Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight

Didnt the Michelson-Morley interferometer of the late 19th century disprove
this?
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>; "Duff,Robert Joel"
<rjduff@uakron.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight

> Rich -
>
> Sorry, this won't work. How do you "measure the [one way] speed"?
>
> But he's certainly got problems. Hs highly observer-dependent (indeed,
> almost solipsistic) definition of the speed of light violates one of the
> basic postulates of special relativity, that the speed of light in vacuum
> is the same for all inertial observers. If A sents a light beam to B then
> A says that it travels at speed c/2 and B says it moves at infinite speed.
> (& of course other observers will see intermediate speeds.
>
> He also assumes a geocentric universe: Observers in other planetary
> systems would see things very differently. But of course he'll assume
> that there are no such observers.
>
> Furthermore, light isn't just an abstract signalling device but a physical
> phenomenon. I think you'd play hell with Maxwell's equations trying to
> get his ideas to fit.
>
> His argument about synchonization by clock transport is slightly off. You
> can do that if you transport the clock infinitely slowly (i.e., make the
> error as little as need be by moving it slowly enough) - _if_ there are no
> dxdt type terms in the metric. But this is minor.
>
> I need to reflect on this further but it seems to me that this amounts to
> a new version of apparent age.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> To: "Duff,Robert Joel" <rjduff@uakron.edu>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 4:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight
>
>
>> However, using the observational definition of time, the speed of
>> light depends on its direction of propagation relative to the
>> observer. (Again, this is a property of spacetime, and not a property
>> of light. All relativistic particles such as neutrinos would also move
>> at different speeds in different directions.) Light travels at the
>> canonical speed of 1,079 million km/hr only when moving tangentially
>> relative to an observer. It moves at half the canonical value when
>> moving directly away from the observer, and it moves infinitely fast
>> when travelling directly toward the observer—travelling
>> instantaneously from point A to point B.
>> ---
>> This can be tested. Point light directly at you (pretty easy to do).
>> Measure the speed. If we measure the speed coming right at us and if
>> it is not infinity then this is falsified. If you think that spacetime
>> distorts this measurement do it in zero-G just to be extra, extra
>> sure. How did he graduate?
>>
>> On 7/5/06, Duff,Robert Joel <rjduff@uakron.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Could someone look at the article of the day from Answers in Genesis and
>>> tell me if it is as radical as it sounds. By radical I mean that the
>>> proposed explanation for distant starlight brings a very different
>>> perspective to Genesis 1 than is typical of creation scientists. They
>>> way I
>>> read this article it would make a literal reading of Genesis 1 as 6 days
>>> of
>>> creation into an "apparent" six days of creation when in reality God had
>>> been at work much longer (billions of years). Yet, to us it would
>>> appear as
>>> 6 days of work. It seems to me if the logic of this article were to
>>> actually be taken seriously by other creaton scientists it would
>>> undermine
>>> the typical form of literalness that they have so long held fast to.
>>> This
>>> was 2001 article but I never saw it discussed here. Does anyone remember
>>> discussion this particular nuance on the old starlight question?
>>>
>>> I've quoted the most relevant section of the article below:
>>> (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlight.asp
>>> Distant Starlight and Genesis)
>>>
>>> Joel
>>> Akron OH
>>>
>>>
>>> Selected quote:
>>>
>>> "Since the Bible indicates that the stars were visible on Day 4, we now
>>> compute the (calculated) time at which they were created. Alpha Centauri
>>> (a
>>> star 4.3 light years away) must have been created about 4.3 years
>>> 'before
>>> the beginning' (before Day 1) in order for its light to have reached
>>> Earth
>>> on Day 4 of the Creation Week. Likewise, a star 10 light years away must
>>> have been created about 10 years before Day 1. A star one billion light
>>> years away must have been created about one billion years 'before the
>>> beginning' and so on. So, we see that more distant stars were created
>>> earlier than nearby stars. The time of creation depends on the distance
>>> from
>>> Earth. So what appears to be simultaneous according to observed time,
>>> now
>>> appears to be spread out over a long period of time. Which view is the
>>> 'correct' picture? They both are—each according to the chosen convention
>>> of
>>> time measurement.
>>>
>>> But how can a star be created before the beginning? We must remember
>>> that
>>> the Bible's statement 'In the beginning' (Genesis 1:1) is a measure of
>>> time,
>>> and therefore must be the 'beginning' as measured according to observed
>>> time. So although the beginning of the universe occurs simultaneously
>>> everywhere on Day 1 according to observed time, the beginning of the
>>> universe (just as with the stars) occurs at different calculated times
>>> depending on the distance from Earth. Day 1 occurs much earlier for
>>> places
>>> in the universe that are more distant from Earth than nearby places.
>>>
>>> So, we present the following picture of Creation as described in
>>> Genesis,
>>> but converted from observed time to calculated time—first, God creates
>>> the
>>> most distant sections of 'space'. This occurs billions of years ago.
>>> About14
>>> four days later, stars are created in those areas of space. As time
>>> passes,
>>> this creation process moves inward; space is created nearer to Earth,
>>> and
>>> stars are created four days later. About 4.3 years before Earth is
>>> created,
>>> 'the beginning' occurs for the space near Alpha Centauri. Four days
>>> later
>>> Alpha Centauri is created. Finally the Earth is created, but the
>>> starlight
>>> has not yet reached Earth; God provides a temporary light source. Four
>>> days
>>> later, God creates the Sun, the planets and the moon. At this point,
>>> (thanks
>>> to God's innovative method of creation) all the light from all the stars
>>> reaches Earth at exactly the same time. This may seem an unusual method
>>> by
>>> which to create a universe, but then is there a 'usual' method by which
>>> universes are created? This method is compatible with the Word of God;
>>> and
>>> it is compatible with all astronomical observations of which I am aware.
>>> The
>>> God who created space and time should have no difficulty creating and
>>> placing the stars where and when He desires.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 5 17:11:44 2006