Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight

Robert:
"Robert Newton" now works for Answers in Genesis under the name Jason
Lisle, PhD
I agree with George. The idea is nutty. Lisle's formulation is ad hoc.
Like other YEC attempts at science it explains a small part of the
empirical data while neglecting a vast amount of other data.
Don

George Murphy wrote:

> 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.

-- 
Donald A. Nield
Associate Professor, Department of Engineering Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
ph  +64 9 3737599 x87908 
fax +64 9 3737468
Courier address: 70 Symonds Street, Room 235 or 305
d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
http://www.esc.auckland.ac.nz/People/Staff/dnie003/
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.