Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight

It's trickier than that. What the M-M experiment does is compare the travel
times for 2 back & forth light paths which are perpendicular to one another.
Only the speeds for "there & back" are needed. If you assume that clocks
can be synchronized by slow transport then it can be shown that the forward
& backward speeds of light are equal. Or more precisely, either assumption
leads to the other. This is discussed in section 6 of Eddington's _The
Mathematical Theory of Relativity_.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Rich Blinne"
<rich.blinne@gmail.com>; "Duff,Robert Joel" <rjduff@uakron.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 5:11 PM
Subject: 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 19:12:17 2006