Re: Geocentrism and other issues

GRMorton@aol.com
Sat, 7 Oct 1995 23:44:54 -0400

John Turnbull wrote:
>>These two models (BB and WHC) are observationally equivalent only as far as
interpreting light coming from the most distant stars. However, since the
WHC model suggests that the earth and planets close to the earth are only a
few tens of thousands of years old, it is not observationally equivalent to
other observations, such as Rb/Sr, U/Pb, etc. estimates for the age of the
earth.<<

and
>>No. Humphreys appeals to general relativity to show that clocks operating
on earth in a WHC since the beginning of time have elapsed a few tens of
thousands of years, whereas clocks operating on the most distant stars have
elapsed billions of years. This is due to the GR effect of clocks running
slower in high gravitational fields. This is demonstrated all the time by
clocks placed in satellites which are designed to run a little slower (while
they are on earth) than the ground station clocks, otherwise they
desynchronize when they put them up in space.<<

Unfortunately none of my books, including Misener,Thornton, and Wheeler,
_Gravitation_ have White Hole Cosmology listed in the index or listed under
cosmological models. It must have been rejected quite definitively to be out
of MT&W's book or it goes under another name.

Your description here raises an interesting observational problem. If
Humphreys is suggesting that our clocks on earth are running slow due to a
stronger gravitational field, then all clocks, as you note, should be running
slow, including all radioactive clocks. If they have been running slow then
why do they give such old ages?

I would also question the apparent assertion that the environs of the earth
have the strongest gravitational fields in the universe. Is this what
Humphreys view would require? I am very weak in GR so if I err, please
correct me.

glenn