The best critique of that book comes from a creationist source--Starlight
and Time is the Big Bang" Conner and Page, "Starlight and Time is the Big
Bang," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1998), p. 174-194.
The abstract says, The physics of Dr. Russell Humphreys' new cosmological
model presented in Starlight and Time is profoundly flawed and the
conclusions drawn fromt his model are seriously mistaken. An accurate
treatment of the physics indicates that htis model is actually a trivial
variant of the standard Big Bang model, with its attendant implications for
the age of the Universe, and the Earth time required for light to travel
from distant galaxies to the Earth." p. 174
They state, "The arguments presented in Starlight and tIme sound ingenious
and are attractively presented, but they are flawed in ways which are so
serious as to totally invalidate them. These flaws centre around a series
of misunderstandings about the meaning of General RElativity concepts and
the intepretation of cosmological models based on General Relativity. When
these misunderstandings are corrected it is found that the approach to
cosmology advocated in Starlight and Time is in fact a trivial variant of
the Big Bang model." p. 174
The Creation Research Society Quarterly also states,
"Why, then, does Humphreys get an apparent dilation? Humphreys follows the
calculatoins of Weinberg and Klein, for the collapse of a star. Both of
these authors arrive at equation (3) for comoving observers inside the
star. ON the other hand, for an observer at rest ouside the star they
obtain the static Schwarzchild metric, wherein time dilation does occur.
It is only when one rewrites the interior coordinates in terms of the
exterior, static Schwarzchild coordinates that the apparent time dilation
arises, since then there is a singularity at the Schwarzchild radius. Such
a transformation is needed to describe the collapse of the star in terms of
a stationary human observer outside the star. However, when applied to
Humphreys' model of the universe, such a transformation serves no purpose,
since all observers are, of course, inside the universe. In particular, as
viewed by an earth-based observer, in terms of time measured by his earth
clock, the metric of equation (3) is the pertinent one. Much the same
point has been made by Conner and Page (1995) in their critique of this
model."John Byl, "On Time Dilation in Cosmology," CRSQ 34(1997):26-32, p. 28
Humphreys writes:
"The event horizon of a white hole would be a one-way border which permits
only outward motion through itself. Matter and light waves would have to
move out of a whilte hole, but they could not go back in. Since the
diameter of an event horizon is proportional to the amount of matter inside
it, the event horizon would shrink as matter passes through it and out of
the white hole. The analogy would be a fat man on a very strict diet--no
input allowed, only output!" ~ D. Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time,
(Great Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994), p. 24
The problem with this is that when you travel through ANY event horizon,
the passage of time for you goes to zero. Thus when at the event horizon,
an infinite amount of time passes for the external universe outside of the
black or white hole. If you stand outside of a black hole watching a
friend fall into it, you never actually see him fall into it. His motion
gets slower and slower and then appears to freeze and grow dim.One author I
read a few years ago, said this would be like the frozen grin of Alice's
Cheshire cat. What he sees is that the outside universe is speeding
up--going faster and faster until it is all a blur. Thus we should not see
a universe of a few billion years old, we should see one that is infinitely
old! Humphreys is wrong. Hope this helps.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution