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