Letters to the editor - icr.org · CEN Technical Journal 1313(1) 1999 4949 Letters to the editor The ‘tone’ of contributions As a relative newcomer toCEN Tech. J., I am glad to

CEN Technical Journal 1313131313(1) 1999 4949494949

Letters to the editorLetters to the editorLetters to the editorLetters to the editorLetters to the editor

The ‘tone’ ofcontributions

As a relative newcomer to CENTech. J., I am glad to find anexcellent publication, though marredfor me personally, and I suspectothers, by the ‘tone’ of responses andcounter-responses to some articles.I would like to ask your corres-pondents to consider a little morecarefully how they word what theywrite, and avoid getting so carriedaway with ‘winning’ their adver-sarial point that they lose theirhallmark of Christian charity.

Whatever our sober estimates ofourselves and the importance of themessage that we ‘burn’ to get across,the truth is that … none of us isomniscient, and any lasting value ourwork has is attributable to Christ —no one else! If our communicationis corrupted with self-justification orinvective, it fails to glorify Jesus andis useless — ‘though I have … allknowledge … and have not charity,it profiteth me nothing’ (1 Cor.13:2).

I can appreciate that it is gallingfor many hours of carefully craftedwork to be ignorantly rubbished,misconstrued or misunderstood.God’s word insists that all thingshappen for good and so, dear Author,whether your work makes an impactor not, God’s purpose will be beingachieved, and we should rejoice inthat. None of us should try to ‘prove’our worth, because God is no‘respecter of persons’, and, to thecontrary, we have an obligation tolove and esteem others better thanourselves [Phil. 2:3].

I’d like to appeal to all writers tolook through back issues of thisjournal and determine whether or notthis appraisal is a fair one and actaccordingly. Perhaps, if felt appro-priate, the editor could add a suitablephrase or two to the ‘Instructions toAuthors’ printed on the inside backcover of each issue.

As Job’s comforters discovered,truth does not perish with us: Goddelights in the good work of writing

He’s prepared some of us to excel init, but only if executed in grace. Let’smake the Technical Journalexcellent in both content and the‘tone’ it is presented in!

Name and Address suppliedBishop’s Stortford, Herts

ENGLAND

� A note from the editors — play the ball,not the man

received an item for publication fromDel Ratzsch, of Calvin College, theauthor of the book The Battle ofBeginnings. Ratzsch is critical of thereview of his book by Carl Wielandwhich we published in 12(1):23–28,1995. Among other things, the itemclaimed that the reviewer repeatedlycast doubt on the author’s integrity.

We decided not to publish thesubmission. First, because it hadalready been published elsewhere(intending contributors take note).Secondly, because (as stated) we aretrying to pare down/eliminate emotiveissues in this journal. Dr Wieland says,‘My comments concerned what Iperceive as the author’s bias (notnecessarily all conscious) towardtheistic evolution (the view stridentlypushed by his College). While standingby my general opinion of the book, nopersonal offence was intended.’

Humphreys’ newvistas of space

In his recently published article,1D. Russell Humphreys makes somedisparaging assertions about me andmy associates, and I would like theopportunity to respond.

Long before [Humphreys’ book]Starlight and Time went to thepublisher, I reviewed the work andencouraged Humphreys to changehis mind about publishing. I basedmy appeal on well established, wellunderstood science, including thefact that the universe is filled with

‘clocks’ (time-dependent phenom-ena in stars and galaxies) that refuteHumphreys’ fundamental premiseabout time variations in the historyand ‘geography’ of the cosmos.Humphreys dodged the issues Iraised, diverted to side issues, andeventually resorted to attacking myexpertise as a scientist, as well as mycharacter and theology.

I am ‘disturbed’ (as he says) butnot at all ‘threatened’ (scientifically,intellectually, or in any other way)by Starlight and Time. My motiveis to save the Christian community,including Humphreys himself, fromembarrassment and from unnecess-ary scorn. Since Humphreys had norespect for my views on his work, inearly 1995 I asked four physicists (allof whom accept the five doctrinalstatements which appear on theinside front cover of your journal) toappeal directly to Humphreys. Theyreviewed his material in detail andconcluded that it should bewithdrawn. While Sam Conner(MIT doctoral candidate in astro-physics) wrote the technical

We are in broad agreement with thesentiments in the first letter, and (asour instructions to authors nowindicate) we do wish to activelydiscourage this sort of thinghenceforth. We have already resistedpublishing some contributions for thatvery reason.

We were in a dilemma with this TJissue, having already received theletters (following) on the ‘Starlight andTime’ controversy. In the end, wedecided to publish them this once,especially since various authors wereclaiming to be defending themselvesagainst similar personal attack.

However, in future, submitteditems which feature similar adhominem statements will almostcertainly be either rejected or requirerewriting.

Speaking of ad hominem, we

CEN Technical Journal 1313131313(1) 19995050505050

LettersLettersLettersLettersLetters

communications to Humphreys, DonPage (Ph.D., Caltech in physics ongeneral relativity), Gerald Cleaver(Ph.D., Caltech in physics on stringtheory), Michael Strauss (Ph.D.,UCLA in physics on fundamentalparticles), and I (Ph.D., Univ. ofToronto in astronomy on quasars andgalaxies) reviewed the communi-cations by Conner.

After only a few months ofwritten exchange between Connerand Humphreys, Humphreys refusedto continue any technical discussion(shortly after this point, Conner andPage began, at the invitation ofyoung-earth ministries, includingyour own, to write for generalChristian consumption). Hum-phreys’ final communications toConner were evasive and disre-spectful, much as his communi-cations with me have been.Apparently, anyone willing toquestion his views and able toidentify his mathematical andphysical errors is, in his view,incompetent. Thus, we appeal toyour journal, for we hope that ifcreationists (and I am one, not atheistic evolutionist as Humphreysrepeatedly asserts) acknowledge theimplausibility of Starlight and Time,the damage it brings to the Christiancommunity and to your and ourevangelistic efforts can be mini-mized. Let’s not give our mutualadversaries a boost.

Contrary to what Humphreysimplies,2 I have never conceded thatmy criticisms, published in Facts &Faith, were invalid or incorrect. Idid acknowledge that they were toobriefly stated to be widely under-stood. I might add that nothing I’veseen in any of Humphreys’ writingswould cause me or my colleagues toalter or abandon our evaluation of histheory. I can only interpret Hum-phreys’ ongoing dodges and insultsas a subterfuge.

While I applaud Creation ExNihilo Technical Journal forpublishing Conner and Page’scritique of Starlight and Time3 I canonly wish that the editorial team had

restrained Humphreys fromcharacterizing Conner and Page as‘blind’ and their thinking as‘incomplete’, a ‘mistake’, and‘contradictory’. (Readers andHumphreys might be helped in suchcases by the intervention of someoutside referees.) [There were three— ed.] Humphreys’ attacks onConner and Page, his disregard fortheir knowledge and expertise, andhis trading of one untenable modelfor an even less tenable one (hisappeal to imaginary time will delightopponents of the Christian faith) onlyenlarges people’s barriers to trustingin the reliability of the Bible and tobelieving in the God who inspired it.

