More Faster Than Light creationist crap...

Strafe · Post by **Strafe** » 2003-03-26 04:27pm

As far as I know, Creationists love to use Setterfield's "work" as evidence that the speed of light was jumping around like a madman in order to account for all sorts of problems in, for lack of a better term, creationist bullshit.

Of course when confronted with the problems with Setterfield's work they mumble and walk off. Usually anyways...

Well a fundie creationist troll at a board I frequent got her hands on this and started ranting and raving...

MACLEAN'S ARCHIVE

Science
March 24, 2003
IN FROM THE COLD

A Toronto physicist's once-ridiculed theory gains acceptance

MICHAEL J. MARTIN

TORONTO PHYSICIST John Moffat, who has made a career of questioning the cosmos, faces a vexing question himself. Does he feel vindicated, people ask, now that his controversial theory about the speed of light is finally getting the recognition it deserves? The soft-spoken, 70-year-old Moffat might answer with a resounding "yes," if not for a painful irony -- while publicity is shining on his theory, the media are lavishing credit on another scientist.

Since 1991, Moffat has championed the notion that light -- remarkable for its constant velocity -- was travelling much faster just after the big bang created the universe. His theory violates Albert Einstein's universal speed limit. Nothing, Einstein decreed, could ever travel faster that the constant speed of light, not even light itself. Backed by decades of evidence that supported Einstein, Moffat's peers greeted his thoughts with sighs and sneers. Having found a publisher for his ridiculed thesis in 1993 -- a little-known journal, the International Journal of Modern Physics -- he retired from the University of Toronto in the faint afterglow of this achievement,

Then in 1998, two brash, well-connected upstarts from London's Imperial College published virtually the same idea, in Physical Review, a far more prestigious publication. After their own battle with what they call "fossilized" academics and "moronic" journal editors, Andreas Albrecht and Joao Magueijo supercharged their careers with the "varying speed of light," or VSL, theory that Moffat conceived seven years earlier. The presence of a faster speed of light in the early universe may explain many cosmic mysteries, such as how the universe seems so homogeneous from one end to the other.

No one disputes Moffat's primacy in VSL's conception, or that its subsequent resurrection by Magueijo and Albrecht happened independently. Magueijo even devotes most of a chapter of his new book, Faster Than the Speed of Light, to Moffat and the controversy that generated a disclaimer crediting Moffat in a second version of Magueijo's original paper.

That effort to bring Moffat back into the picture has attracted admiration. "Joao Magueijo has probably done far more to recognize John than other researchers would have," says Acadia University physicist and Moffat collaborator Michael Clayton of Wolfville, N.S. Publication may secure partial recognition for an idea, he adds, but "it seems like you still have to sell it. If you don't make noise, people either will not know that your work exists or ignore it."

Toronto intellectual property lawyer James Holloway agrees. "The best thing one can do to secure ultimate credit for work of value is to publish -- and promote." The PR machine behind 35-year-old Magueijo, particularly, has packaged a man variously described by reporters as scholarly, roguish, rebellious, revolutionary and "ridiculously handsome." "The heir apparent to Einstein's kingdom looks like a Gap ad," writes Toronto journalist Mary Rogan in Seed magazine. She calls Magueijo "a dead ringer for Joey on Friends, only better because he's not a moron." Asks Publishers Weekly: "Could Einstein be wrong and Magueijo right?"

Magueijo may not always feel obliged by an onus to correct oversights, either. Moffat says he was perturbed that, in a recent CBC interview, Magueijo "remarkably made no mention of my discovery of VSL." In an irony among ironies, however, Magueijo and Moffat may be the best things that ever happened to one another. If, against the odds, two smart scientific rebels independently conceive -- and champion -- a hopeless idea, then maybe, just maybe, there is hope for it after all.

.......................
WHOA! So then it's NOT just a "crackpot"/creationist theory that the speed of light was faster in the past! This guy is no creationist. Take THAT

I already tore into her for standard anti-creationist reasons, but I'd just thought I'd post this to get your reactions.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-26 04:31pm

Creationists assume that any variance in the speed of light can only lead to the conclusion that the universe is 6000 years old, which is indescribably absurd.

