@ Statler Waldorf

Would you care to comment on how the existence of white dwarf stars (in particular, those in the lower part of the mass range) fits in with the your YEC view of cosmology?

(Yes, I'm perfectly capable of using google to find what AIG et al have to say about it, I'd like your version.)

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(December 19, 2011 at 4:00 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: Yes, I went over with Statler ages ago regarding ASC and the speed of light.
He doesn't seem to quite understand just how impossible space travel would be if we used a different 'convention' than what relativity uses because that would make communication with space probes impossible - communications would arrive to the probes at half the speed of light and return instantaneously.

Nevermind that 'instantaneous' travel being impossible and our assumptions about C have thus far been proven correct as far as telescopes can see - nevermind the practical applications both on the ground and in space that all rely on relativity being absolutely correct.

I'm sorry, Statler, but simply using a 'different measuring tool' doesn't make ASC's idea that the physical constants of the universe aren't exactly the same regardless of the observer's position - including the speed of light and there's plenty of data (like NASA's entire history of space travel) to prove it.[/hide]

After our previous conversations on ASC I eventually just arrived at the conclusion that you didn't even understand the idea well enough to properly discuss it, I see nothing has changed in the last 12 months. You seem to still live under the delusion that conventions are normative rather than descriptive. Space travel and communication would be just as possible using ASC as it is and was using ESC, just like it would have been using English units rather than Metric units.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, buddy.
You alwasy asked me about proving the 'one way light speed" and I gave you evidence of those.
In order to continue your delusion that the entire difference between ASC and ESC is "measuring numbers", you have to ignore all of the practical aspects of relativity that doesn't depend on light going in a circle or being relfected back.
In other words, we would be able to tell if the speed of light was anything other than (just under) 300,000 km/sec.

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(December 22, 2011 at 2:52 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: EDIT:
Oh, there's also this.
Statler and others, if you check out that link, you'll notice that we filthy humans have invented a camera that can capture light in transit.
Perhaps it's just me, but given that we can speed-time light in real time frame-by-frame, we can easily tell now if light moves at a speed other than 300,000 km a second. That is, using a method you creationists can't BS around given that it's been well established in other reliable methods. I have yet to see any such major headlines by anyone anywhere stating that light moves at a speed other than 300000 km/second.

You see! This is what I was talking about, if you actually understood ASC you would not say stuff like this. In ASC light only moves instantaneously towards the observer, so the fact you can capture it en route moving tangentially to the observer is no surprise at all. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

You forgot the other half of ASC's theory - that it would be moving half as fast away from the observer.
Perhaps it was toard/away from the earth?
Does the speed vary depend on on all of the degrees of seporation between the observer and the earth?
The fact is that unless that camera is measuring a speed OTHER than 300,000km/sec, then that already proves it wrong. It could quite literally be any speed and note that the "observer" is neither human or pointed toward or away from the earth. Also note that light is a wave and not a laser line. Given that the wave moves uniformly (as opposed to differing parts of the wave moving at differing speeds) it's easy to tell that it's all moving at one speed and not multiple speeds.
The fact is that your arguement depends completely on the wish-washy definition of what the 'observer' is. Need to solve the 'starlight' problem? The earth is the observer. Need to prove ASC? Make humans and every rinstrament that measures/proves/disproves relativity so the answer keeps coming up ASC or at least could possibily be relativity.
That's why it's completely obvious just how bunk ASC is.

And no, it's not just two methods of measuring the same thing. Imperial and metric would be that. ASC is directly contradictory to relativity because it posits (unlike relativity) that the laws of physics are different depeniding on where you are.
More accurately, ASC is "Whatever makes creationism possible."

It'st he most intellectually dishonest paper I've ever read and the fact that you fight for it so ferverantly despite its many flaws just shows how much you have to warp everything humanity has discovered impirically about the earth, life, and the universe to fit your retarded book just goes to show that you have no credibility at all when it comes to science or astornomy.

Coming in very late again, is Statler actually a young earther? How can anyone seemingly so rational take such an obtuse position? You can't be a young earther and have anything of worth to say. It doesn't really matter how cleverly you dance, your reasoning is ass backwards.

Personally I prefer Christians who have faith without using an inerrant bible as a crutch. The sad thing is there is absolutely no reason a Christian cannot accept all of science as the best methodology for determining empirical facts. I would prefer to hear allusions to the ineffably mysterious from someone with less vocabulary but more sincerity, than I would to hear these clever but cynical rationalizations of the absurd. Statler you waste your gifts.

(December 30, 2011 at 11:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: Coming in very late again, is Statler actually a young earther?

Yes.

Goodness... this thread started 22 days ago and you are still at it :p

Pffft.... That's nothing. Any thread Statler gets in on is potentially never ending.

(December 30, 2011 at 9:13 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: @ Statler Waldorf

Would you care to comment on how the existence of white dwarf stars (in particular, those in the lower part of the mass range) fits in with the your YEC view of cosmology?

(Yes, I'm perfectly capable of using google to find what AIG et al have to say about it, I'd like your version.)

Don't waste your breath CD, Statler can't even come up with a convincing reason as to why god felt it necessary to create supernova remnants in a universe only six thousand years old..

He'll be struggling to even understand your question.

(December 31, 2011 at 2:43 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Don't waste your breath CD, Statler can't even come up with a convincing reason as to why god felt it necessary to create supernova remnants in a universe only six thousand years old..

He'll be struggling to even understand your question.

Shhhh....


I'm doing this for the lulz.

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No I am sorry, "I use the laws of logic because I like the results." does nothing to account for their existence.

So you're asking me to account for why everything in the universe is the way it is?

It is not up to the skeptic to know everything. Nor does the fact that I don't have all the answers mean your position gains any credibility. The burden of proof is on the believer.

