I notice that nowhere is there anything approaching evidence for that instantaneous light speed.

on another note, frauds and errors do happen which is why the Piltdown man is the perfect example of good science, it was studied further and debunked.
If science had followed the religious route it would have dusted its hands off and said "that we know and nothing can ever change it" which is why we still get people tying themselves in knots to try and justify believing in stupid idiotic things such as a young earth.

Edited to remove the massive quote of waldorf which for some reason my hide tags wouldn't cover.

Jesus titty fucking christ that was a long post.

(November 19, 2013 at 5:51 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Fuck off Statler,

Spoken like a true intellectual.

Quote: Romers [sic] discovery was the one way speed of light heading towards Earth.
Directly contradicting Lisles bullshit dressed up as science.
And all your lame attempts to say otherwise with crap like "conventions" are so much piss and wind.

No it was not, it pre-dated relativity and now we know that it requires a synchrony convention because motion affects time passage. You should not try to address a subject you are so clearly ignorant of.

Even your beloved Wikipedia demonstrates that you are just wrong…

Quote: When using the term 'the speed of light' it is sometimes necessary to make the distinction between its one-way speed and its two-way speed. The "one-way" speed of light from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector. What can however be experimentally measured is the round-trip speed (or "two-way" speed of light) from the source to the detector and back again. Albert Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. The constancy of the one-way speed in any given inertial frame, is the basis of his special theory of relativity although all experimentally verifiable predictions of this theory do not depend on that convention.[1][2]

Experiments that attempted to directly probe the one-way speed of light independent of synchronization have been proposed, but none has succeeded in doing so.[3] Those experiments directly establish that synchronization with slow clock-transport is equivalent to Einstein synchronization, which is an important feature of special relativity. Though those experiments don't directly establish the isotropy of the one-way speed of light, because it was shown that slow clock-transport, the laws of motion, and the way inertial reference frames are defined, already involve the assumption of isotropic one-way speeds and thus are conventional as well.[4] In general, it was shown that these experiments are consistent with anisotropic one-way light speed as long as the two-way light speed is isotropic.[1][5]

Quote: Although the average speed over a two-way path can be measured, the one-way speed in one direction or the other is undefined (and not simply unknown), unless one can define what is "the same time" in two different locations. To measure the time that the light has taken to travel from one place to another it is necessary to know the start and finish times as measured on the same time scale. This requires either two synchronized clocks, one at the start and one at the finish, or some means of sending a signal instantaneously from the start to the finish. No instantaneous means of transmitting information is known. Thus the measured value of the average one-way speed is dependent on the method used to synchronize the start and finish clocks. This is a matter of convention.” [Emphasis added by SW]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

Look at that! Exactly what I have been telling you for years now. Romer did not measure the one-way speed of light.

Quote: As demonstrated by Hans Reichenbach and Adolf Grünbaum, Einstein synchronization is only a special case of a more broader synchronization scheme, which leaves the two-way speed of light invariant, but allows for different one-way speeds. The formula for Einstein synchronization is modified by replacing ½ with ε:[4]

…
As required by the experimentally proven equivalence between Einstein synchronization and slow clock-transport synchronization, which requires knowledge of time dilation of moving clocks, the same non-standard synchronisations must also affect time dilation. It was indeed pointed out that time dilation of moving clocks depends on the convention for the one-way velocities used in its formula.[17] That is, time dilation can be measured by synchronizing two stationary clocks A and B, and then the readings of a moving clock C are compared with them. Changing the convention of synchronization for A and B makes the value for time dilation (like the one-way speed of light) directional dependent. The same conventionality also applies to the influence of time dilation on the Doppler effect.[18] Only when time dilation is measured on closed paths, it is not conventional and can unequivocally be measured like the two-way speed of light. Time dilation on closed paths was measured in the Hafele–Keating experiment and in experiments on the Time dilation of moving particles such as Bailey et al. (1977).[19] Thus the so-called twin paradox occurs in all transformations preserving the constancy of the two-way speed of light. [Emphasis added by SW]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

As I have also told you, the difference observed by Romer was due to time dilation caused by the positional change in the Moons he was observing.