I wrote a little essay debunking that notion.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-26 04:34pm

Victory by default: they act as though this guy's theories have been vindicated by more recent work which does not, in fact, vindicate his theories at all. The creationist requires that the speed of light vary not infinitesimally, but by MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-26 04:44pm

As some may know, Joao Magueijo is portuguese, so I'm more or less aquainted with his work. Obviously, he'd be the first to laugh at the creationists for the strawman appropriation of his work. He defends that there were slight variations of the speed of light, not that it has somehow gone from 3 to 3e8 m/s in ten seconds.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-26 05:44pm

I'm not much of a physics buff, per se. I'm more into Sci-Fi for the literary and cinematographic elements of it. But this has always interested me.

I think it has been said that light can bend when affected by a tremendous amount of gravity; that's a part of one theory surrounding black holes (Hawking, I b'leev). So if gravity can affect the direction of light, would it not also be possible for it to affect the speed of light? Let me expand this question a bit:

Pretend you had a flashlight, and you were in the middle of a black hole (yes, I know, ludicrous. It's hypothetical). If you were to shine the flashlight away from the center of the black hole, theoretically it would just get sucked back in. But in order for light to turn around like that without reflecting off any kind of surface, wouldn't it have to slow down?

Assume that the light WOULDN'T slow down, and just change direction maintaining a constant speed. It travels back toward the center of the black hole. It passes through the black hole and comes out again on the other side. And then it turns around again and heads back. After so many times passing through a black hole, isn't it conceivable that the light would lose some of its velocity?

Pretend now that you were outside of the black hole and shined the flashlight into the center of it. As the light approaches the black hole, instead of bending (it's already on a direct line), would it be possible that the tremendous gravity of the black hole could somehow speed up the light? I mean, if it can affect it enough to bend it, then it may, in theory, affect it enough to make it go faster. Or at least have the potential to go faster.

Again, if I'm missing some obvious and crucial fact about physics, I apologize... Again, I'm not really one for the science, just the fiction.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-03-26 06:20pm

i thought lightspeed was constant and only got distorted into taking a longer path as opposed to varying...im not much of a physics buff either, so be kind

.

Captain Jack · Post by **Captain Jack** » 2003-03-26 06:41pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:I'm not much of a physics buff, per se. I'm more into Sci-Fi for the literary and cinematographic elements of it. But this has always interested me.

I think it has been said that light can bend when affected by a tremendous amount of gravity; that's a part of one theory surrounding black holes (Hawking, I b'leev). So if gravity can affect the direction of light, would it not also be possible for it to affect the speed of light? Let me expand this question a bit:

Pretend you had a flashlight, and you were in the middle of a black hole (yes, I know, ludicrous. It's hypothetical). If you were to shine the flashlight away from the center of the black hole, theoretically it would just get sucked back in. But in order for light to turn around like that without reflecting off any kind of surface, wouldn't it have to slow down?

Assume that the light WOULDN'T slow down, and just change direction maintaining a constant speed. It travels back toward the center of the black hole. It passes through the black hole and comes out again on the other side. And then it turns around again and heads back. After so many times passing through a black hole, isn't it conceivable that the light would lose some of its velocity?

Pretend now that you were outside of the black hole and shined the flashlight into the center of it. As the light approaches the black hole, instead of bending (it's already on a direct line), would it be possible that the tremendous gravity of the black hole could somehow speed up the light? I mean, if it can affect it enough to bend it, then it may, in theory, affect it enough to make it go faster. Or at least have the potential to go faster.

Again, if I'm missing some obvious and crucial fact about physics, I apologize... Again, I'm not really one for the science, just the fiction.

Ok, as I understand it light is not bent by gravity but the space light is traveling thru gets bent. So light is moveing in a strait line thru bent space.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-26 07:22pm

Captain Jack wrote:Ok, as I understand it light is not bent by gravity but the space light is traveling thru gets bent. So light is moveing in a strait line thru bent space.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Assuming that the space light travels through is a vaccuum, how do you bend nothing?

