Haha wow you really are all over the place aren't you? Throwing around light theory mixed in with the Doctrines of Grace and John Calvin. This must be the ADHD method of discussion haha. Actually many Scientists are moving away from the Isotropic Light Model because it provides a lot of time problems for the big bang. I think the an-isotropic model is a more valid model. Which can be summed up by the Astrophysicist Robert Newton as follows...
"..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."
So this would mean that whenever you observe something happen in Space it actually just happened, rather than 13 billion years ago or however many light-years the object is away. This model holds up in all the tests so it really is an exciting new approach.
37 comments
... and it moves infinitely fast when travelling directly toward the observertravelling instantaneously from point A to point B. was bad in Physics class after all, but I think that's not how it works in real life.
Not fundie, just stupid.
haha.
Actually many Scientists are moving away from the Isotropic Light Model because it provides a lot of time problems for the big bang.
Even if this were true, how would it prove "God"?
That's really what you are arguing, isn't it?
It might hold up in all the tests you've done, dearie. Have any real scientist done tests with your model?
Why would light travel at different speed depending on where the observer is?
image
We have Albert. We win.
Except for all the tests where it doesn't. Spacecraft we send to other worlds beam their transmissions in radio light directly towards us and it has travel time. Part of the whole basis of Einstein's Special Relativity is the fact that without a constant speed of light for all observers, a lot of oddball causality stuff crops up, even at low speeds.
There are so many logical inconsitencies that come with this "speed varies with the observer" thing that even a moment's thought about it causes it to fall apart.
The bizarre argument, combined with the name (which is from the two hecklers in The Muppet Show), makes me think this is a Poe.
Actually, let me amend that: it makes me HOPE it's a Poe.
I mean, does this guy realize that shining a flashlight at someone, under this "model," would mean that the same light is travelling at half the speed of light AND at infinite speed? It just doesn't hold up even under the most cursory scrutiny.
This is absolutely brilliant news! I feel a Nobel coming on for someone. Unfortunately, the Nobel is winging its way in the wrong direction so that it appears to be travelling at twice the speed of light and is therefore going back in time. A puzzled stone-age bloke is gonna rub the sore lump on his head and say, "Ug! Ooga! Og!?", which translates to, "Oi! What numpty threw this piece of crap!?"
Unfortunately for creationists, the anisotropic ("one way") speed of light *has* been tested. Result: same speed in all directions at all times.
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/fcc5f05c5e44
Keep on squeezing your petty conception of God into those smaller and smaller gaps, guys. Pretty soon you'll have him down to nothing at all.
Two people stand looking at a lightbulb, one north of it and one east. How fast is the light going when it travels and hits Mr North, 1,079 KM/Hr or making instantaneous leaps? When does the last ray of light get to Mr North when the light is turned off?
Dumbarse.
If light traveled instantaneously then the energy would vaporize us. E=MC2 . That's not just a fancy set of letters, it MEANS something and that something is that increasing the speed of light increases energy output.
Furthermore, I looked up your "astrophysicist" and 1) there is no Robert Newton. 2) the man I found is called Dr. Robert NEWMAN, Professor of New Testament at the Biblical Theological Seminary of Hatfield, Pennsylvania. In other words, someone who's commenting on something he has no expertise in.
Edit: Okay, I found a Robert Newton (after a LOT of searching) who's a writer for Answers in Genesis which already makes the source dubious. And I can't find any peer-reviewed publishings by him or any writings AT ALL outside of AiG. What kind of astrophysicist doesn't write down his observations and data? Not only do you have some crackpot nobody spouting some nonsense proposition but this person can't even be arsed to even do any fake research. Instead, he relies on using a bunch of big words hoping people will simply be intimidated by them and simply believe what he says. Unfortunately, he might be right (About people taking his word for it, not about his "theory". That piece of crap couldn't be more wrong).
Robert Newton was indeed a physicist and astronomer. However, Dr Jason Lisle, who actually wrote this utter drivel is not.
"This model holds up in all the tests so it really is an exciting new approach."
What tests? What on earth is going on your head?
@NonProphet :
The bizarre argument, combined with the name (which is from the two hecklers in The Muppet Show), makes me think this is a Poe.
Actually, let me amend that: it makes me HOPE it's a Poe.
If you've ever spent any time on Atheist Forums talking to this moron, you'd know he's no Poe. If he is, he's been at it for years.
Every time I submit something from him and it gets featured here, people assume "Poe" but this is the real deal ignorant Dunning-Kruger effect creationist fundie.
>>Swede
>Why would light travel at different speed depending on where the observer is?
Well in a sense it does. When physicists talk about the speed of light as a constant (C), they are referring to the speed of light through a vacuum.
The speed of light through a medium does vary, depending on the density and temperature of the medium. On the Earth's surface, the sun light you see, slows down by about 88 kilometers/sec once it enters the Earths atmosphere. If you were underwater, the water would slow it down even further.
Under the right conditions it is possible for light in a medium to travel at C, but typically this doesn't happen.
> Actually many Scientists are moving away from the Isotropic Light Model because it provides a lot of time problems for the big bang.
[citation needed]
> ..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 observertravelling instantaneously from point A to point B.
Of course, since every single particle in the universe is an observer, your theory breaks down since light will always be moving both away from and toward an observer. Does light travel at both 149,896 km/sec and infinite speed simultaneously?
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 observertravelling instantaneously from point A to point B."
Let's suppose two people are standing 1,079 million kms apart. The person A sends the person B a light signal. From A's point of view, the signal would get to B in an hour. From B'a point of view, as per Dr. Lisle's theory, the signal got to him instantly. So B replies to that signal by sending a signal back to A, who instantly receives the reply to his signal which, from his point of view, hasn't even reached its destination yet. That's called a space-time paradox, which Dr. Lisle could easily avoid by renting a working brain.
Incidently, a scientist writing under a pseudonym, itself seems suspicious enough. The fact that the chosen pseudonym just happened to be the real name of a real astrophysicist who just happens to be dead, says "intellectual fraud" in big bold letters.
Yeah, I looked at this when Jason first posted this claptrap on his blog. Some physics PhD candidate wrote his dissertation about the whether or not we could tell if light moved faster in one direction (call it east-to-west) than another, and his conclusion was that we couldn't. Sure, you can make a detector and measure the speed of light, and then turn it around, but the speed of the detector signal returning would be effected too and cancel out.
The problem is that the author's math required that the change in speed had to be the same at every point in the universe. Jason wants to claim that the result means that light can move towards the super-special Earth at infinite velocity, but moves away much faster. That scenario would be detectable, and definitely does not follow from the conclusions in the paper.
It holds up in all the tests? What tests? While I don't claim to really get this subject, it seems like really testing it would be a little difficult. Also, you should probably not make fun of ADHD and then end the same sentence with an unpunctuated haha.
Well, sure it holds up to travel-time tests, but that's because you *selected the parameters to do that*.
It reminds me of a certain Ptolemy, who was accused of creating an ad hoc cosmology, with more complexity added to adress any problems, instead of searching for more accuracy.
As an example, I could say that light travels infinity fast away, and at half-speed towards, which is *just as valid*, and end up with a universe that is supposedly twice as old.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