Hugh RossPasadena, California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

1. Humphreys, D.R., 1998. New vistas of space-time rebut the critics. CEN Tech. J.,12(2):195–212.

2. Humphreys, Ref. 1, footnote 69, p. 212.

3. Conner, S.R. and Page, D.N., 1998. Starlightand time is the big bang. CEN Tech. J.,12(2):174–194.

Russell Humphreys replies:Russell Humphreys replies:Russell Humphreys replies:Russell Humphreys replies:Russell Humphreys replies:

I am disappointed that Dr Rosshas chosen to respond to mycosmology model on such a personallevel, rather than forthrightlyaddressing the scientific issues I

raised. Instead, the main purpose ofhis letter appears to be to portray meas dishonest. He alleges that I am‘evasive and disrespectful’ and use‘dodges and insults as a subterfuge.’Therefore, he implies, my cos-mology must be wrong. I hope noreader of this journal thinks that is avalid logical argument! However,Ross has been saying such things tohis audiences for many years withoutgiving me an opportunity to reply,thus leaving them with a wrongimpression of me and my work. Iam glad to have this chance torespond to these allegations inpublic. Let’s consider the main ones:1. ‘Long before Starlight and Time

went to the publisher, I reviewedthe work and encouragedHumphreys to change his mindabout publishing’ — Wrong.Ross never reviewed my cos-mology, and never advised menot to publish it. In fact, in April1993, before I had written mypaper, Ross declined theopportunity to officially peer-review it for the editors of thescientific conference to which Iplanned to submit it.1 Then heceased corresponding with me forover five years, until December1998. The scarcity of specificdates in Ross’s letter suggests heis relying mainly on his memory,which could explain his confusedaccount of events. If he hasmisplaced his files of thecorrespondence, I can providehim with copies.1–3

2. ‘I based my appeal on … the factthat the universe is filled with“clocks” … that refute Humph-reys’ fundamental premise abouttime’ — Wrong. There was noappeal. Ross’s April 1993 letterwas his last communication to mebefore my book went to thepublisher in October 1994.Neither that letter nor any of hisprevious communications to mesaid anything about clocks or my‘fundamental premise’, gravi-tational time dilation. As for hisclaim about clocks here, it too is



wrong (see reference 11).3. ‘Humphreys dodged the issues I

raised … and eventually resortedto attacking my expertise as ascientist, as well as my characterand theology.’ — Wrong. Beforemy book publication in October1994, Ross never communicatedwith me about it. It’s a bit hardto dodge a non-raised issue! Asfor my opinions about Ross’sexpertise and character, I havealways striven to keep them outof the public arena. His publictheological teachings are ofcourse a proper subject for publicdiscussion,4 but the main one Ihave concentrated on is whetheror not he is correct in elevating‘science’ above Scripture.

4. ‘My motive is to save theChristian community, includingHumphreys himself, … fromunnecessary scorn.’ — I amrather amused, because Dr Rossand a few of his like-mindedfriends are about the only peopleI know of who are trying to heapscorn upon my cosmology. If heis worried about scorn on theChristian community, all he hasto do is stop scorning! As forsaving me future criticism by theatheists, Ross can hereby ceasehis efforts; since I do not cravethe approval of that crowd, theirdisapproval would not bother me.But if the true cause of Ross’sworries is being scorned by theatheists himself, I would think asimple disavowal by him of mywork would have been sufficient.Does he regard himself as beingresponsible for the scientificopinions of all Christians?

5. ‘I [Ross] am disturbed’ — Iagree. In this letter Dr Ross’susual calmness is absent, and itmay be that strong emotions arewhat have clouded his recol-lection of events.

6. ‘In early 1995 I asked fourphysicists ... to appeal directly toHumphreys’ — Misleading.Only one of the four, Mr Conner,ever communicated personally

with me. He never hinted that hewas acting as an agent for Ross,or that Page, Cleaver, and Straussmight be reviewing Conner’sletters, so such interactions musthave been carried out in secret.During this period I correctedseveral of Conner’s early errors,which Conner acknowledgedprivately.5

7. ‘[All four physicists] accept thefive doctrinal statements [of thisjournal]’ — Doubtful. Beingsupporters of Ross, they could notin honesty accept statement two,‘The final guide to the inter-pretation of Scripture is Scriptureitself’, since Ross’s final guide —not in word but in practice — is‘science’.6 They might also havea problem with statement three,‘ … Genesis is a simple butfactual presentation … ’, sinceRoss’s re-interpretations ofGenesis are anything but simple.

8. ‘Humphreys refused to continueany technical discussion’ —Wrong. I discontinued onlyprivate technical discussionswith Conner, not public dis-cussions with him in the journals.Furthermore, I did the discon-tinuing only after July 1995,when I discovered that Connerhad not been straightforward withme about his intentions.7 I foundI was being used to privately tutoran adversary of young-earthcreationism! I responded toConner with the intent of limitingany technical discussions withhim to public ones, so everyonecould see who was making themistakes. However, I left thedoor open for private discussionwith Conner of non-technicalissues.8

9. ‘anyone willing to question[Humphreys’] views ... is, in hisview, incompetent’ — Wrong.Not everyone, and definitely notbecause of opposition to myviews. For example, I think DrPage is competent, but he wasprobably careless in checkingConner, as I mention in my reply

to Conner in this issue. Thereason I had wanted Ross to bean official reviewer of my paperfor the 1994 International Con-ference on Creationism was thatI wanted competent criticismfrom someone of the oppositepoint of view. Ross not onlyrefused,9 but he also failed torecommend anyone else, such asDr Page.

10.‘I [Ross] am ... not a theisticevolutionist’ — False. My articlespells out exactly what I mean bytheistic evolutionism: ‘... anyview which combines theism withnaturalistic evolutionism —including that theory’s events(‘big bang’, molecules-to-manevolution), order of events (lightbefore earth, death before Adam),and time-scale (billions ofyears).’10 This very reasonabledefinition describes Dr Ross’sviews perfectly. Ross’s mis-appropriation of the name ‘cre-ationist’ obscures the fact that histeachings are completely opposedto a straightforward reading of thebiblical account of creation.

11.‘I [Ross] have never concededthat my criticisms, published inFacts & Faith [in 1995],11, 12

were invalid or incorrect. I didacknowledge that they were toobriefly stated to be widelyunderstood.’ — Well, then, letDr Ross spell out his criticismsmore clearly in a peer-reviewedscientific journal (such as thisone) wherein I can reply, andwe’ll have a good clean scientificdebate about it!

12.‘me [Ross] and my colleagues’— Scientific issues should notbe decided on the basis of whohas the most colleagues! But forthose who have no other way ofjudging, I point out that I, too,have colleagues in this matter.The peer reviewers who acceptedmy papers for the 1994International Conference onCreationism and for last year’sCEN Technical Journal were (asI now know) competent,



secularly-published theorists withPhDs in physics and math-ematics, and graduate-leveltraining in general relativity. Inaddition, I have received privateadvice and encouragement fromover a half-dozen general rela-tivity theorists in the academicworld. Like Dr Ross’s two morereticent colleagues, these haven’tcome forth with public pro-nouncements on this issue.Unlike Ross’s shy colleagues,these would have a lot to lose bydoing so, in view of the academicworld’s tendency to purge knowncreationist sympathizers from itsranks.

13.‘Humphreys’ ongoing dodgesand insults’ — Wrong. It is Rosswho has repeatedly dodged publicdebates with me.13 The alleged‘insults’ may consist of myassertions that Ross is a theisticevolutionist, not a creationist. Isit insulting to insist on truth inlabelling?

14.‘I can only wish that the editorialteam had restrained Humphreysfrom characterizing Conner andPage as “blind” and theirthinking as “incomplete”, a“mistake”, and “contradictory”.’— Wrong. I have tried to keepmy counterpunches clean andabove the belt, and the editorsmade sure of it. I said that Connerand Page had an intellectualblind spot,14 not that they areblind. Second, I said their metricwas incomplete.15 That is atechnical phrase relativists oftenuse; it is no more insulting thansaying that a map of Californiadoes not completely describe allof North America. Third, I don’tknow of any kinder word than‘mistake’ to describe a serious,relevant error. As for ‘contra-dictory’, I can’t find any placewhere I used that word aboutConner and Page’s thinking.16

15.‘Humphreys’ ... disregard for[Conner and Page’s] knowledgeand expertise’ — Wrong. I don’tdisregard such; I challenge their

conclusions on objective scien-tific grounds. Ross appears toendorse the ancient opinion ofGalileo’s opponents, that truthshould be determined by human‘authorities’ — not by reason,evidence, and Scripture.17

16.‘[Humphreys’] trading of oneuntenable model for an even lesstenable one’ — Wrong. I madeno trade. I did not give up on theearlier possibility in my book; Imerely made explicit a new andinteresting one which wasimplicit in my mathematics allalong. Either model was defens-ible, but rather than go tediouslyover old ground, I used theopportunity to get a second oneonto the table.

