Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe [Paperback]

Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D. (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback: 137 pages
• Publisher: Master Books (October 1994)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0890512027
• ISBN-13: 978-0890512029
• Product Dimensions: 8.3 x 5.5 x 0.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 5.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (88 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #589,289 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #21 in Books > 4-for-3 Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

297 of 339 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Humphreys' theory not supported by his own references, May 18, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe (Paperback)

The thrust of Humphreys' book is to come up with a modified cosmology that allows for a very young earth within a very old universe. His proposal is that gravitational time dilation accounts for this vast difference in ages between the earth and the universe. At the core of this proposal is a requirement for a great difference in gravitational force between that experienced at the earth and that experienced in the rest of the universe. This is due to the huge time dilation effect Humphreys requires. For he says that in one 24-hour day of Earth time, the distant stars age billions of years (page 126 of [1]). This requires a time dilation in the order of 10 raised to the 11th power. On it's very face this argument presents a serious problem. If we assume the gravitational force is normal in the rest of the universe, then the force at the earth is so high as to crush everything including the earth itself. If we assume the gravitational force is normal at the earth, then a high repulsive force is required in the rest of the universe, virtually eliminating any possibility that matter coalesces to form stars, planets, galaxies, etc. Put simply, the observable universe does not fit with Humphreys theory.

This is further borne out in the mathematics. Humphreys' theory relies heavily on a very large cosmological constant (which actually varies with time according to Humphreys, see pages 91 and 124 of [1]) for the rapid expansion of the universe during the first few days on earth. There are two main problems with this line of reasoning. One, a very large cosmological constant precludes Newton's theory of gravitation being approximately true. This is clearly shown in Humphreys' own references. Einstein himself (page 186 of [2]) qualifies the introduction of the constant by saying "This field equation, with lambda (mathematical symbol for the cosmological constant) sufficiently small, is in any case also compatible with the facts of experience derived from the solar system." In Weinberg's words (page 155 of [3]) this constant "must be very small so as not to interfere with successes of Newton's theory of gravitation." Two, Humphreys requires that this constant vary (see pages 91, 124, and 126 of [1]) in direct conflict with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. For Einstein says (page 186 of [2]) in his original paper that the field equation may be expanded by adding the fundamental tensor "multiplied by a universal constant" so as not to destroy the "general covariance." Rindler states (page 200 of [4]) it most clearly when he says "within the Newtonian formalism, the coefficients A and B could be functions of time -- for example, they could be linked to the density of an expanding universe. In Einstein's theory, on the other hand, lambda (mathematical symbol for the cosmological constant) has no freedom but to be an absolute constant of nature."

In summary, Humphreys' own references contradict his theory and rather than being consistent with General Relativity, Humphreys' theory stands in direct conflict with it. Without major modifications, Humphreys' theory is destined to join the growing list of young-earth cosmological theories that have all failed to pass "scientific muster."

Michael Glidewell, Ph.D.

References

[1] D. R. Humphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1994.

[2] A. Einstein, et. al., The Principle of Relativity, Dover Publications, NY, 1952.

[3] S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, Wiley and Sons, NY, 1972.

[4] W. Rindler, Essential Relativity, 2nd Ed, Springer-Verlag, NY, 1977.

153 of 178 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars The theory proposed in this book does not work, March 26, 1998

By 

[e-mail] (Vineland, NJ) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe (Paperback)