Quote: The Reichenbach-Grünbaum ε-synchronization was further developed by authors such as Edwards (1963),[44] Winnie (1970),[17] Anderson and Stedman (1977), who reformulated the Lorentz transformation without changing its physical predictions.[1][2] For instance, Edwards replaced Einstein's postulate that the one-way speed of light is constant when measured in an inertial frame with the postulate:

The two way speed of light in a vacuum as measured in two (inertial) coordinate systems moving with constant relative velocity is the same regardless of any assumptions regarding the one-way speed.[44]

So the average speed for the round trip remains the experimentally verifiable two-way speed, whereas the one-way speed of light is allowed to take the form in opposite directions:

[Image]
κ can have values between 0 and 1. In the extreme as κ approaches 1, light might propagate in one direction instantaneously, provided it takes the entire round-trip time to travel in the opposite direction. Following Edwards and Winnie, Anderson et al. formulated generalized Lorentz transformations for arbitrary boosts of the form:[2] [Emphasis added by SW]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_spe...way_speeds

Again, exactly as I have been telling you for years; you could have actually read up on the material and saved us both a lot of time. Then again, I would not have been able to have the great satisfaction of proving you wrong by using your own beloved source of information.

(November 19, 2013 at 6:01 am)Esquilax Wrote: All of which, funnily enough, were found to be false and corrected by those same secular sources, and not theistic ones.

You’re overplaying your hand, the Piltdown man hoax was not discovered to be a hoax until 40 years after its publication, and it was not exposed by a scientific journal but rather by Time Magazine. Secondly, if your peer-review system is so amazing, then how were such frauds and hoaxes allowed to ever be published in the first place? A human skull, orangutan jaw bone, and chimpanzee teeth? Give me a break.
Woo-suk’s fraudulent work was published not once, but twice by Science. The fraudulent work was not detected by any of the reviewers or the editor of Science but rather by Seoul National University. Again, if your system is so great, how could something like this get published….twice?
Schön’s fraudulent work was published by both Science and Nature and was not exposed as a fraud by either. It took other Physicists noticing after the publication that many of his data and graphs were obvious duplications and fabrications to expose the hack.

(November 19, 2013 at 6:25 am)Beccs Wrote: I just can't resist commenting on the ignorance of creationists. Especially the YECS.

Asserting someone is ignorant is one thing; actually demonstrating that they are is something completely different. You seem to conveniently be a fan of the former.

(November 19, 2013 at 12:57 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: It's a moot point now. I was merely pointing out that your post would require all oceanic crust to have been generated during or after the Noachian flood. Since that is indeed what you claim, it's somewhat irrelevant now

Fair enough my friend.

Quote:Ok, but since the distance of a galaxy is calculated using "standard candles" and luminosity, the distance remains the same regardless of the convention employed. If the manner of calculating cosmological redshift is also the same, then it would appear that mature creation is a necessary conclusion. It would also seem to imply that galaxies were created in varying states of "maturity" that are inversely proportional to distance.

I am not following you on the varying stages of maturity part. Yes, the distances are the same but light traveling towards Earth reaches Earth instantaneously- solving any “starlight time problem”. The term mature creation is a bit misleading, but yes the galaxy would be created fully functioning much as we see it today just like the Earth and Adam were created.

Quote: I suppose you could also posit that the galaxies underwent massively accelerated development during creation week, with those furthest away being created later (and subject to the same inverse proportionality) and thus subject to a shorter period of rapid development, but this would seem to conflict with the biblical account.

Actually this is a bit like one of the two cosmological models preferred by CMI (I prefer ASC because I think it is simpler). During creation week as the stretching of space was accelerated you’d experience huge levels of time dilation towards the edges of the Universe. One great strength of this model is that it does not require any dark energy or dark matter.

Quote: True, but if I've understood Lisle's paper on ASC correctly then time dilation is relative to position rather than speed. If this is the case, then surely the transmissions would still have been received almost instantaneously and would instead have been subject to a doppler shift.

Yes, under ASC the time dilation is due to a change in position rather than in velocity as in the Einstein convention. So it’s two different ways of explaining the same phenomena. I have to know more about exactly how the delay was experienced in the Apollo missions and according to whose clock.

Quote: It strikes me that a time dilation of such magnitude being caused by positional time dilation would be easily tested

Well we know that such dilatations occur; we just have to stipulate whether it is due to a change in position or velocity.