17.‘[Humphreys’] appeal to im-aginary time’ — Wrong. I neverused that term, except to quoteHawking.18 I think ‘imaginarytime’ is a misnomer, and insteadI spoke of ‘stopped clocks’. Asmy references to well-knownrelativists show,19 in going fromnormal space-time into a Eu-clidean zone, the time dimensionchanges into a space dimension,and clocks and other normalphysical processes stop. But theformer time dimension is aperfectly real space dimension,just as real as the other three andhaving the same character.

18.‘[so-called] imaginary time willdelight opponents of the Christianfaith’ — Wrong. The opponentsshould be dismayed. WhileHawking does try to use theconcept of Euclidean zones to tryto eliminate the beginning oftime, I use it in a very differentway to support the idea of arecent beginning. I think theopponents of Christianity wouldbe quite upset to hear ofcreationists not only keeping upwith the latest concepts in generalrelativity, but also using them tosupport the biblical account ofcreation.

In concluding, I exhort DrRoss to put personal feelings behind

him and ascend to the cleaner, clearerrealm of scientific discourse. I callupon him to quit depending on theopinions of other scientists, andinstead submit scientific critiques ofhis own to peer-reviewed scientificjournals such as this one. That kindof openness would improve allyoung-earth creation models andgreatly glorify Jesus Christ ourCreator.

D. Russell HumphreysAlbuquerque, New Mexico



1. Ross, H.N., 1993. Letter to Humphreys, April15.

2. Humphreys, D.R., 1992. Letters to Ross:January 13, August 13, November 12;Humphreys, D.R., 1993. Letter to Ross,March 19.

3. Ross, H.N., 1998. Letter to Humphreys,December 1.

4. Van Bebber, M. and Taylor, P.S., 1994.Creation and Time: A Report on theProgressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross,1st Ed., Eden Publications, Mesa, Arizona.This is an excellent and well-documentedrefutation of Ross’s theology and teachings.

5. Conner, S.R., 1995. Letter to Humphreys,April 23.

6. Van Bebber and Taylor, Ref. 4, pp. 25–40.Ross claims nature is the ‘sixty-seventh bookof the Bible’ and says that we should treat itas equal to the written revelation. However,in practice, he elevates human interpretationsof nature above the straightforward, face-value, meaning of the written revelation,using the current fads of science to ‘re-interpret’ Scripture until it ‘agrees’ with thefads.

7. Ross, H.N., 1995. Fund-raising letter tosupporters, July. This letter mentioned thatConner had been, for some time, a highly-committed financial supporter of Ross andwas also supporting Ross with various‘research’ and writing projects. This wascontrary to the way Conner had presentedhimself to me in his correspondence.

8. Humphreys, D.R., 1995. Letter to Conner,July 9.

9. Ross, Ref. 1.

10. Humphreys, D.R., 1998. New vistas of space-time rebut the critics. CEN Tech. J.12(2):195–212. See p. 211, Ref. 2 of that



article.

11. Ross, H.N., 1995. Progress towardsresolution of the creation-date controversy.Facts and Faith 9(1):12–13. Facts and Faithis a quarterly non-peer-reviewed layman’snewsletter issued by Ross’s organization; itnormally does not publish rebuttals. I firstsaw this issue (first quarter) in March, 1995.

12. Humphreys, D.R., 1995. An open letter toHugh Ross. Bible-Science News 33(4):21–22. This open letter in the May issue was acopy of a technical reply to Ross’s criticismsin Ref. 11; I faxed it to him on March 7, 1995and mailed him a copy on March 26, 1995.When Ross did not respond, I sent the openletter to BSN. Ross finally replied publiclyin the August issue of Bible-Science News33(6):6, but he did not try to defend histechnical points or refute mine, deferringinstead to then-future publications heexpected from Conner, et al. None of thoselater publications appeared to use or defendthe specific points Ross had made in Ref. 11.

13. Humphreys, D.R., 1995. There you go again,Dr Ross! Bible-Science News 33(6):6–7. Onpage 7 is a reprint of an August13, 1994 letterI sent Ross, politely asking him why he hadbacked out of a radio debate scheduled forthe week before — only after he found out Iwas to be his opponent. He never answeredthat letter.

14. Humphreys, Ref. 10, p. 210.


16. Humphreys, Ref. 10, p. 212. See that article’sRef. 36, where I did say of Prof. StephenWeinberg: ‘This shows that even NobelLaureates are not immune from self-contradiction.’ Since this appraisal includesthe whole human race, nobody needs to feelsingled out and particularly offended.

17. Galilei, G., 1632. Dialogo ... Massimi Sistemidel Mondo, G.B. Landini, Florence. Englishtranslation in: Drake, S., 1967. DialogueConcerning the Two Chief World Systems,2nd Revised Ed., University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley. Simplicio, the spokesmanfor Galileo’s academic opponents, often fallsback on appeals to Aristotle’s authority.Salviati, the spokesman for Galileo’s pointof view, just as often argues against humanauthority, calling instead for careful reasoningand evidence to settle scientific issues.Unfortunately, Simplicio’s intellectualdescendants are still far too numerous today,and Salviati’s are far too few.

18. Humphreys, Ref. 10, p. 211. See Ref. 33 ofthat article.

19. Ellis, G.F.R., Sumeruk, A., Coule, D. andHellaby, C., 1992. Change of signature inclassical relativity. Classical and QuantumGravity 9:1535–1554.

More on vistas

I congratulate you on publicationof the paper ‘Starlight and time isthe big bang’ by Samuel R. Connerand Don N. Page.1 I am not a cos-mologist, but I am a professionaltheoretical physicist (now inretirement) so I am able to followthe algebra and test the reasoningpresented. I applaud the authors forproviding such a careful, thorough,perceptive, and exhaustive assess-ment of the book Starlight and Timeby D. Russell Humphreys, and forlisting the evidence which excludesthe whole class of relativistic young– universe cosmologies. The reply‘New vistas of space-time rebut thecritics’ by D. Russell Humphreys2

introduces a completely new argu-ment, but contains a number ofincorrect statements. I shall herecomment on the central issue.

By his insistence on the use ofthe Klein metric, Humphreysappears to be expressing a belief injust one true metric for the universe.No! The metric is not a property ofthe universe, but is a property of thesystem of co-ordinates used todescribe the universe. Since one canreadily transform from one set of co-ordinates to another, the metric maychange along with the trans-formation. Conner and Page haveexplicitly stated the connectionbetween the Schwartzschild co-ordinate system (which implies theKlein metric) and co-movingcoordinates (which implies theRobertson–Walker metric). Sincethe transformation between thetwo co-ordinate systems exists, thetwo metrics are exactly equivalentto each other — they stand or falltogether. Indeed, Conner and Pagehave explicitly demonstrated thatthe two metrics predict exactly thesame proper time elements forcomoving observers.

Humphreys’ apparent belief injust one true metric leads him to amisinterpretation of his own Figure3 by switching clocks in mid-

argument. He first uses clocksreading Schwartzschild time toconstruct the figure with its‘timeless zone’. Then, instead ofregarding such a zone as apathology induced by the use ofSchwartzschild clocks which havebeen travelling faster than light(clocks which may have someconvenience for descriptivepurposes, but certainly no physicalreality), he mistakenly believes hehas uncovered an intrinsic propertyof the universe thus enabling himto switch to ‘expansion fraction’clocks — that is, clocks readingcosmic time — for his exposition ofthe figure. No! The figure does notindicate some constraint on thebehaviour of ordinary physicalclocks. If any clocks have beenprevented from ‘ticking’ in the‘timeless zone’, they would only bethose associated with the Kleinmetric, i.e. (unphysical) Schwartzs-child clocks and not any clockswhich, at all stages of the universeexpansion, have in their travelsobeyed the cosmic speed limit (thespeed of light). Actually, evenSchwartzschild clocks do somethingin that zone, they are not completelynon-functional, they are not com-pletely stopped as is clearly shownin Conner and Page’s Figure 4.