Captain Jack · Post by **Captain Jack** » 2003-03-26 07:31pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Captain Jack wrote:Ok, as I understand it light is not bent by gravity but the space light is traveling thru gets bent. So light is moveing in a strait line thru bent space.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
Assuming that the space light travels through is a vaccuum, how do you bend nothing?

Yes the space is a vacuum. Mass deforms space, deformed space is gravity.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-26 07:47pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:I think it has been said that light can bend when affected by a tremendous amount of gravity; that's a part of one theory surrounding black holes (Hawking, I b'leev). So if gravity can affect the direction of light, would it not also be possible for it to affect the speed of light? ...

Light goes straight--according to the shortest path between two points. Gravity only "affects the direction of light" if you insist on applying the Euclidean metric to space (Newtonian physics) or Minkowski (special relativity). All that shows is that the popular conception of "straight" is not technically correct.

Queeb Salaron wrote:Pretend you had a flashlight, and you were in the middle of a black hole (yes, I know, ludicrous. It's hypothetical). If you were to shine the flashlight away from the center of the black hole, theoretically it would just get sucked back in. But in order for light to turn around like that without reflecting off any kind of surface, wouldn't it have to slow down?

Assume that the light WOULDN'T slow down, and just change direction maintaining a constant speed. It travels back toward the center of the black hole. It passes through the black hole and comes out again on the other side. And then it turns around again and heads back. After so many times passing through a black hole, isn't it conceivable that the light would lose some of its velocity?

Incorrect. Inside a black hole (inside the event horizon, that is), every direction leads to the singularity. There is literally no "away from the center" direction. Light does not have to "turn around" or "slow down" or any such thing.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-03-26 07:51pm

Darth Wong wrote:Victory by default: they act as though this guy's theories have been vindicated by more recent work which does not, in fact, vindicate his theories at all. The creationist requires that the speed of light vary not infinitesimally, but by MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

So it's similar to the YECs using discrepincies in radioactive dating (Point how they vary some), and then assume that they are all several orders of magnitude too high?

Captain Jack · Post by **Captain Jack** » 2003-03-26 07:53pm

Thank you Kuroneko, you explained it better than i could

Erwin Rommel · Post by **Erwin Rommel** » 2003-03-26 09:24pm

I'm not much of a physics buff, per se. I'm more into Sci-Fi for the literary and cinematographic elements of it. But this has always interested me.

I think it has been said that light can bend when affected by a tremendous amount of gravity; that's a part of one theory surrounding black holes (Hawking, I b'leev). So if gravity can affect the direction of light, would it not also be possible for it to affect the speed of light? Let me expand this question a bit:

Pretend you had a flashlight, and you were in the middle of a black hole (yes, I know, ludicrous. It's hypothetical). If you were to shine the flashlight away from the center of the black hole, theoretically it would just get sucked back in. But in order for light to turn around like that without reflecting off any kind of surface, wouldn't it have to slow down?

Assume that the light WOULDN'T slow down, and just change direction maintaining a constant speed. It travels back toward the center of the black hole. It passes through the black hole and comes out again on the other side. And then it turns around again and heads back. After so many times passing through a black hole, isn't it conceivable that the light would lose some of its velocity?

Pretend now that you were outside of the black hole and shined the flashlight into the center of it. As the light approaches the black hole, instead of bending (it's already on a direct line), would it be possible that the tremendous gravity of the black hole could somehow speed up the light? I mean, if it can affect it enough to bend it, then it may, in theory, affect it enough to make it go faster. Or at least have the potential to go faster.

Again, if I'm missing some obvious and crucial fact about physics, I apologize... Again, I'm not really one for the science, just the fiction.

You're assuming Light and the speed of light follow Gallilean (I think, I always mix up scientists) phsyics. Light does not follow common sense rules, light follows a completely different set of laws, best described by Einstein.
And for Moffat, his light decaying principle is garbage. We currently use light to measure great distances or to measure with accuracy, i.e. the distance to the moon was measured by putting mirrors on the moon and shining a laser onto them, and how surveyers use lasers to determine distances on a site. Any decay would be measured and cause proven fact to be void. Now calculating the distance to the moon might cause some contreversy, as we've never taken a yardstick and measured the distance to the moon. But take any ruler, measure 30 feet, and measure with the surveyers instruments and you'll see there should be absolutely no deviation save any human errors.[/quote]

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-26 09:42pm

What I've heard is that the speed of light is constantly slowing...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-27 12:41am

Queeb Salaron wrote:I'm not much of a physics buff, per se. I'm more into Sci-Fi for the literary and cinematographic elements of it. But this has always interested me.