Quote:
Review of experiments to test the isotropy of the speed of light
K.C. Turner and H. A. Hill

Thanks! It’s an interesting subject because there really is no experiment that can calculate the one way speed of light without first assuming what it is trying to prove. Lisle is not the first to use such an anisotropic convention, he is merely the first to explain how it could apply to Genesis 1 and distant stars.

Quote: I think there was one found recently that is just over 5000 years old, but either way, those are just the trees that are still living. We also have samples from dead trees which I believe date back about 9000 years.

I think I remember reading an article on those trees, but it seemed that they were making some rather dubious assumptions in order to arrive at those dates (much like we see when they use ice core dating). I’d have to go back and look. You do not find it a bit odd that there are not any living trees that are 10,000 years old? I see no reason why there wouldn’t be given a deep time model for the Earth’s history.

Quote: Rings are not just used to determine the age of tree, they give a lot of information regarding the history of the tree, the area in which it grew and the climactic conditions at that time, so any such period of special conditions should be easily identifiable.

I am not sure, possibly.

Quote: The occurrence of double tree rings in bristlecone pines is very rare [Ferguson, 1968, p.840]. Missing rings occur far more often, so if anything, you're far more likely to get an age that is too young, rather than too old.

In the study performed by Glock in 1960 entitled, “Classification and multiplicity of growth layers in the branches of trees” they found that Bristlecone Pines in the White Mountains add multiple rings per year more than twice as often as they do a single ring per year.

In his book The Genus Pinus N.T. Mirov states concerning Bristlecone Pines and multiplicity, “Apparently a semblance of annual rings is formed after every rather infrequent cloudburst.” If we had a climate that was very dry with periods of occasional rain we could generate many rings per year.

Quote:While the article looked into the arks ability to self-right, it didn't appear to take into account its stability in strong waves and winds. With a strong, side on wind in a rough sea, the ship will roll much harder. Without a method of propulsion, this is quite a problem.

It also didn't seem to account for the stresses and strains caused by twisting and rolling. With wooden ships this size, this puts incredible strain on the hull planks and creates gaps which let in water. 18th century wooden ships were no more than 2/3 of the size, had bilge pumps, much shorter voyage times and the opportunity to repair damage.

I believe ships from that time period (the 18th Century) were actually inferior in technology to ships from antiquity because they did not use mortice and tenon joints due to time constraints. The Leontifera was a large war vessel from 200 BC that housed 1600 men and had 100 rowers on each side of the ship (making it between 400 and 500 feet long). Athenaeus describes a warship built by Ptolemy Philopator around 200 BC. The ship was 420 feet long, 57 feet wide, and 72 feet high. This is almost identical in size to Noah’s vessel. The ship also housed 7,250 men and supplies for all of them. I do not think we give men of antiquity enough credit for their genius.

Quote:Aside from the massive impact forces involved in the collision of tectonic plates moving at those speeds? No problem at all. I don't really need any other problems.

Yes, that might kill everyone on Earth….wait….

Quote: Even if we allow the movement of the plates to be spread out over the entire year, the forces involved in the collision of tectonic plates at such speed would be......noticeable.

Yes, I do not see a problem with that; we know this was a catastrophic event killing all but eight people.

(November 19, 2013 at 4:01 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I notice that nowhere is there anything approaching evidence for that instantaneous light speed.

That’s because it is a convention, that’s as absurd as saying, “I notice that nowhere is there anything approaching evidence for the metric system.” There is just as much evidence to support such a notion as there is to support a finite speed towards the observer (velocity dependent system). Conventions are stipulated; they are not demonstrated.

Quote: on another note, frauds and errors do happen which is why the Piltdown man is the perfect example of good science, it was studied further and debunked.

Allowing something as ridiculous as the Piltdown man to be published in the most prestigious secular journal in the world and not being debunked until 40 years later by a news magazine is your idea of “good science”? I guess we just differ on our notions of good science.

Quote: Jesus titty fucking christ that was a long post.

I had a lot to respond to. I try to take the time to respond to everyone’s points, you’re welcome.

(November 20, 2013 at 8:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You’re overplaying your hand, the Piltdown man hoax was not discovered to be a hoax until 40 years after its publication, and it was not exposed by a scientific journal but rather by Time Magazine. Secondly, if your peer-review system is so amazing, then how were such frauds and hoaxes allowed to ever be published in the first place? A human skull, orangutan jaw bone, and chimpanzee teeth? Give me a break.