But, does it matter? Suppose afriend telephones you from a verygreat distance and tells you thatsometime in the next two weeks heis going to visit you. Towards theend of that period you locate in yourhome a favourite watch that you hadmislaid some months before. Ofcourse it has stopped, so, joyful atfinding it again, you wind it and setit to the correct time. Shortlythereafter your friend arrives andsimultaneously you check yourwatch to see if it is still going — itis, and you note that just ten minuteshave elapsed since you wound it.Do you then deduce that yourfriend’s travel time was only tenminutes? No! Why not? Becausethe very great distance and themaximum possible speed of travel



available to humans forbids it. Inlike manner, the very great distancefrom here to the distant galaxies, andthe limitation on the speed of lighttells us that the light has beentraveling for a very long time evenif our clocks were stopped (or noteven created until the light wasabout to arrive). So we mustallocate a very great age to theuniverse, not simply an age ourclocks have recorded supposingthem to have started after changesin the universe when they were not‘ticking’.

The bottom line is this: in ourreference frame the distant galaxiesare billions of light years away, soin our reference frame the light hastaken billions of years to get here,so in our reference frame the ageof the universe is in the billions ofyears range. It is simply quiteirrelevant what clocks elsewhere inthe universe may be doing, but ifD. Russell Humphreys’ clocks at theedge of his universe happen to runfaster than ours do, then they wouldindicate an even greater age thanthose billions of years!

The overwhelming evidence thatthe universe is very old does notdistress me, because I regard thestatement ‘… he made the starsalso’ (Gen 1:16) to be a parentheticinsertion into a narrative solelyabout the establishment of theearth’s ecosystem. I believe theinsertion is there to acknowledgethat the Creator of the universe isthe same Mighty One who createdall living things, and is not there toimply any time relationship betweenthose two creative events.

K.J. DuffMangerton, New South Wales

AUSTRALIA





I’m glad to have Dr Duff’scomments on my cosmology, es-pecially since, being of the old-cosmos point of view, he ismotivated to search for errors in myreasoning. Even though his specialtyis solid-state physics, not relativity,I welcome scrutiny by moretheoreticians. However, Duff seemsto have overlooked several thingswhich undermine his main technicalpoints. In that regard, let’s examinefive of his statements:1. ‘Humphreys appears to be

expressing a belief in just one truemetric for the universe.’ In-correct. I do not claim uniquenessfor the Klein metric, merely thatit is more useful here than themetric Conner and Page wereusing:1 ‘Thus the Robertson-Walker metric is a less completedescription of this physicalsituation than the Klein metric is.’

2. ‘Since the transformationbetween the two coordinatesystems exists, the two metrics areexactly equivalent to each other[my emphasis]’ Duff put thewhole statement in bold font,implying it was his main point.But my paper cites a counter-example to that very point:2

‘ ... this is not the first time achange of coordinates has[revealed new physics]. In 1960,Kruskal and Szekeres introduceda new set of coordinates whichrevealed startling new regions ofspace-time in the vacuum aroundand within a black hole, regionswhich had lain concealed andunsuspected in the Schwarzschildvacuum metric. The new coordi-nates shed a great deal of lighton the nature of the event horizon,opened up the possibility of whiteholes and worm-holes, andstimulated a great outpouring ofresearch on black holes for thenext three decades. Thus itshould not be too surprising thata shift of coordinates has againrevealed new black-hole physics,

this time within the matterregion.’

As experts in generalrelativity know very well, thereexists a transformation betweenSchwarzschild coordinates andKruskal coordinates. But noexpert would try to claim theSchwarzschild and Kruskalmetrics are ‘exactly equivalent toeach other’, because the latterdescribes more regions of space-time than the former.3 Thus myexample directly contradicts theargument Duff is trying to make.

3. ‘[The timeless zone is] apathology induced by the use ofSchwartzschild clocks’ Duffgives no mathematical proof forthis assertion. It is merely anopinion. It is a rather commonsentiment, since many textbooksare fond of heaping unmeritedverbal abuse upon Schwarzschildcoordinates. For example, onetext accuses Schwarzschild coor-dinates of delinquent behaviour:4

‘spurious … inappropriate… misbehave … go bad’.But then the same text goes on tosay:5

‘We will of course adopt theview that the coordinates that gobad at [the event horizon] are theSchwarzschild coordinates’[emphasis mine].

The word ‘adopt’ shows thatthe textbook writers’ preferencein coordinates is merely anarbitrary and personal valuejudgment.

4. ‘If any clocks have beenprevented from “ticking” in the“timeless zone”, they would beonly ... Schwartzschild clocks.’Here Duff appears to have missedthe caution in my paper:6

‘Schwarzschild coordinatesare conceptual. You can think ofthem as the times and distanceswhich would be read out fromclocks and rulers unaffected bygravity, velocity, acceleration, orany other feature of the space-time continuum.’

Conceptual clocks don’t



have to stop, not even inEuclidean zones. Duff did notdiscuss my statement above at all,apparently overlooking it. Healso seems to have overlookedthat other theoreticians besidesmyself have concluded there maybe Euclidean (timeless) zones inthe black-hole/white-holetopology my cosmology uses.The paper in the InternationalJournal of Modern Physics byHellaby, Sumeruk, and Ellis,7

which I referred to frequently inmy paper, requires that Duff takethe concept of timelessnessseriously. The use of conceptualSchwarzschild clocks could helphim find his way through thisnew, nearly uncharted wildernessin relativity, the fascinating ideaof Euclidean zones.

5. ‘But, does [timelessness]matter?’ Duff gives an illus-tration of a watch stopping in yourhome and uses it to claim that oneshould measure the friend’s traveltime only with unstoppedwatches. He seems to have over-looked the following sentence inmy article:8

‘In particular, their metricgives no hint at all of a largeregion of space-time in whichphysical processes, includingclocks, are completely stopped.’

I’ve emphasized ‘physicalprocesses’ here because Duff’sillustration would more accu-rately fit my theory if all physicalprocesses in your home, includ-ing processes in your own brainand body, had stopped. Then thestopped watch would reflect yourown experience. From your pointof view, the friend would arrivevery suddenly. Ignoring thisdistinction, Duff claims in hissecond-to-last paragraph thateven if my theory were true, thecosmos would still be billions ofyears old. But he is simplyexpressing a personal preferencein clocks, regarding the distantclocks as more important than theones on earth. How unrelativistic

of him!Now let’s move on to Dr

Duff’s final, less technical, point. Inhis last paragraph he gives us a‘biblical’ reason for his scientificworldview, the last part of Genesis1:16, which he interprets as meaningthe stars were made much earlierthan the two great lights.

However, if Dr Duff is going tostake so much on just a few words inan English translation (and the vastmajority don’t support his interpret-ation), it would be good to examinethe original language underlying thetranslation. In this case, it turns outthat the original Hebrew does notsupport his interpretation (as mostBible translators realise). Just beforethe word for ‘stars’, there is a smalluntranslatable word, the accusativeparticle ’et. It indicates that ‘stars’is the direct object of the verb ‘made’at the beginning of the verse. Tackedonto ’et is the Hebrew consonantwaw, which is usually translated‘and’. There is an identical con-struction of waw plus ’et just before‘the earth’ at the end of Genesis 1:1.There it is translated ‘and the earth’,indicating that God created the earthas well as the heavens. Leaving outthe middle phrase of Genesis 1:16(describing the function of the greatlights), a very literal translationis:‘And God made the two greatlights … and the stars.’

Thus I suggest that the moststraightforward meaning of theHebrew verse is that God made thestars essentially simultaneously withthe Sun and Moon, not beforehand.

This illustrates the danger ofbasing too much on just a few words.We should build our own worldviewon an exegesis of all relevant Biblepassages. Thus in this matter, weshould also take into account suchverses as Exodus 20:11,

‘For in six days, the LORD madethe heavens and the earth ...’

which, combined with the context,clearly and explicitly declares thatJehovah made not only the earth, butalso the heavens in six ordinaryweekdays. There are many other

Scriptures which support that state-ment, and there are none whichclearly and explicitly say the worldis billions of years old. Therefore,in view of Dr Duff’s respect forScripture, I invite him to join me andother believing theorists in searchingfor young-world cosmologies.




