Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight

The Michelson interferometer has a beam splitter & 2 arms of equal length at
right angles along which light travels & is reflected back to the observer.
When the apparatus is at rest, the light takes the same time along both
2-way paths. Relativity says that will also be the case when it's in
motion.

I think the idea is nutty too because it requires that we define the speed
of light of a particular light beam with respect to whoever is observing it.
As I noted before, this means that a person who turns on a flashlight
assigns a velue c/2 to the speed of the receding light while the person at
whom the light is shined assigns it an infinite speed.

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 9:39 PM
Subject: 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 22:00:48 2006