Um, because the people doing the review are still people? This is so typical of theists, this mistake that, for something to be sufficient it needs to be perfect, and if it's not perfect, it's insufficient and a failure. Mistakes happen, but the important part, the thing that separates science from religion- in every respect- is that those mistakes are found out and corrected.

Did you happen to look into who made the findings that Time published, incidentally? It was a trio of scientists, which plays into my wider point: you don't understand peer review, which is why you believe I've overplayed my hand.

Quote:Woo-suk’s fraudulent work was published not once, but twice by Science. The fraudulent work was not detected by any of the reviewers or the editor of Science but rather by Seoul National University. Again, if your system is so great, how could something like this get published….twice?

So, what you're saying is that scientific peers went out and reviewed the findings, and corrected them? Could you do me a favor and make sure you know what you're talking about before you seek to correct me? Peer review is a continuous process by the scientific community, and not one that's finished upon publication. The whole idea is to root out mistakes; one of the reasons Piltdown Man stands out is because it did take so long to discover it was a hoax, and that's unusual.

Quote:Schön’s fraudulent work was published by both Science and Nature and was not exposed as a fraud by either. It took other Physicists noticing after the publication that many of his data and graphs were obvious duplications and fabrications to expose the hack.

Peersi, review... peer review!

And notably, you didn't address my actual point, you just slung mud. Attack, attack, attack, right?

Scientists were the ones that corrected those mistakes, while the apparent guardians of an omnipotent being's words... did what? Disagreed? Where were their facts? Nowhere to be found. When these hoaxes are found out, it's never priests that do the finding.

That's the difference: science corrects itself, discovers things, makes itself better. Creationism is exactly as wrong as it'll ever be, and that's substantially wrong.

(November 20, 2013 at 8:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 19, 2013 at 5:51 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Fuck off Statler,

Spoken like a true intellectual.

Quote: Romers [sic] discovery was the one way speed of light heading towards Earth.
Directly contradicting Lisles bullshit dressed up as science.
And all your lame attempts to say otherwise with crap like "conventions" are so much piss and wind.

No it was not, it pre-dated relativity and now we know that it requires a synchrony convention because motion affects time passage. You should not try to address a subject you are so clearly ignorant of.

Even your beloved Wikipedia demonstrates that you are just wrong…

Quote: When using the term 'the speed of light' it is sometimes necessary to make the distinction between its one-way speed and its two-way speed. The "one-way" speed of light from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector. What can however be experimentally measured is the round-trip speed (or "two-way" speed of light) from the source to the detector and back again. Albert Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. The constancy of the one-way speed in any given inertial frame, is the basis of his special theory of relativity although all experimentally verifiable predictions of this theory do not depend on that convention.[1][2]

Experiments that attempted to directly probe the one-way speed of light independent of synchronization have been proposed, but none has succeeded in doing so.[3] Those experiments directly establish that synchronization with slow clock-transport is equivalent to Einstein synchronization, which is an important feature of special relativity. Though those experiments don't directly establish the isotropy of the one-way speed of light, because it was shown that slow clock-transport, the laws of motion, and the way inertial reference frames are defined, already involve the assumption of isotropic one-way speeds and thus are conventional as well.[4] In general, it was shown that these experiments are consistent with anisotropic one-way light speed as long as the two-way light speed is isotropic.[1][5]

Quote: Although the average speed over a two-way path can be measured, the one-way speed in one direction or the other is undefined (and not simply unknown), unless one can define what is "the same time" in two different locations. To measure the time that the light has taken to travel from one place to another it is necessary to know the start and finish times as measured on the same time scale. This requires either two synchronized clocks, one at the start and one at the finish, or some means of sending a signal instantaneously from the start to the finish. No instantaneous means of transmitting information is known. Thus the measured value of the average one-way speed is dependent on the method used to synchronize the start and finish clocks. This is a matter of convention.” [Emphasis added by SW]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

Look at that! Exactly what I have been telling you for years now. Romer did not measure the one-way speed of light.