1. Humphreys, D.R., 1998. New vistas of space-time rebut the critics. CEN Tech. J.12(2):195–212. See p. 202, Section 6, lastparagraph.

2. Humphreys, Ref. 1, p. 202, Section 7, firstparagraph.

3. Hawking, S.W. and Ellis, G.F.R., 1973. TheLarge Scale Structure of Space-time,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,p. 155: ‘The Kruskal extension ... is the uniqueand locally inextendable extension of theSchwarzschild metric.’

4. Ohanian, H.C. and Ruffini, R., 1994.Gravitation and Spacetime, 2nd Ed., W.W.Norton & Co., New York, p. 440.

5. Ohanian and Ruffini, Ref. 4, p.441, lastparagraph.

6. Humphreys, Ref. 1, p. 197, Section 3, firstparagraph.

7. Hellaby, C., Sumeruk, A. and Ellis, G.F.R.,1997. Classical signature change in the blackhole topology. International Journal ofModern Physics, D6(2):211–238. See myquote of this paper in my answer to Connerin this issue, p. 59.



8. Humphreys, Ref. 1, p. 196, Section 2, sixthparagraph.

Vistas — one moreAs in his original cosmology

proposal1,2 and in subsequent writingsin its defence,3,4 so also in New vistasof space-time rebut the critics,5 DrHumphreys makes sweeping physicalclaims without backing them up withthe simple mathematical calculationswhich would demonstrate their truthor falsity.

It is straightforward, using onlyundergraduate-level differentialcalculus, to show that Humphreys’claim of a ‘timeless zone’ in the Kleinmetric is false. In order for a ‘timelesszone’ to exist, there must be a regionof spacetime within which there areno spacetime trajectories which havethe property ds2 > 0. However, it iseasy to verify that every comoving

clock in Humphreys’ bounded mattersphere cosmology traverses a timeliketrajectory (ds2 > 0), even in the regionof (α,χ) space which Humphreysalleges is ‘timeless.’ Consider, forexample, the trajectory of the Earth,which Humphreys hypothesizes is atthe center of the matter sphere. TheEarth’s spatial trajectory inSchwarzschild coordinates is givenby dρEarth = dθEarth = dϕEarth = 0. TheSchwarzschild time component of thetrajectory, dtSchwarz, Earth, must bederived from the definition of theSchwarzschild time coordinate tSchwarz,

See equation (1) [below]

Humphreys claims that dtSchwarz isa ‘conceptual’ time interval whichcan be assumed to be real, so thatdt2

Schwarz is positive6, but this ismanifestly false. The value of tSchwarzfor a particular spacetime event ismanifestly a function (given inequation 1) of the comovingcoordinate location (a,η) of the

spacetime event in question, andtherefore the Schwarzschild timeinterval dtSchwarz along a particularspacetime trajectory is determinedby that trajectory (i.e., by thesuccession of spacetime eventswhich constitutes the trajectory).

To obtain the differentialSchwarzschild time intervaldtSchwarz, comoving clock which elapses alongthe spacetime trajectory of acomoving clock, one mustdifferentiate equation (1), subject tothe constraint imposed by thespacetime trajectory under consider-ation (namely that η is fixed for acomoving clock). The result is

See equation (2)

(where the leading ‘-’ sign inequation (1) is used, as is appropriatefor an expanding bounded mattersphere)7. Earth is located at ηEarth =0, so

See equation (3)

tto b

b

b

b

b

b

ta

c

a

a ab

Schwarz

edge

edge edge

edge

= ±+ +

+−

++

+ ++

−

≡−

≡−

−−

− ≡

1 1 1

1 3

1 2

1

1

11

3

2 2

2

2

0 2

2

2 2

bln arctan

where

2

ζζ

ζζ

π ζ

ηζ

ηη

η

ηmax max

max

, ,

dt dat a

at

b

a

a adaschwarz comoving clock

fixedo

edge,

max

max

( , )= = −+( ) −( )

+−

−( )∂ η

∂ζ

ζ ζ

ηηη

3

2 2 2 2

2

2

12

21

1

1

dt tb

a

a adaSchwarz Earth

Earth

Earth Earth

edge,max

max

= −+( ) −( )

−( )−( )0

3

2 2 2 2

21

22

11

ζζ ζ

η

............................................... (1)

................. (2)

.................................................................................. (4)

....................................... (3)

aa

a aEarth Earth edgemax

max

,= ( ) =−

− −21 1ζ ζ η η



β ηη

ηa

a

a

a

a

edge

edge

,

max

max

=( ) =− − −( )

− − −( )

0

1 1 1

1 1 1

23

22

23

where

See equation (4)

Plugging the values of Earth’scoordinate trajectory differentialsinto the metric gives,

ds2Earth = c2dτ 2Earth

= β(a,η=0)c2dt2Schwarz, Earth

See equation (5)

To determine whether there is atimeless region along Earth’s space-time trajectory, we need only locatethose regions for which ds2

Earth isnegative.

It is easy to see that ζEarth is realwhen a/amax > 1 – (1 – η2

edge)1/2 andimaginary (that is, proportional to (–1)1/2 ), when a/amax < 1 – (1 – η2

edge)1/

2. Therefore, dtSchwarz, Earth is real anddt2

Schwarz, Earth is positive for a/amax > 1– (1 – η2

edge)1/2. Likewise, dtSchwarz, Earth

is imaginary and dt2Schwarz, Earth is

negative for a/amax < 1 – (1 – η2edge)1/

2. ζEarth and dtSchwarz, Earth vanish at a/amax = 1 – (1 – η2

edge)1/2.The metric component b(a,h),

which we need to compute the Earthproper time using equation 5, is givenby

See equation (6)

At the position of Earth, β(a,η=0) is

See equation (7)

Or, equivalently,

See equation (8)

The numerator of β (a,η=0) is thesquare of a real number, and so isnecessarily non-negative. The sign ofthe denominator and thus of β(a,η=0) depends on the value of a/amax. Considering the same threecases as above, a/amax greater than,

less than or equal to 1 – (1 – η2edge)1/

2, it is obvious thatI) if a/amax > 1 – (1 – h2

edge)1/2, thenb (a,h=0) > 0 and dt2

Schwarz, Earth >0, so that ds2

Earth > 0, a timeliketrajectory.

II) if a/amax < 1 – (1 – h2edge)1/2, then

b(a,h=0) < 0 and dt2Schwarz, Earth < 0,

so that ds2Earth > 0, a timelike

trajectory.It should be noted that case

II), with b < 0, is preciselyHumphreys’ so-called ‘timeless’region of the Klein metric. Earthclocks are not stopped in theregion, however, since ds2

Earth >0. The reason for this is thatwhenever b is negative, dtSchwarz,

Earth is imaginary, so that dt2Schwarz,

Earth is also negative, yieldingds2

Earth > 0.III) if a/amax = 1 – (1 – h2

edge)1/2, thenb(a,h=0) diverges and dt2Schwarz, Earth= 0. It is not obvious from thisanalysis what is the value of theproduct b(a,h) dt2

Schwarz, Earth, but inour recent CEN Tech. J. article8

and the Supplement to it9 weshow that even in this case, ds2

Earth> 0, a timelike trajectory.

