Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight

LOL

I saw that Robert Newton was a pseudonym, that always raises red flags.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; "Rich Blinne"
<rich.blinne@gmail.com>; "Duff,Robert Joel" <rjduff@uakron.edu>;
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 11:48 PM
Subject: 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.
Received on Thu Jul 6 00:19:20 2006