Quote: As demonstrated by Hans Reichenbach and Adolf Grünbaum, Einstein synchronization is only a special case of a more broader synchronization scheme, which leaves the two-way speed of light invariant, but allows for different one-way speeds. The formula for Einstein synchronization is modified by replacing ½ with ε:[4]

…
As required by the experimentally proven equivalence between Einstein synchronization and slow clock-transport synchronization, which requires knowledge of time dilation of moving clocks, the same non-standard synchronisations must also affect time dilation. It was indeed pointed out that time dilation of moving clocks depends on the convention for the one-way velocities used in its formula.[17] That is, time dilation can be measured by synchronizing two stationary clocks A and B, and then the readings of a moving clock C are compared with them. Changing the convention of synchronization for A and B makes the value for time dilation (like the one-way speed of light) directional dependent. The same conventionality also applies to the influence of time dilation on the Doppler effect.[18] Only when time dilation is measured on closed paths, it is not conventional and can unequivocally be measured like the two-way speed of light. Time dilation on closed paths was measured in the Hafele–Keating experiment and in experiments on the Time dilation of moving particles such as Bailey et al. (1977).[19] Thus the so-called twin paradox occurs in all transformations preserving the constancy of the two-way speed of light. [Emphasis added by SW]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

As I have also told you, the difference observed by Romer was due to time dilation caused by the positional change in the Moons he was observing.

Quote: The Reichenbach-Grünbaum ε-synchronization was further developed by authors such as Edwards (1963),[44] Winnie (1970),[17] Anderson and Stedman (1977), who reformulated the Lorentz transformation without changing its physical predictions.[1][2] For instance, Edwards replaced Einstein's postulate that the one-way speed of light is constant when measured in an inertial frame with the postulate:

The two way speed of light in a vacuum as measured in two (inertial) coordinate systems moving with constant relative velocity is the same regardless of any assumptions regarding the one-way speed.[44]

So the average speed for the round trip remains the experimentally verifiable two-way speed, whereas the one-way speed of light is allowed to take the form in opposite directions:

[Image]
κ can have values between 0 and 1. In the extreme as κ approaches 1, light might propagate in one direction instantaneously, provided it takes the entire round-trip time to travel in the opposite direction. Following Edwards and Winnie, Anderson et al. formulated generalized Lorentz transformations for arbitrary boosts of the form:[2] [Emphasis added by SW]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_spe...way_speeds

Again, exactly as I have been telling you for years; you could have actually read up on the material and saved us both a lot of time. Then again, I would not have been able to have the great satisfaction of proving you wrong by using your own beloved source of information.

All very nice and all entirely beside the point.

The core of Lisles "theory" is that the speed of light coming towards Earth is instantaneous(in a pathetic attempt to make YEC credible).

Romers discovery showed that it isn't. It's the very discovery that showed that contrary to then current belief light had finite velocity.

And you can crap on about conventions as much as you like.

It doesn't matter that it happened before Relativity was formulated, it doesn't matter if we can't prove the velocity to the last MPH.

All that matters is that we know that the velocity of light coming towards Earth is finite, and Lisle is just another liar for jesus.

Oh, and by the way..... fuck you. intellectual enough for you buddy?

(November 20, 2013 at 8:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I am not following you on the varying stages of maturity part. Yes, the distances are the same but light traveling towards Earth reaches Earth instantaneously- solving any “starlight time problem”. The term mature creation is a bit misleading, but yes the galaxy would be created fully functioning much as we see it today just like the Earth and Adam were created.

Sorry, that wasn't very clear. I wasn't suggesting you'd need light to be created in transit. What I meant was that galaxies appear younger, the further away they are. Of course, this is all perfectly in line with the standard model, but in order for ASC to account for it, they would either have to been created in varying states of maturity (inversely proportional to distance), or have been created at different times (again, inversely proportional to distance).

Quote:Actually this is a bit like one of the two cosmological models preferred by CMI (I prefer ASC because I think it is simpler). During creation week as the stretching of space was accelerated you’d experience huge levels of time dilation towards the edges of the Universe. One great strength of this model is that it does not require any dark energy or dark matter.

Yeah, I'm vaguely familiar with it. It would seem that you'd need to invoke certain elements of it in order for ASC to hold up.

Quote: Yes, under ASC the time dilation is due to a change in position rather than in velocity as in the Einstein convention. So it’s two different ways of explaining the same phenomena. I have to know more about exactly how the delay was experienced in the Apollo missions and according to whose clock.

I believe the the approximate communication delay was approx. 2.6 seconds. I was going to say about 1.3 seconds each way, but that's kinda what's in dispute

But as I said, a 2.5 second delay being caused by positional time dilation at a distance of 239k miles should be easily verifiable. If nothing else, any clocks should get further out of synch over time.