I think it has been said that light can bend when affected by a tremendous amount of gravity; that's a part of one theory surrounding black holes (Hawking, I b'leev). So if gravity can affect the direction of light, would it not also be possible for it to affect the speed of light? Let me expand this question a bit:

No.

Pretend you had a flashlight, and you were in the middle of a black hole (yes, I know, ludicrous. It's hypothetical). If you were to shine the flashlight away from the center of the black hole, theoretically it would just get sucked back in. But in order for light to turn around like that without reflecting off any kind of surface, wouldn't it have to slow down?

You have to remember that gravity is a warp in space time. In a black hole, all roads lead toward the center. Light doesn't really change its direction relative to itself.

Assume that the light WOULDN'T slow down, and just change direction maintaining a constant speed. It travels back toward the center of the black hole. It passes through the black hole and comes out again on the other side. And then it turns around again and heads back. After so many times passing through a black hole, isn't it conceivable that the light would lose some of its velocity?

The photons would lose energy, and their wavelengths would incease. But make no mistake, they'd still be traveling at c. This is what's known as a redshift.

Also, take into account what you're proposing. You're saying that a sufficient amount of gravity will alter the speed of light. However, you can't define a cut-off point or discreet line for this effect to happen without a good reason. If a black hole can alter the speed of light, then other gravitational sources must, as well. That would mean that cosmological redshift would be a hugely flawed calculation.

Pretend now that you were outside of the black hole and shined the flashlight into the center of it. As the light approaches the black hole, instead of bending (it's already on a direct line), would it be possible that the tremendous gravity of the black hole could somehow speed up the light? I mean, if it can affect it enough to bend it, then it may, in theory, affect it enough to make it go faster. Or at least have the potential to go faster.

Black holes don't really alter the direction light travels in. According to the light, it's still merrily going on in a straight line. It always travels along the path that spacetime has laid out in front of it, at a constant velocity. Think of spacetime as a highway. If you're traveling along it, a black hole can suck you off that highway. However, if a photon is going along that highway, the black hole actually alters the highway's direction. The photon will never be pulled off that highway.

I should point out that the speed of light is now a parameter. In other words, it is an exact value that has been derived mathematically. You'd have to build an extremely strong case to get the scientific community to even think about rethinking their understanding of it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-27 12:45am

jegs2 wrote:What I've heard is that the speed of light is constantly slowing...

I'm sure you have. Creationist bullshit is quite widely disseminated. However, the massive disruptions in the constants of physics which would be required for such change are not observable. The fact that we have 4000 year old trees still living on the planet is proof of that (not to mention the Sun; if the speed of light were far greater in the past, its operation would have been different, and life would not have been possible on Earth).

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-03-27 12:56am

Rye wrote:i thought lightspeed was constant and only got distorted into taking a longer path as opposed to varying...im not much of a physics buff either, so be kind .

According to Magueijo the speed of light was varied(faster than now) by the extremely high energy conditions of the very early universe. Light was fast enough to explain certain astronomic phenomena. I read an article, punk rocker physics, cool!!, but it was a while ago and I can't remember the things the VSL was for.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-27 01:04am

C varies, but i dont see how it supports creationist bullshit.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-27 01:05am

Anything which seems to deviate from scientific expectations in any way is always assumed to support creationist bullshit, because they have no comprehension of what it means to support a theory.

von Neufeld · Post by **von Neufeld** » 2003-03-27 02:34am

Here is a link to the article by Albrecht and Magueijo:
http://arxiv.org/ps/astro-ph/9811018

Lord Edam · Post by **Lord Edam** » 2003-03-30 09:39am

Less about VSL and more of an attack on the scientific establishment, Magueijo's new book it quite a decent read.