Humphreys' 'white hole' cosmology

These are the salient points of D. Russell Humphreys' 'white hole' cosmology:

(a) God may have used a white hole in bringing about the cosmos;

(b) this white hole, with water [the 'deep', Gen. 1:2] at its core, encompassed the entire universe;

(c) Humphreys points out that his white hole cosmology is based upon sound physics:

relativity + (bound & expanded cosmos) = white hole cosmology

(d) in comparison, the 'standard model' is similar save for one key premise:

relativity + (unbound & expanded cosmos) = Big Bang cosmology

(e) being inside the ultimate supermassive black hole running in reverse (i.e., the white hole) means that tidal forces were very benign on Earth and elsewhere;

(f) the shrinking event horizon reached Earth in the morning of the 4th day of creation, at the same day God created the stars; and

(g) all the while due to gravitational time dilation, while merely one day passed on Earth, billions of years of physical processes transpired at the far ends of the cosmos.

[Gerald Schroeder's cosmology is the opposite. His six ordinary days happened at the universe's fringe, while 15 billion years transpired on Earth simultaneously.]

A lot more detail and equations are in Humphreys' Starlight and Time book [1994] and DVD.

Young earth creationists regard Humphreys' peer-reviewed white hole cosmology as an important development in the field of scientific creationism.

[Image credit: Wikimedia Commons]

Related post: Is there an edge to the cosmos?

Related post: Humphreys' cosmology: the two possibilities

Related post: Gravitational time dilation

Technorati Tags: Big Bang, bound finite cosmos, cosmology, Gerald Schroeder, gravitational time dilation, Russell Humphreys, time dilation, white hole cosmology

Comments

[Leala]

I wanted to cite this site and author on a paper I'm doing comparing the white hole, big bang, and progressive creation cosmologies, but I don't know who the author is of this information and I would really like to know so I can give them credit! Whoever is out there who wrote this, let me know who you are! Thanks.

Leala
leyoung2@aol.com

[MK/CC]

Hi Leala,

I'm the blogger behind Cosmology Curiosity, and I go by the pseudonym of "MK" or "CC".

I do not use my real name here because I just want to sort of compartmentalize my Internet/blogging life from my real life.

Well if you want some personal info, I'm an engineer by profession, living a simple life with my wife and three kids :)

With regard to giving credit to the posts here, perhaps you can just mention Cosmology Curiosity in passing, and refer more to the sources I've been quoting (e.g., Russell Humphreys, G. Schroeder, Paul Davies, Brian Greene, et al.). These are the authorities anyway.

But thanks indeed for dropping by. Hope you can come back here soon and God bless you.

MK

[olive]

didn't understand a word of that. make the info more accessible. :(

[Clement]

I'm an atheist, so I find it extremely amusing (though this is my point of view ONLY...) to see people using science to try and "prove" that God created the world. I think that doing this undermines the whole theory, because, no matter how much you base your research on hard facts, you are trying to prove something that you have no proof of, which is extremely unscientific: Scientific Methodology should be the following: Observing, analyzing results and finally deducing stuff from it, and not, observe, analyze, and say that the results prove something that you actually have no proof of. I'm not saying that this theory is false, because just as there's no proof of God's existence, there isn't any proof either of his inexistence. I think that you shouldn't use science to prove something that you have no proof of. I'm an atheist, but I don't think science should be used to prove that God does not exist. We should get the data and create scientific theories that can work on a stand-alone basis. To sum up, you use rationalism, empiricism, and then you say that it proves something when it actually doesn't. What's funny is that only the people who believe in God do this, I feel that they are trying to "justify" their faith in God. What I dislike about this is that it's more or less trying to make the fact say something that it doesn't. Think of it this way: would this theory have ever been created if Christianity didn't exist? Humphrey's theory is therefore totally subjective and actually quite unscientific: Proving the existence or non-existence of God with science is totally pointless, and I think that science and religion should be kept appart, for the moment, until we have, if we ever do, the actual possibility to prove or not God's existence. But for the moment, we are like cavemen trying to measure the curving of the universe with two silexes. Don't EVER make numbers say what they don't, because there will always be people who disagree with your interpretation of them, at least on such a large scale where it's just so ambiguous and we're so ignorant that there's not even a point to arguing about it. Debates do become interesting when it regards things that can actually be proven. But no one, at this point of time, is able to say with absolute certainty if God exists or not, therefore let's not debate about it, because you'll never be able to prove your results.