[quote] Well we know that such dilatations occur; we just have to stipulate whether it is due to a change in position or velocity.

That's the beauty of it, you don't need to prove the one way speed of light in order to figure it out; you test the time dilation instead. Rather than having 2 synchronised clocks, you have 3. Two of those clocks complete a large circuit (e.g. an orbit of the earth) and third stays in place. You have the two moving clocks travel at different speeds, one very slow and the other very fast. Now if ASC is correct, speed is irrelevant and the two moving clocks should be equally out of synch with the one stationary clock. If ISC is correct, the fastest moving clock should be most out of synch.

Quote:I think I remember reading an article on those trees, but it seemed that they were making some rather dubious assumptions in order to arrive at those dates (much like we see when they use ice core dating). I’d have to go back and look. You do not find it a bit odd that there are not any living trees that are 10,000 years old? I see no reason why there wouldn’t be given a deep time model for the Earth’s history.

I don't find it that odd, no. I mean, something has to be the oldest. We could find another life form that is double that age, you could still ask "why nothing older?" To be honest, when I first heard about those trees I was amazed that anything could live that long.

Quote: In the study performed by Glock in 1960 entitled, “Classification and multiplicity of growth layers in the branches of trees” they found that Bristlecone Pines in the White Mountains add multiple rings per year more than twice as often as they do a single ring per year.

That's strange, Dr Ferguson did an analysis of approx. 1000 bristlecones in the same area and found traces of multiple rings in only a tiny percentage of them.

Quote:I believe ships from that time period (the 18th Century) were actually inferior in technology to ships from antiquity because they did not use mortice and tenon joints due to time constraints. The Leontifera was a large war vessel from 200 BC that housed 1600 men and had 100 rowers on each side of the ship (making it between 400 and 500 feet long). Athenaeus describes a warship built by Ptolemy Philopator around 200 BC. The ship was 420 feet long, 57 feet wide, and 72 feet high. This is almost identical in size to Noah’s vessel. The ship also housed 7,250 men and supplies for all of them. I do not think we give men of antiquity enough credit for their genius.

Oh I completely agree that engineers from ancient times do not get anywhere near as much credit as they deserve. The ship that Athenaeus describes was, according to Plutarch, more of a show piece and could only be moved with great difficulty - it certainly wasn't seaworthy.

I had trouble finding reference of the Leontifera other people than citing James Ussher. It looks like it was the Leontophoros, described by Memnon of Heraclea. I was unable to find Memnon's version, but there appears to be a series of misunderstandings both in Ussher's account and of those quoting him. I was always lead to to believe that the quinquereme had 5 oarsmen on 3 oars, with a 2-2-1 pattern. You can't really judge the length of the ship unless you know the rowing pattern, though I think it's probable that it would have had 3 rows of oars. While it could have been 3-3-2, giving three banks of 100 oars, it could also have been 4-4-2, 5-3-2 or pretty much any other combination. I think it's unlikely that there would have been 3 banks of 100 oars though, as the ship apparently performed very well in combat (during an era in which ramming was a key tactic).

400ft ships tend not to have a good turning circle and given that the Leontophoros could allegedly carry 1200 marines, I think something like a 5-3-2 pattern would be more likely, as it would give the ship extra width (or beam, or whatever ) in order to provide the necessary capacity whilst maintaining the manoeuvrability. This rowing pattern would give the ship a length of roughly 300ft - 320ft (that's off the top of my head, so don't quote me on that. Well, except in your reply ), allow it to retain a reasonable measure of combat effectiveness and still make the vessel an absolute monster compared to the regular sized ships.

Another point I feel worth bearing in mind is the date. These ship are from around 400BC to 200BC and most creationist sources I've found date the flood to around 2300BC, so I think it's fair to say that there would be quite a gap in engineering between those two dates. Egyptian shipbuilders from that time period did use mortise and tenon joints, but strongly relied upon rope lashings to hold the structure together.

(November 20, 2013 at 8:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: [quote=Optimistic Mysanthrope]Aside from the massive impact forces involved in the collision of tectonic plates moving at those speeds? No problem at all. I don't really need any other problems.

Yes, that might kill everyone on Earth….wait….[/quote]

True, but in that eventuality, I think the flood would have been the least notable event. I'm not even convinced that there could have been a world wide flood under those conditions.