This simple analysis for thespacetime trajectory of Earth throughthe Euclidean signature region of theKlein metric can be easily repeatedfor any other comoving trajectory(that is, any non-zero value of η).The outcome is the same: β(a,η) anddt2

Schwarz, comoving clock always have thesame sign, so that their product isalways positive. One additionallymust take into account the radialmotion drcomoving clock, but theadditional contribution still leavesds2

comoving clock positive, as we show inthe Supplement. Further, wheneverβ(a,η) diverges, dt2

Schwarz, comoving clockvanishes and whenever β(a,η)vanishes, dt2

Schwarz, comoving clock divergesin such a way that the product β dt2

remains finite and positive10. As DrPage and I discuss in our paper andSupplement, explicit derivation ofthe proper time interval using theKlein metric shows that the propertime interval along every comovingclock trajectory in the interior of the

ds c d a c dtEarth Earth Schwarz Earth2 2 2 2 20= = =( )τ β η, ,

β

η

η

ηη

η

ηa

edge

edge

a

a

a

a

a

a

,

max

max max

( ) =

− −−( )

−

−

− −

−

−

1 11

1

1 1 11

1

23

2

2

2

22

2

3

....................... (5)

........... (6)

...................... (7)



matter sphere is

See equation (9)

In other words, there are notimeless regions in the Klein metric.Humphreys comes close to noticingthis ‘compensating’ behavior oftSchwarz (dtSchwarz, comoving clock is imaginarywhen β is negative) when he writes:

‘I now know that the location inquestion [i.e. at which theSchwarzschild time coordinateacquires an imaginary com-ponent] is not the event horizon,but rather the change surface,and that the imaginary com-ponent [of the Schwarzschildtime coordinate] comes from asignature change in the Kleinmetric.’11

This behaviour, wherein thetime coordinate suddenly acquiresan imaginary component as onecrosses the signature changesurface, is a clear indication that thesignature change is an artefact ofthe coordinate system. Humphreysseems to recognize that this is thecase. However, he fails to recognizethat such a coordinate artifact cannotconvert the timelike trajectories ofcomoving clocks (ds2

comoving clock > 0)into spacelike trajectories (ds2

comoving

clock < 0). Such a conversion ismathematically impossible, sinceds2

comoving clock is a scalar invariantquantity, completely independent ofthe coordinates used to describe the

clock trajectory, as we discuss in ourpaper and Supplement, and asHumphreys affirms in New vistas ofspace-time.12

Humphreys’ problem is that henever makes the effort to actuallycalculate the spacetime interval oncomoving trajectories in his so-called ‘timeless region’.13 If his newproposal were valid, such acalculation would explicitly resultin ds2

comoving clock < 0. Instead ofperforming this simple calculation,he simply assumes that theEuclidean signature of the Kleinmetric in this region requires that ds2

be negative for all trajectories.Explicit calculation of ds2

comoving clockin the Euclidean region, as I haveshown above (and as Dr Page and Idiscuss in our CEN Tech. J. paperand explicitly work out in theSupplement), shows that this is notso.

This brief analysis shows thatHumphreys’ claimed discovery ofa ‘timeless zone’ in the center ofbounded locally homogeneouscosmology is a fantasy. Unfor-tunately, it is not possible to gofurther into the problems of Newvistas of space-time in this briefletter.

Samuel R. ConnerVineland, New Jersey



1. Humphreys, D.R., 1994. Progress toward ayoung-earth relativistic cosmology. In:Proceedings of the Third InternationalConference on Creationism, R.E. Walsh (ed.),Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, pp. 267–286.

2. Humphreys, D.R., 1994. Starlight and Time:Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in aYoung Universe, Master Books, Green Forest,Arkansas.

3. Humphreys, D.R., 1995. How we can see ayoung Universe: a reply to Conner and Page.Bible Science News, 33(7):12, 16–19.

4. Humphreys, D.R., 1997. It’s just a matter oftime. Creation Research Society Quarterly,34(1):32–34.

5. Humphreys, D.R., 1998. New vistas of space-time rebut the critics, CEN Tech. J.12(2):195–212.

6. Humphreys, Ref. 5, p. 203

7. Conner, S.R. and Page, D. N., 1997. The BigBang Cosmology of Starlight and Time.Unpublished manuscript, 200+ pages,Appendix G.

8. Conner, S.R. and Page, D.N., 1998. Starlightand time is the big bang. CEN Tech. J.12(2):174–194.

9. Conner and Page, Ref. 7.

10. The former occurs on the Klein metricsignature change surface and the latter on thesurface which Humphreys incorrectlyidentifies with the event horizon. Thedivergence and vanishing of b are artefactsof the Klein coordinate system and have nophysical consequences for physical observersinside the matter sphere.



13. This is analogous to his failure in earlierversions of the Starlight and Time hypothesisto explicitly calculate the proper time elapsedon comoving clocks, a calculation whichshows, as we demonstrate in our paper andSupplement, that there is no differential timedilation in the bounded matter spherecosmology.

β ηη

ηa

a

a

aa

edge

edge

,

max

max

=( ) =− − −( )

−− −

01 1 1

11 1

23

22

23

dda

c

a

a acomoving clockτ =−max

................................... (8)

................................................ (9)



Russell Humpreys replies:Russell Humpreys replies:Russell Humpreys replies:Russell Humpreys replies:Russell Humpreys replies:

In the above reply to my article,1Mr Conner again fails to inform themostly creationist readers of thisjournal that he is an ardent supporterof a well-known opponent of crea-tionism, Dr Hugh Ross. You mightsuspect from this omission thatConner’s letter could be neglectingto mention other important mattersas well. If you thought so, yoursuspicion is well-founded — Connerfails to respond to many importantscientific issues I raised. Three ofhis most significant omissions are thefollowing:

No acknowledgement ofNo acknowledgement ofNo acknowledgement ofNo acknowledgement ofNo acknowledgement ofhis big blunderhis big blunderhis big blunderhis big blunderhis big blunder

Conner’s letter completely ignoresthe issue of centres, which I emphasizedthroughout my article. That compelsme to repeat a charge more bluntly thanbefore: in his first critique,2 on the topicof centres, Conner made a tremendousfaux pas3 which invalidates hisconclusion. Even undergraduatephysics students should be able to seethe error, at least after reading section8.2 of my paper, which points it out.

The mistake was that, usingNewton’s ‘hollow-sphere’ theorem,Conner4 inadvertently carved theunbounded cosmos he was consideringinto a spherical shape, giving it a centrewhich it should not have had. Mysection 8.3 shows that Conner shouldhave known something was wrong withhis result, because unbounded-matteruniverses (like the ‘big bang’) cannothave a centre. Undergraduate collegeteachers and popularizers of the ‘bigbang’ have failed to communicate thatfact to the public. But graduate-levelcosmologists should know it, as myquote of Nobel Laureate StevenWeinberg showed.

Conner said he was trying to provethat gravitational forces are the same inbounded-matter and unbounded-matteruniverses. The failure of his proofsupports my contention that there is avery significant difference between thetwo. That would completely invalidate

Conner’s main criticism, that ‘Starlightand Time is the “big bang”’. It appearsto me that by remaining silent on thisissue Conner is hoping no one willnotice his mistake.

Before Conner submitted the finalversion of his critique, I sent wordthrough the editor to Conner’s co-author, Dr Don N. Page, alerting himthat I had found a sophomore-levelblunder in their paper. I did not specifythe error. Despite my warning, Pagefailed to correct Conner’s mistake. Inotice Page’s by-line is absent from thisreply by Conner. Is that because, aftermy article had pinpointed the mistake,Page was embarrassed?

No notice of my commentNo notice of my commentNo notice of my commentNo notice of my commentNo notice of my commenton his key equationon his key equationon his key equationon his key equationon his key equation

Conner bases all the reasoning inhis letter on its equation (1), whichwas equation (12) in his article andequation (20) in my book. But hemissed or ignored what I wrote aboutthat very equation in the lastparagraph of my section 10, on page208:1

‘Consequently the integration 63

which Klein performed to get hisequation for t (equation [20] inmy book, Conner–Page equation[12]) should only be evaluated forvalues of the variable which arereal, not imaginary.’

The above-mentioned refer-ence 63 of my article says:

‘Klein, Ref. 6, p. 71, equation(87). Page 12 in my translation.The integration variable whichmust remain real is z, defined inKlein’s equation (86).’

If my assertion in thesequotes is correct, then the startingpoint of Conner’s argument wouldnot be valid in the region of space-time where Conner needs it to bevalid, the Euclidean (timeless) zone.Thus all the reasoning in Conner’sletter would be incorrect, and all hissubsequent equations would beuseless. You, the reader, do not needto make a technical judgment aboutthe correctness of my assertion. Allyou need to do is notice that Conner

never dealt with my comment.