You're whole argument is the perplexing non sequitur "nyeth, nyeth, you don't know everything, therefore Jesus".

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote:Interesting article that, it starts by assuming that the bible is correct and anyone who doesnt believe it is wrong.
Yep folks, that thar be real scientifical stuff, yuk,yuk.

You start by assuming the Bible is incorrect and proceed from there, so why are you allowed to start on biased ground but not creationists? Special pleading!

Since all of the discoveries we have made about the universe in the last few centuries flatly contradict the bible it is not an assumption.

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It then goes on to talk about light cones and the like which is real science......

So you must have missed the fact that those light cone diagrams explain exactly how ASC is completely mathematically possible?[/quote]
I must have, maybe you could explain in your own words how it does.

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: And then we get to the crux of the article on page 18, which is basically "a miracle occurs"
Yep, real science indeed......

Quote:Please directly quote where Lisle states a miracle occurs, thanks.

There it is.....
" For all practical purposes, we are using the lower light cone as the surface of simultaneity; except I am displacing it by an infinitesimal amount (ϕ) in order to ensure that simultaneous events are always space-like rather than light-like, thereby making them causally unconnected. This is an anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC) because we are stipulating that light travels at different speeds depending on its direction or position relative to observer O."

No reason why, or how this can happen or anything, just "I am displacing" and suddenly, miraculously, light is capable of instantaneous velocity.

Indeed.

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The "slow transport method" that you claimed Roemer used was actually proposed by Einstein as a way of getting around the problems imposed by time dilation generated when you try to seperate your two measuring devices so as to measure c.

Yes, good so far. Of course Einstein proposed this after he had settled on using ISC because it would only be valid with ISC.

Quote:Since Roemer made his discovery two and a half CENTURIES before Einsteins work he would've known nothing about Relativity, time dilation or the slow tranport method.

Quote:You crack me up, that doesn't stop Roamer's method from using the slow transport method even though it was 'discovered' by Einstein years later, just like people could conduct experiments that involved gravity before the 'discovery' of the laws of motion. The movement of the second clock in the experiment (Jupiter's moon) would be an example of the slow transport method. You are too much Zen.

You really have no idea of what the "slow transport method" is, do you Stat.
See herehttp://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=slow%20transport%20method%20%20einstein&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOne-way_speed_of_light&ei=j8X-TpLKJI_2mAX5iI2YAg&usg=AFQjCNHEi6CGRepOBqpZOlPLcgFZeeg6iw

Specifically "It is easily demonstrated that if two clocks are brought together and synchronized, then one clock is moved rapidly away and back again, the two clocks will no longer be synchronized.[13][14]
If however one clock is moved away slowly and returned the two clocks will be very nearly synchronized when they are back together again. The clocks can remain synchronized to an arbitrary accuracy by moving them sufficiently slowly. If it is taken that, if moved slowly, the clocks remain synchronized at all times, even when separated, this method can be used to synchronize two spatially separated clocks.

So you're telling that Roemer separated Io from his clock at very low speed in order to keep the two synchronised?

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No, I asked where Einstein said it, not where some cretinist fucktard claimed he said it.

Did you notice I didn't have any issues copying and pasting from Lisle's article? Funny how that works huh? Lisle is an appropriate authority on such matters and cites his sources, you can certainly find the piece of Einstein's work he cites and double check it if you don't believe him, however that's not my job to double check all of his facts.
Nope, didn't find it, you'll have to do better than that.

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Translated, " No Scientific body has even looked at it"

Did you miss the part about it being peer-reviewed? You are really off your game today aren't you?
Oh, I saw it but since AIG is famous for its empty claims that means nothing. I did do a search on Google and found only reviews by cretinist groups like AIG and ICR (no surprise there)

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ok then how about a list of institutions that have reviewed it, or even a list of who it has been submitted to?

You'd have to look to the Answers Journal for that information, it's not my job to do your hunting for you just like I wouldn't expect you to find the peer reviewers for Science or Nature.

Sorry pal, but as you said earlier "Assertion made above.....now waiting for proof." or does that only apply to other people, not you?

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

' Wrote:BTW Stat, this place you claim to work at as a scientist. Do they know you're a scientist or do they still think you're the janitor?

John is our janitor. They actually really like the scientific work I do.

And what would that be?

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: I think I agree with that. Nothing wrong with pretending light particles move a different speeds for different observers; even if it seems a bit silly to me.

No more silly than pretending it moves at different speeds dependent on the observer's velocity like Einstein proposed. A lot of this stuff is not intuitive.

You really have no idea at all, Einsteins core premise is that light speed is THE SAME regardless of the observers velocity.
Be a good lad and read up on special relativity before you go spouting about what you think it is.

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: This may be the case for the ASC convention, but certainly not for the ASC model. Occam's razor should apply to the model and its predictions.

It's not a model though, it's a convention. The trick is figuring out which convention of time measurement Genesis uses.

No, the trick is understanding that genesis is a bronze age fantasy with no correlation to reality.

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You see! This is what I was talking about, if you actually understood ASC you would not say stuff like this. In ASC light only moves instantaneously towards the observer, so the fact you can capture it en route moving tangentially to the observer is no surprise at all. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

And you see no discrepancy here? that a light beam that is travelling at infinite speed if viewed from the side will be seen to be travelling at 186000mph.

(December 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(December 22, 2011 at 2:58 pm)helmespc Wrote: That the laws of physics would change based on point of observation is completely without basis in reality. We've never seen it happen and have no reason to believe its true. Simply more wishful thinking by the willfully ignorant.

So you are completely denying Special Relativity? Nice.

No, he's not. But you are completely misunderstanding it.