(November 21, 2013 at 6:14 am)Zen Badger Wrote: All very nice and all entirely beside the point.

The core of Lisles "theory" is that the speed of light coming towards Earth is instantaneous(in a pathetic attempt to make YEC credible).

Romers discovery showed that it isn't. It's the very discovery that showed that contrary to then current belief light had finite velocity.

I recommend reading Lisle's paper on ASC. A good question would be this: If the difference Roemer recorded of 42 minutes and 10 seconds is accounted for in ASC as being due to relativistic effects, why do you assume that we're seeing distant galaxies in near real time when scaling up the time delay to match the distance of the furthest known galaxy would give a time delay in excess of 33 trillion years?

Lisles paper starts from the proposition that the bible is unarguably true and then bends everything to fit.

It's not even close to being science.

(November 20, 2013 at 10:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Um, because the people doing the review are still people? This is so typical of theists, this mistake that, for something to be sufficient it needs to be perfect, and if it's not perfect, it's insufficient and a failure. Mistakes happen, but the important part, the thing that separates science from religion- in every respect- is that those mistakes are found out and corrected.

It’s a bit troubling that you idolize the peer-review system as the gold standard of science but then when something like this happens you merely waive it off. This was not a simple mistake that snuck by the reviewers this was an egregious (and rather obvious) fraud that snuck by for 40 years. The reason this happened is because the reviewers wanted the Piltdown man to be genuine because it fit their narrative and theory. This proves my point perfectly, if you are trying to capsize the boat your research will never get published no matter how solid it is and if your research supports the Darwinian model it will get published no matter how fraudulent it is.

Quote: Did you happen to look into who made the findings that Time published, incidentally? It was a trio of scientists, which plays into my wider point: you don't understand peer review, which is why you believe I've overplayed my hand.

Time Magazine is not a peer-reviewed journal which proves my point. The peer-reviewed journal published the hoax and never caught it; it took a simple news magazine to catch the hoax.

Quote:So, what you're saying is that scientific peers went out and reviewed the findings, and corrected them?

Nope, I am saying that the institution he worked for caught the hoax, his peers approved the work to be published in Science.

Quote: Could you do me a favor and make sure you know what you're talking about before you seek to correct me? Peer review is a continuous process by the scientific community, and not one that's finished upon publication.

Could you do me a favor and stop committing the fallacy of equivocation? We are clearly talking about the peer-review journal system (which published all of these hoaxes and caught none of them) and not peer review in the general sense of the term. By your new usage of the term all creation science is therefore “peer-reviewed” because it is reviewed by other creationists (peers) after it is released. Now you have really painted yourself into a corner.

Quote: The whole idea is to root out mistakes; one of the reasons Piltdown Man stands out is because it did take so long to discover it was a hoax, and that's unusual.

We do not know whether it is unusual or not, who knows how many hoaxes have gone unexposed in such a corrupt system.

Quote:Peersi, review... peer review!

Fallacy of equivocation again.

Quote: Scientists were the ones that corrected those mistakes, while the apparent guardians of an omnipotent being's words... did what? Disagreed? Where were their facts? Nowhere to be found. When these hoaxes are found out, it's never priests that do the finding.

What on Earth are you talking about? I am arguing against the adequacy of the peer-review journal system and advocating for a system more akin to what Darwin and Newton participated in and you’re tossing in red herrings about priests? You also seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that there are theological peer-reviewed journals; so not only was your point irrelevant but it was wrong.

Quote: That's the difference: science corrects itself, discovers things, makes itself better. Creationism is exactly as wrong as it'll ever be, and that's substantially wrong.

Wrong again, using your new usage of the term “peer review”, creationism is just as peer-reviewed as any other science because it is reviewed by other creationists (peers). You’ve tied yourself in all sorts of knots now.

(November 21, 2013 at 6:14 am)Zen Badger Wrote: All very nice and all entirely beside the point.

I thought that it proved my point that you do not have a clue about what you are talking about rather nicely.

Quote: The core of Lisles [sic] "theory" is that the speed of light coming towards Earth is instantaneous(in a pathetic attempt to make YEC credible).

Yup, and if you use an anisotropic-synchrony convention light does travel to the Earth instantaneously.

