Talk:Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism (NCSE)
Morton’s oversimplification of the model
The way he presents the hypothesis is inaccurate. He quotes Humphreys as saying:
“ All relativists think that, while the expansion of space sweeps galaxies apart, the galaxies themselves (and smaller objects) do not change size with the expansion. One explanation (I know of no other) for why that should be so is that the force associated with the expansion is much smaller than the forces binding together stars in a galaxy (or particles in planets, people and atoms). The expansion is only strong enough to overcome the feeble gravitational forces between galaxies. By that view, the fabric of space between particles bound to each other, whether within stars or atoms, continues to expand, sliding past the particles essentially without friction. The calculations leading to equation (14) were for free particles, because that is easier to calculate ... but a simple gedanken experiment suggests the same effect applies to bound particles as well as free ones. Imagine a large box with perfectly reflecting sides. One particle, say a molecule, bounces around in the box in a vacuum. The box itself does not change size, for the reason I offered above, so the molecule does not lose energy to the walls of the box as it bounces off them.”
However, any simple reading of the article (Humphreys 2000) would tell you that this is not quite a quote-mining, but it’s darn close. Look at Morton’s version of the quote then look at the actual one. You’ll see what I mean. I list of the following problems:
A: After the phrase “One explanation (I know of no other) for why that should be so is that the force associated with the expansion is much smaller than the forces binding together stars in a galaxy (or particles in planets, people and atoms).” Morton Omit’s a citation. (Pacher, 1964) (Noerdlinger and Petrosian 1971).
B: The paragraphs above the quote, Humphreys lists a known example of the phenomenon (photons loose energy via expansion by time they reach us) and cites a mechanism of general relativity that causes it. Morton make no mention of any of this in his critique.
C: In the paragraphs following , Humphreys shows that relativistic equations support his theory. The critics make to mention of this at all.--Nlawrence 14:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Another additional factors
As we all know, one of the writters of the article was Glenn Morton. Though Morton has left YEC he is still a firm christian. However, I am conerned with his involvement with the NCSE, a openly humanist organization. This calls into question his motives.--Nlawrence 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
