Talk:White hole cosmology

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Question: Wouldn't the existence of a black hole imply that a singularity exists at is center? Where is this singularity at present, and what keeps it located at the center of the Earth as the Earth moves around the sun and the sun moves around the galaxy? Also, doesn't general relativity "say" that the singularity contains the entire mass of the black hole? If that's the case, wouldn't everything on Earth's surface be spaghettified by tidal forces? I'm just curious about this aspect of Humphreys' cosmology. — Unsigned, by: Signoid Fremd / talk / contribs on Sep 26 2010

Most of what you've just said is correct, which is why Humphrey's cosmology is so contradictory. If there was a black hole at the center of the Earth we would obviously be dead. Tetronian you're clueless 01:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy[edit]

It seems to me that in order to convincingly refute a theory, the first step should be to accurately state what the theory actually is. Admittedly I haven't read Humphreys' book (I just can't quite bring myself to help enrich the coffers of creationism) but I assume that the igors of CreationWiki have, and that they give an accurate accounting of it ([1]). According to them, it's not the black hole that has a diameter of 2 ly, but a sphere of water with a diameter of (giggle) 2 ly that contained the entire mass of the universe (in the form of water) and was located in the center of a black hole of radius 0.5E9 ly. Given a water density of exactly 1 g/cm3 (at STP!), this works out to be a mass of 3.55E54 grams, roughly a factor of 10 lower than the mass of the universe given by the link in the RationalWiki article. However, regardless of whether that mass is accurate or not, it is at least (fairly) internally consistent, to the extent that the Schwarzschild radius calculated from that mass would be 0.557E9 ly. The agreement between the mass calculation and their stated Schwarzschild radius isn't perfect, but neither is it absurdly wrong as the RationalWiki article implies.

Further, the CreationWiki article states that the black hole's compressional forces heat the water enough to cause nuclear fusion (!) so the RationalWiki section about compression and light intensification seems irrelevant.

Accordingly, I think it might better serve RationalWiki's readers if the entire article after the first two sentences under "Problems..." was rewritten. His theory appears to have plenty of other problems that could be addressed (although, again, I haven't read his book, so I'm only assuming that he hasn't addressed these issues). For example, oxygen is 89% of water, by weight, and Humphreys would have a hard time explaining the isotopic abundances that are now observed, both inside & outside the solar system, even assuming that the oxygen was efficiently fused into heavier elements (and the elements lighter than oxygen were presumably generated by standard nucleosynthesis from standard fusion). Secondly, I THINK that general relativity requires the mass of a black hole to be entirely inside its singularity; Humphreys' model appears to ignore the whole concept of a singularity and places the black hole's mass in that amazing sphere of water. Also, in CreationWiki's account, the details of how events unfold as a function of time are not clear and seem contradictory. They say the 2 ly diameter sphere of water was divided into two portions (this happened on day 2) and the outside portion expanded so that by day 3 the expansion reached the event horizon and the black hole turned into a white hole. They don't explain what energy source drove this faster-than-light expansion (which incidentally has to expand through the time-dilated gravitational well). Furthermore they must be extrapolating Humphreys' model to say that the upper layer of water is still out there, more than 2E10 ly away from earth and therefore unobservable-- but the water would have to have been used to form all the galaxies and extrasolar material, so it can't still be out there. I also don't understand how all these cosmic shenanigans are supposed to account for the stars aging billions of years while less than a day passes on earth, when the sun, moon & stars were created on day 4.

In short, I wish that someone who actually has read his book would outline its chronology and address its shortcomings, including whether the CreationWiki grunts have accurately summarized it. By the way, I should also mention that the link in the RationalWiki article gives a rather low estimate of the mass of the universe. Apparently the estimates from other sources range from E53 to E60 kg (E56 to E63 g).

Signoid Fremd 03:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Humphreys Responds[edit]

Reference links given are either broken or woefully out of date. Humphreys has responded to his published critics in a relatively recent monograph titled, "New Vistas of Space-Time Rebut the Critics". It is available as a PDF and is free for download from several sites around the Internet. Please - read the book and the monograph before jumping to conclusions. — Unsigned, by: 98.220.167.98 / talk / contribs

Name?[edit]

So why is it called "White hole cosmology"? I see nothing about white holes in the "theory". —Kazitor, pending 07:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)