No acknowledgment ofo acknowledgment ofo acknowledgment ofo acknowledgment ofo acknowledgment ofconfirming researchconfirming researchconfirming researchconfirming researchconfirming research

Throughout my article, I referredto a 1997 article in the InternationalJournal of Modern Physics bygeneral relativity theorists CharlesHellaby, Ariel Sumeruk, and GeorgeEllis,5 from which I quoted:

‘We have succeeded in dem-onstrating the possibility that achange in the signature of space-time may occur in the late stagesof black hole collapse, resultingin a Euclidean region whichbounces and re-expands, passingthrough a second signaturechange to a new expandingLorentzian space.’

Since Hellaby et al. arrivedat this conclusion by a different routefrom mine, their work is inde-pendent confirmation of thepossibility of an Euclidean region inthe black-hole/white-hole topologyof my cosmology. This means that,regardless of my analysis, theRobertson-Walker metric Connerand Page depended on is toorestrictive, because it automaticallyexcludes that possibility. Conner andPage must re-derive all theirequations with a more general metricwhich allows for the possibility ofan Euclidean zone. If present, anEuclidean zone would invalidate theConner–Page criticisms, so theHellaby-Sumeruk-Ellis resultrequires Conner to prove that such azone does not occur in this situation.

I mentioned the Hellaby articlefour times in my article: (1) in thethird paragraph of the abstract, (2)in the second-to-last paragraph ofsection 1, (3) in paragraphs threethrough five of section 6, paragraphfour being the quote above, and (4)in the second paragraph of section12.1.

In all those places I pointed outthe implications of that research forthe validity of the Conner–Pagecriticisms. These references were inkey parts of my paper, including the



abstract, introduction, and con-clusion. If Conner saw none of them,then he did not read enough of mypaper to intelligently criticize it. Ifhe did see any of them, then he istrying to ignore a crucial issue.

ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion

In my paper, I answered all theoriginal Conner–Page arguments,subsection by subsection. Point 2above directly answers the argumentConner makes in his letter.However, Mr Conner has notreciprocated. He has not tried toanswer me point-by-point, particu-larly avoiding the first and thirdissues above. Issue 1, Conner’s fauxpas about centres, does seriousdamage to his first critique. Issue 3,the independent research supportingmy paper, undermines both his firstcritique and his letter above. It wouldintroduce some refreshing candourinto Conner’s side of the debate ifhe would acknowledge those twoflaws in his argument.

I welcome well-thought-outcritiques and discussions of mycosmology, and I acknowledge theprivate and public contributions ofseveral well-qualified fellow crea-tionists toward that end. Even more,I would encourage more young-earthcreationists to pursue cosmologicalresearch of their own, to the greaterglory of God.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.




3. ‘Tremendous faux pas’ is a phrase used inverbal critiques of my cosmology by one ofMr Conner’s fellow-travellers, who after fouryears has yet to venture into print with hisown criticisms.

4. Conner and Page, Ref. 2, section 2.2. I amgiving Dr Page the benefit of the doubtconcerning the generation of the error, sincethe section (in fact the whole paper) has thestyle and tenor of Mr Conner’s private lettersto me in 1995. Those letters appeared to befrom Conner alone, and Conner made nomention that any co-authors might havecontributed to his letters. I mention thisspecifically because Dr Hugh Ross has beenimplying to his audiences that Conner, Ross,Page, and two professors personallycorresponded with me at that time. They werebegging me, Ross alleges, to withdraw mybook. See an article in the Reasons to Believenewsletter: Ross, H., 1998. Avoiding adangerous trap, Facts and Faith, 12(4):10–11. But for over five years (from May, 1993through November, 1998) I never receivedany personal correspondence from anyone inthat group except Conner. In a personal letterto me dated December 1, 1998, Ross finallyacknowledged that he had not previously sentme any personal correspondence since 1993,long before I wrote my book.

5. Hellaby, C., Sumeruk, A. and Ellis, G. F. R.,1997. Classical signature change in the blackhole topology. International Journal ofModern Physics, D6(2):211–238.

Starlight and time

I write regarding Humphreys’cosmology as presented in his bookStarlight and Time: Solving thePuzzle of Distant Starlight in a YoungUniverse,1 and Conner and Page’sdiscussion of this hypothesis in CENTech. J., 12(2),2 and in particularregarding the role of gravity asdiscussed in both works.

Conner and Page state thatHumphreys agrees, ‘explicitly orimplicitly’ with the assumptions,stated by Conner and Page:

‘(3) the fundamental parametersof nature, such as the gravi-tational constant G … areinvariant over the observablehistory of the Universe.’

While I do not understandwhat Conner and Page mean by ‘theobservable history of the Universe’,I suggest that they may haveoverlooked what I perceive to be abasic flaw in Humphreys’hypothesis, which I believe actuallyadvocates variable G.

Humphreys describes his conceptof the creation of the ‘deep’ on Day1 as follows:

‘Fig. 6 shows the deep at theinstant God creates it … ’‘Because the enormous mass ofthe whole universe is containedin a ball of (relatively) small size,the gravitational force on thedeep is very strong, more than amillion trillion “g”’s. This forcecompresses the deep very rapidlytoward the centre…’‘As the compression continues,gravity becomes so strong thatlight can no longer reach thesurface…’ (Emphasis added.)

And Humphreys says: on Day 2,‘Gravity at the surface (of theearth) drops to normal or presentvalues.’ (Emphasis added.)

Humphreys’ wording seemsto me to be very ambiguous, and, if Iam interpreting it correctly, he istransposing cause and effect.Humphreys seems to be saying,perhaps unintentionally, that, at theinstant of creation, the gravitationalforce is ‘very strong’ because ‘theenormous mass of the universe iscontained in a ball of (relatively)small size,’ and that ‘gravity becomesso strong’ because compressionoccurs.

What is causing what? Is ‘stronggravity’ causing compression, or iscompression causing ‘strong grav-ity’? Humphreys seems to beimplying the latter.

And what does Humphreys meanby ‘strong gravity’? — high g (i.e.acceleration due to gravity, due toconcentrated mass — how did it getso concentrated?) or high G(‘universal gravitational constant’— created by God.)

My understanding of physicsrelating to gravity tells me that thescenario advocated by Humphreys,of initial containment of the‘enormous mass of the wholeuniverse … in a ball of (relatively)small size’ and that the continuedcompression which Humphreysadvocates occurred subsequent tocreation (to the point where ‘light can



no longer reach the surface’), couldonly be possible if the magnitude ofthe ‘universal gravitationalconstant’ (G) was larger at creationthan it is now, (more than a milliontrillion times larger!!) andsubsequently increased in magnitudeafter creation, and then decreased toits present value, and if thegravitational attraction betweenobjects in the created ‘deep’ wasoperating according to Newton’sInverse Square Law. (F = Gm1m2/r2).3

If this is the case, then Humph-reys is, in my opinion, perhapsunwittingly, advocating a varying Ghypothesis.

Also, regarding the ‘canopy’,Humphreys states:

‘… my suggestion doesn’t doaway with a canopy of water; itsimply raises it a bit higher — acosmic canopy!’

How would Humphreysexplain Gen. 7:11–12:

7:11 ‘In the six hundredth yearof Noah’s life, … on that day …the floodgates of the heavenswere opened.7:12 ‘And rain fell on the earthforty days and forty nights.’(Emphasis added.)

These verses seem to clearlyindicate that the water which fell asrain for forty days and nights at thebeginning of the Flood, had beenpreviously held above the earth, andwas allowed to fall through ‘thefloodgates of heaven’.

In the Humphreys scenario, withthe ‘canopy’ relegated to the outeredge of the universe, the water whichfell as rain during the first forty daysand nights of the Flood would havebeen an infinitesimal proportion ofthe total water there, and would havehad to have come all the way fromthe edge of the universe for theFlood. Humphreys fails to describea mechanism for this to occur.

