how the earth could be young whilst the universe could still be 'old'.

Now, scientist George Elis has released a paper in the March 13th edition of Nature showing how the problem of missing mass in the universe (currently explained by the unobserved pseudoscientific 'dark energy' concept), vanishes if you discard the Cosmological Principle. Yet another instance where Humphreys is well ahead of the secular scientists who seem hamstrung by antitheistic assumptions. George Elis has this to say about the Cosmological Principle
That assumption is consistent with observations, but it is not a direct consequence of them. It is the favoured solution both because it is the simplest and because it rests on a cherished cosmological assumption. This is the ‘copernican principle’: that the characteristics of the Universe in our neighbourhood are not special in any way, but are typical of the whole.
This idea of us not being 'special in any way' is because the alternative would support the notion of creation, and caused Hubble, on noting the red shifts seemed to indicate we were at the center of the universe, to say "Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe...This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome....the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs....such a favored position is intolerable" (The Observational Approach to Cosmology, pp. 50-55, 1937).

Science was built on the Christian worldview, but now atheistic assumptions are commonplace, degrading the progress of science. Some day in the future, it is quite possible that Russell Humphreys ideas will become 'mainstream'. Unfortunately, many many years later than they should have been.
Wouldn't a white hole mean that far away galaxies should be blue-shifted not red-shifted?

And given the unbelievable curvature of space/time needed to account for these levels of time dilation (from 6000 yrs to Bbillions of years) result in umimaginable releases of energy from matter being pulverized in this kind of a gravity well, way beyond x-ray and gamma-ray levels? In fact at energy levels seen nowhere in the universe today? Wouldn't the universe be a pulverized wasteland?
Redshift is caused by an expanding universe, which also occurs under a white hole cosmology

Gravitational Redshift/Blueshift is also possible, but relates to the current gravitational field the light is in, and so to claim this would blueshift the light (beyond the expanding universe redshift) you would have to claim the current conditions on earth still contain the excessive gravity of the early white hole, as opposed to the fairly consistent gravity which is the claim of white hole cosmology.

As to your second point. I have yet to see a proper critique outlining the space-time curvature being 'unbelievable' or the 'unimaginable' energy being released. Perhaps you should also revisit your assumption of how old the universe is because it seems it is predicated on the current big bang cosmology, not on the age of the universe as it would be in a white hole cosmology.
I read "Starlight & Time" years ago and was captivated. I wonder, has Dr. Humphrey's published anything new on this topic?

I was especially enlightened by the exposure of mainstream science's view of an "Unbounded Cosmos". Well, duh - anything would be possible in such an infinite universe. Heck even evolution from primordial goo might work somewhere. But put Earth near the center and call it "bounded" and by golly, we must have been created after all! There's no escaping that conclusion.
Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger Weblog Commenting and Trackback by