(March 1, 2011 at 6:25 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Prove it. Devise a test to directly measure the one way speed of light and win the Nobel Prize. Again, I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about. C is obtained by directly measuring the round trip travel time for light and dividing the distance by two, which of course is what those of us who speak English call an average! This average value is the same no matter what convention you use, hence why many scientists were able to calculate a fairly accurate value for c long before the Einstein Synchrony Convention was even developed. I am not the least bit shocked you would not know this though; you don’t even accept the well established historical fact of Jesus’ existence. Thanks for playing though.

I did propose such an experiment in my last post -

The idea was to use the folcott method but add an extra mirror to average between three distances instead of two. If light moves at a constant speed, then there should be no difference between measuring it in one direction (which you can measure using distant radio messages), two directions (standard folcott method), and three directions.
If it moves at two speeds, then there should be two different averages between the two and three mirror method.

Since the turnip insist that light travels slower one way than the other to satisfy his biblical craving, one might presume to put the turnip to the same insipid condition he throws at everyone else in the same way that he throws around his biblical turds - and demand the turnip devise a test to demonstrate that light indeed travel slower when fulfilling creationist fantasy requires it to do so and win his "nobel price".

On the second thought, that would be unfair. That would be to demand from a creationist turnip something only a educated human being with conception of objective rigor can attain. So let's give him a easier test. Let's ask him to demonstrate that light travels slower one way than the other in space at ANY TIME AT ALL, thus giving him a theoretically much larger set of samples to choose from than his, in all likelihood null, set of biblical compliant samples.

So How about it, tulip?

Don't worm around the issue.

(March 1, 2011 at 6:25 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Prove it. Devise a test to directly measure the one way speed of light and win the Nobel Prize.

Since the speed of light has already been determined, I really doubt that I would win the Nobel Prize.

Quote:Again, I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about. C is obtained by directly measuring the round trip travel time for light and dividing the distance by two, which of course is what those of us who speak English call an average!

You can call it an average if you want, but what you're doing here is simply measuring the speed of light, because.... THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT!

Quote:This average value is the same no matter what convention you use,

EXACTLY! Because the speed of light does not fluctuate! It's a CONSTANT, not an AVERAGE!

Quote: I am not the least bit shocked you would not know this though; you don’t even accept the well established historical fact of Jesus’ existence.

"Well established historical fact"? Like I've said before, show me ANY first hand accounts that mention "Jesus" during his alleged lifetime. Oh, yeah. You can't. I don't accept unsubstantiated tales as true without strong evidence. You, on the other hand, believe that the planet is less than 10,000 years old. Which flies in the face of ALL evidence. You believe the Grand Canyon was carved in a matter of days by Noah's Flood. Which flies in the face of ALL evidence. You believe people living in a place that was unknown to Europeans had knowledge of a European deity. Which flies in the face of ALL evidence.

Who is the one that does not accept "well established historical fact"?

(March 2, 2011 at 11:31 am)Thor Wrote: You, (Statler Waldorf) on the other hand, believe that the planet is less than 10,000 years old. Which flies in the face of ALL evidence. You (SW) believe the Grand Canyon was carved in a matter of days by Noah's Flood. Which flies in the face of ALL evidence. You (SW) believe people living in a place that was unknown to Europeans had knowledge of a European deity. Which flies in the face of ALL evidence.

Who is the one that does not accept "well established historical fact"?

I believe Statler's personal insight is not subordinate to a validation discipline. As such his fallacious thinking has caused confusion within his mind.

Just my opinion.

(March 1, 2011 at 8:06 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What are you even talking about? That's been the whole point of this discussion from the get-go. There is no test that can demonstrate light moves at different speeds or the same speed for that matter relative to the observer. All of these tests require a synchrony convention in order to synchronize the clocks. If I use the Einstein Synchrony Convention it will show that light moves the same speed in all directions relative to an observer and that time-dilation due to motion is negligible at speeds not approaching 14 percent of the speed of light, but that's because this convention assumes all of this to be true! If I used the ASC to synchronize the clocks it would show that light moves at different directions relative to the observer and that time-dilation is not negligible even at speeds only 1 percent of the speed of light. That's why these are called conventions. They are different ways of measuring the same observed phenomenon, and to say that one is somehow more “correct” than the other demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

"Convention"? The only convention here is your own, which is to put your interpretation of a dirty little "holy" iron age tract you call "bible" above all else in all fields.

In physics the concept light moving the same speed through vacuum in all direction is not a convention. Convention in fact had called for quite the opposite. For 200 years after Newton accepted convention in physics had said that light could travels in vacuum at different speeds in different directions relative to any observer, until Michelson–Morley experiment in 1877 conclusively proved that this was not so. It was in deference to this convention shattering observational fact, that relativity with its constant 1 way C, was eventually developed.

A very coarse measurement of realtive light speed in two directions that does not need any averaging, and does not even need any clock or synchronization, will crush the ASC version you espoused utterly. All you need to be able to do is to measure the wavelength of light and be able to move. Position yourself between two stationary lightsources and move back and forth between them, measure the Doppler induced changes in the observed wave length of each source as you move back and forth between them. If the measured Doppler change in wave length in one light source is the exact opposite of the doppler change in wave length of the other, then light traveled at the same speed in both directions relative to you. Your ASC and your defense of your "bible" goes into a blackhole.

But if synchronization is what you want, synchronization is what you get. Modern atomic clocks can have independent accuracy of less then 1 second deviation in 1 billion years, and two such modern clocks in two non-accelerated frames of reference can synchronize once, and be quite accurate enough to pin down the one way velocity of light between them to 9 decimal places as they are moved apart, and therefore measure whether light goes faster in one direction then the other between them with 9 orders of magnitudes of precision. I've done the work I asked of you, and nominated a means by which ASC might be demonstrated or shattered to within 9 decimal places. Perhaps a little study of actual physics, as oppose to the garbage swimming around inside your "creation science" "journeys", might save your from the ignominy of the moronic present-in-cosmology-shattering-strenght but even-in-theory-undetectable "ASC" bluster.

I might have said you are confused, but confusion carries an inappropriately passive tone, implying a genuine ignorance. The sort of purposed and willful bullshit-sprouting needed to defend your positive interpretation of that dirty little "holy" iron age tract you call "bible" belies the innocence implicit in confusion. So I will say you are simply full of whatever shit you conceive to be able to prop up your devotion to that sorry collection of iron age goat fuckers' wet dreams.