The alternatives would appear toinclude:1. The ‘floodgates of heaven’ is

allegorical language and does notreally refer to rain which had been

stored as water above the earth,and subsequently fell as ‘rain’.

2. The ‘rain’ resulted, as proposedby several creationists, from theprojection of the ‘fountains of thegreat deep’ into the atmosphere,to fall back to earth as ‘rain’.

Both of these explanationsseem to contradict the clear teachingof the Scriptures, which seem toindicate that the water had beenpreviously held above the atmo-sphere and was allowed to fall as rainfor forty days and nights, at thebeginning of the Flood.

M.J. HunterCharters Towers, Queensland

AUSTRALIA


1. Humphreys, D.R., 1995. Starlight and Time:Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in aYoung Universe. Master Books. ColoradoSprings, Colorado.

2. Connor, S.R. and Page, D.N., 1998. Starlightand time is the big bang. CEN Tech. J.,12(2):174–194.

3. Newton, I., 1687. Philosophiae NaturalisPrincipia Mathematica. Roy. Soc. London.


Mr Hunter bases the technicalpart of his comments on hisinterpretations of a few words in the

non-technical part of my book.1 Theanswers to his questions are in otherparts of the book. In answer to hisbelief that ‘[Humphreys] actuallyadvocates variable G’, please notethe only comment in my book aboutG is in the technical appendix:2

‘G is the Newtonian gravitationalconstant.’

I’ve emphasized the lastword to make this point: a constantis not a variable. What I meant by‘gravity’ in the section Mr. Hunterrefers to was not G, but just theordinary meaning — the gravi-tational force on a unit mass, i.e., theacceleration of gravity, which I willcall a here. If you plug into Newton’sequation (the one cited by Hunter)my estimated mass m for thecosmos,3 the corresponding onelight-year initial radius r of the‘deep’, and the usual value of G, youwill find that the initial value of a atthe surface of the deep would bemore than a million trillion times thevalue of a at the earth’s surfacetoday, which is about 9.8 m/s2 andoften called ‘one gee’.

Next we come to Hunter’squestions, ‘ … is “strong gravity”causing the compression, or iscompression causing “stronggravity”?’ — The answer is ‘yes’ toboth questions. That is, gravitycauses the compression, and thecompression causes the gravity to getstronger. As the monstrous,irresistible force of a million trillion‘gees’ compresses the water, theradius r of the surface gets smaller.Using (in the same Newton’sequation) the same mass m, the samevalue of G, and a smaller value of r,we see that a at the surface increases.Thus the ball of water is collapsingunder its own weight, and thecollapse accelerates as the ball getssmaller. This description of thecollapse is straightforward freshmanphysics. No change of G is required,and I implied none.

After the collapse ‘bounces’ intoan expansion,4 the reverse processhappens. As the section of matterdestined to become the earth



expands, the radius of its surfaceincreases. Newton’s equation thensays that the value of a at the surfacewould decrease, as my book said.Again, no change of G is required.

Moving on to Mr Hunter’s‘canopy’ comments, I certainly didnot mean to imply that the ‘watersabove the heavens’ fell 20 billionlight-years to earth to provide waterfor the Genesis Flood! The exegesisin my book5suggests that the ‘watersabove the heavens’ are not necess-arily the same as the ‘windows [orfloodgates] of the heavens’. As forthe latter, note that the order inGenesis 7:11 hints ‘the windows ofthe heavens’ may have beensecondary to the ‘fountains of thegreat deep’. That would leave roomfor Hunter’s alternative 2, that waterbursting forth from the ‘fountains ofthe great deep’ went into theatmosphere and enshrouded the earthwith clouds, thus providing acontinuous source of water for therain falling from the clouds.

If other creationist theorists wishto find other models for the‘windows of the heavens’, that is finewith me. But in all our theorizing,let us keep clear in our minds thepossible distinctions betweendifferent biblical phrases, notallowing them to be inextricablybonded to human theories, such asthe ‘canopy’ model or my cos-mology.




1. Humphreys, D.R., 1994. Starlight and Time,Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas,U.S.A. See pp. 33–36. That section is insimplified layman’s language; for scientificdetails one should consult the scientific part,Appendix C.

2. Humphreys, Ref. 1, p. 91 (Appendix C).

3. Humphreys, Ref. 1, p. 105, eq. (12).

4. Humphreys, D.R., 1998. New vistas of space-time rebut the critics. CEN Tech. J.12(2):195–211. See p. 210, section 12.2 andFig.12.

5. Humphreys, Ref. 1, p. 62 (Appendix B).

Gospel in the stars

I hope that Danny Faulkner’srecent article, ‘Is There a Gospel inthe Stars?’ (CEN Tech. J.,12(2):169–172) will stimulatefurther research in this area. Hisarticle was mainly a critique of booksby Joseph Seiss1 and E.W. Bullinger2

on this topic. Among other things,Faulkner cites discrepancies betweenthe star names and meanings givenby Seiss and Bullinger and thosegiven by standard secular sources.

A major thesis of Seiss’s book isthat the original constellationsdepicted an outline of the work ofChrist, the nature of His Church, andthe consummation of all things whenHe returns; and that this outline wasknown to Noah. Seiss cites asevidence the similarity of thezodiacal constellations across all themajor ancient civilizations. Heclaims, very plausibly, that with timethe original meanings becamesomewhat obscured. In this way, themythologies of later civilizations,notably the Greeks, would containboth glimpses and also distortions ofthe constellations’ originalmeanings.

To check Seiss’s claims, it wouldbe important to research the mostancient names and given meaningsof the stars. It would also be essentialto publish the detailed references forthe results, which unfortunately wereomitted by Seiss. He did cite generalreferences such as writings by theArab Albumazer over 1000 yearsago, a commentary on Albumazerwritten by the Jewish Aben Ezra, andlater writings by French and othersceptics who claimed that the gospelwas simply adapted from myths andastronomical lore known to ancientcultures. I would hope that someindividuals qualified in Arabic,Hebrew, and ancient Middle Easternlanguages could start from these and

then follow the leads back in time asthoroughly as possible.

Meanwhile, as one way tostimulate discussion, consider themajor two stars in the constellationLibra: ‘Zuben al Shemali’ and‘Zuben al Genubi’. In ModernArabic, as Faulkner points out, thesenames are understood as the‘northern claw’ and the ‘southernclaw’, respectively. They are con-sidered as the claws of Scorpio, theneighboring constellation, and Libradoes not even exist as a separateconstellation in modern Arabcultures.3 On the other hand, Seissclaims that these names mean,respectively, ‘the price whichcovers’, and ‘the price deficient’,representing the work of Christ asopposed to the efforts of men inredemption. Libra means a scale, orbalance, and these two stars appearon the two opposing sides of thescale.

To see if there might be othermeanings for these stars in classicalArabic, I consulted the voluminousArabic-English Lexicon by Lane.3 Iam not an Arabic scholar, but itappears that in classical Arabic theconsonants are most important, since(as in classical Hebrew) most vowelswere not usually explicitly written.Evidently zabuun is a major word,meaning ‘push’. The derivativeword zubaanaa is applied to theclaws of the scorpion, because thescorpion ‘pushes’ with them.3

However, zabuun has othermeanings related to purchasing, suchas a ‘simpleton’ or ‘fool’ who is‘pushed around’ and is duped in asale.3 The most ancient meaning ofzabuun is apparently related to aChaldean verb meaning ‘to sell’.3This meaning survives in Hebrew aszeeben, and is written similarly tozaven, meaning ‘to buy’. So, ‘price’is not a far-fetched meaning for thisroot.

Further, shamaaliy does mean‘northern’ or ‘left’. However, somewords with the same consonants,such as shamila, refer to clothingwith which one ‘wraps’ or ‘covers’

Documents

Letters to the editor - icr.org · CEN Technical Journal 1313(1) 1999 4949 Letters to the editor The ‘tone’ of contributions As a relative newcomer toCEN Tech. J., I am glad to