Starlight and Time proposes to solve the "light travel time problem" by postulating the existence of past gravitational time dilation in a bounded universe. This time dilation would, it is proposed, cause clocks to run slower on Earth than in distant galaxies, allowing light to travel billions of light years from distant galaxies during the passage of only a few thousand years on Earth. This is a very creative idea, but close examination of the physics shows that it does not work. Humphreys' time dilation proposal could work if the universe were static (that is, neither expanding nor contracting), but the universe is, in fact, dynamic --- it is expanding. More distant galaxies are receding from Earth more rapidly than nearby galaxies. This differential motion produces a differential time dilation effect ("moving clocks run slower") which exactly counterbalances the gravitational time dilation effect so that all clocks in the universe, whether on Earth or on distant galaxies, run at the same rate as the universe expands. There is no differential ageing of the outer parts of a bounded expanding universe compared with the center. This identity of the time-keeping properties of clocks on Earth and on distant galaxies is easily established by calculation of the relevant clock rates with respect to the expansion of the universe from the spacetime metric. Humphreys neglects to perform these calculations and ends up misleading himself and his readers. Starlight and Time was made public in 1994 as an attempt to reconcile "young-earth" recent creation theology with the evidences of astronomy that the universe is very large and very old. The theory has since attracted critical analysis which shows it to be false. The first of these analyses was published in Bible Science News, 9/95. A second analysis was published in the 6/97 issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly. Still other analyses have been submitted to a number of Creationist organizations. Readers who are not familiar with General Relativity theory should not trustingly accept the conclusions of this book. It is flawed by a number of serious misunderstandings of relativity theory. Readers interested in the details of these flaws may consult the above-mentioned references. In fact, there are a number straightforward theorems which can be derived from Relativity theory which show that 1) If Humphreys' model of the universe is correct, then there can be no visible objects further away than about 6000 light years and 2) the redshifts of distant objects should be rapidly decreasing at the present time. Both of these predictions are found to be seriously in error. 1) The most distant observed objects are about 10 billion light years away (a distance estimate which Humphreys explicitly affirms). The upper limit on the distance of visible objects in Humphreys' model is only about one fourth of the distance to the Milkly Way, clearly an impossible prediction. 2) The observed upper limits on redshift changes in extragalactic objects is millions of times smaller than the rate of change predicted by Humphreys' model. These two predictions are consequences of any young-universe relativistic model, regardless of the precise details. Consequently, this entire class of model of the universe is ruled out by the observed properties of the universe.

76 of 89 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Something to think about: A "White-Hole" Cosmology, January 17, 2002

By 

Thomas Luttrell "M.S. MFT Intern, Theology & ... (Loma Linda, CA, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe (Paperback)

I've been discussing this book with my Cosmology professor. I have to admit that this book is not universally accepted in the scientific arena, and there are obvious reasons for that--Humphreys attempts to prove that cosmological data can fit the Biblical interpretation of a young universe made only 6,000 years ago. However, it has to be admitted that Humphreys presents some things to at least seriously consider.

The goal of the book is the help resolve the apparent contradiction of starlight and a young universe. If light can only travel at a set speed, then how can we see stars made only 6,000 years ago when it should take a lot longer for us to see them?

Humphreys proposed that the theory of general relativity can allow for time dilation to slow down earth time in relation to the rest of creation, so that while the earth might have been created in six literal earth days, the universe was expanding for thousands of years. Time dilation is supported by Einstein's theory of general relativity. According to the theory of relativity, time slows down as objects approach the speed of light.

Regardless of whether or not the speed of light can change, as proposed by Barry Setterfield, Russell Humphrey's main objection to the Big Bang theory is that it is based on certain presuppositions, like whether the universe is bounded, which is fair to say.

Other scientists argue that the Big Bang cosmology predicts that clock rates change only about 10% to the furthest galaxies. However, the young-universe models do not follow the standard Big Bang(black hole) predictions to begin with. The question may not be "How much has the speed of light changed?" but "How fast has time changed?" Also, at the point of singularity, it is impossible to say whether or not the same laws of physics would apply.

The book has been under a lot of discussion, and suggests an interesting idea, though time will tell if the theory can hold. It should be noted that the author has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. My cosmology professor's complaint was that if the speed of light changed and time slowed down, then that might present problems with atomic structure, but it seems as though this author should know a lot about that from working in atomic and nuclear physics, considering the author's credentials.

I can think of a few Bible verses that could support his application of General Relativity to creation. My only complaint was that I prefer not to interpret Genesis as saying that the earth is at the center of the universe, as Humphrey's idea suggests--though he does admit that his interpretation of how Creation might have unfolded is purely speculation.

Anyway, his ideas on GR certainly leaves room for other possibilities. The book is a quick reading that definitely gives the reader some interesting things to think about.