Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight

OK but explain to me how M-M does not disprove this guys theory. If the
path heading toward the observer is traveling at infinite speed, and the
path perpendicular to it is traveling at c, and the distances of each path
is the same, how can they possibly arrive together?

The beauty of the M-M experiment is that it does not require any clocks to
be synchronized. And since the device was placed on a turntable, and they
could test from all directions, and the results were always the same, this
proves that the speed of light is isotropic. I am sure there are more
subtlelties to this than are beyond my understanding, but I dont see how any
theory that claims that light moves instantaneously when moving toward the
observer, has any validity.

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; "Rich Blinne"
<rich.blinne@gmail.com>; "Duff,Robert Joel" <rjduff@uakron.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 7:11 PM
Subject: 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.

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 21:39:48 2006