M
mdkluge
Guest
Wteven Sawyer wrote:
Humphreys embeds a region of space-time having the same geometry as that of standard big bang cosmology into a Euclidean space surrounding it. It follows that the dynamics of the inner region (in which we and all of the observed universe lie) would be the same as in standard big bang cosmology.
It is true that Humphreys SAYS that that different regions of the inner region have different dynamics from standard big bang cosmology, but his arguments are contrived and vexacious. Had he learned general principles of general relativity he would have learned that regions having the same metric evolve similarly. His model is more sophisticated than Setterfield's, and his mistakes are a bit more subtle, but Humphreys' model has not been taken seriously by any physicists. See the rebuttal of S. Conner and D. Page in CENTJ.
Nope. I do not know at what level to discuss this with you. Basically, though, in General Relativity dynamics depends upon the local geometry of space-time. If you have two space times (or two models of space-time) each containing a subregion having the same "metric" as a corresponding subregion of the other space-time (or model) then the two sub-regions evolve identically. That's just the way General Relativity works.I'm not sure how much the model proposed by physicist D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. has been discussed here. Basicly, he believes that the Earth is young in agreement with Genesis, but the universe is old, in agreement with modern astronomical observation. Humphreys postulates that the universe and Earth emerged from a bound universe where our earth was near the center which created a "white hole" effect instead of a "black hole". Humphreys' model is consistent with Einstein's general relativity theory...
Humphreys embeds a region of space-time having the same geometry as that of standard big bang cosmology into a Euclidean space surrounding it. It follows that the dynamics of the inner region (in which we and all of the observed universe lie) would be the same as in standard big bang cosmology.
It is true that Humphreys SAYS that that different regions of the inner region have different dynamics from standard big bang cosmology, but his arguments are contrived and vexacious. Had he learned general principles of general relativity he would have learned that regions having the same metric evolve similarly. His model is more sophisticated than Setterfield's, and his mistakes are a bit more subtle, but Humphreys' model has not been taken seriously by any physicists. See the rebuttal of S. Conner and D. Page in CENTJ.
Nor have I a preference for drinking a solution of a salt of arsenic over a salt of lead or vece versa.I do not favor Humphreys position over Setterfield's nor vice versa.
Well they're not mutually exclusive in the sense thatone could without too much difficulty incorporate a time-varying speed of light into standard cosmology or Huympherys' model. However, in Humphreys' universe cosmic red shift really is caused by recession, while in Setterfield's universe there is no recession. Redshift is caused by certain quantized changes in fundamental parameters. So the two are reallty not compatible.I do not see where they are mutually exclusive ideas.