Quote: Romers [sic] discovery showed that it isn't. It's the very discovery that showed that contrary to then current belief light had finite velocity.

Light does have a finite velocity; just not when moving towards the observer. Romer did not measure the one way speed of light [“The "one-way" speed of light from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector.”], nor did he prove that it was finite. I will repeat what I posted because apparently you did not read it.

“So the average speed for the round trip remains the experimentally verifiable two-way speed, whereas the one-way speed of light is allowed to take the form in opposite directions:

κ can have values between 0 and 1. In the extreme as κ approaches 1, light might propagate in one direction instantaneously, provided it takes the entire round-trip time to travel in the opposite direction”

Quote: And you can crap on about conventions as much as you like.

And I will since that is what we are talking about.

Quote: It doesn't matter that it happened before Relativity was formulated, it doesn't matter if we can't prove the velocity to the last MPH.

It does matter because not only can you not measure the speed of the light but you cannot even demonstrate its isotropy in one direction [“…those experiments don't directly establish the isotropy of the one-way speed of light.”]

Quote: All that matters is that we know that the velocity of light coming towards Earth is finite

How do we know this? This ought to be good.

Quote: Oh, and by the way..... fuck you. intellectual enough for you buddy?

Nope, but apparently it’s the best you can do.

(November 21, 2013 at 7:58 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: Sorry, that wasn't very clear. I wasn't suggesting you'd need light to be created in transit. What I meant was that galaxies appear younger, the further away they are. Of course, this is all perfectly in line with the standard model, but in order for ASC to account for it, they would either have to been created in varying states of maturity (inversely proportional to distance), or have been created at different times (again, inversely proportional to distance).

Thanks for the clarification. What does a young galaxy look like compared to an old galaxy?

Quote: I believe the the approximate communication delay was approx. 2.6 seconds. I was going to say about 1.3 seconds each way, but that's kinda what's in dispute

So would that be measured by a clock in Houston or a clock on the vessel? If we are measuring the delay using one clock on Earth then it will be identical under any synchrony convention.

Quote: But as I said, a 2.5 second delay being caused by positional time dilation at a distance of 239k miles should be easily verifiable. If nothing else, any clocks should get further out of synch over time.

If I am not mistaken the clocks are out of sync after space travel, I think the question is what causes this, a change in position or a change in velocity?

Quote: That's the beauty of it, you don't need to prove the one way speed of light in order to figure it out; you test the time dilation instead. Rather than having 2 synchronised clocks, you have 3. Two of those clocks complete a large circuit (e.g. an orbit of the earth) and third stays in place. You have the two moving clocks travel at different speeds, one very slow and the other very fast. Now if ASC is correct, speed is irrelevant and the two moving clocks should be equally out of synch with the one stationary clock. If ISC is correct, the fastest moving clock should be most out of synch.

I think the problem here is that distance is a component of velocity, so it is impossible to move the clocks at different velocities without also forcing them to travel different distances. I’ll have to look more into this though. I really do not believe you are going to find anything inherently wrong with ASC (even the RationalWiki article on it states that the math does in fact work and that it is not wrong to use such a convention); the bigger question is whether or not the Bible is using this convention when it describes the events of creation week. That is the only real objection I have seen made to Lisle’s work.

Quote: I don't find it that odd, no. I mean, something has to be the oldest. We could find another life form that is double that age, you could still ask "why nothing older?" To be honest, when I first heard about those trees I was amazed that anything could live that long.

I just find it a bit odd that on an Earth that is supposedly billions of years old there are no trees older than a few thousand years old.

Quote: That's strange, Dr Ferguson did an analysis of approx. 1000 bristlecones in the same area and found traces of multiple rings in only a tiny percentage of them.

That is strange, I am not sure which study to believe.

Quote: Oh I completely agree that engineers from ancient times do not get anywhere near as much credit as they deserve. The ship that Athenaeus describes was, according to Plutarch, more of a show piece and could only be moved with great difficulty - it certainly wasn't seaworthy.

Yes, it was not a very practical vessel, but I do believe it was used on the sea some. I think the impressive thing is that they were able to build such a vessel. Give Noah and his men 100 years and I think it is very feasible that they could have built something like the ark. It’s not like the Bible says one man was able to whip it up in a week or something like that. : )

Quote: I had trouble finding reference of the Leontifera other people than citing James Ussher. It looks like it was the Leontophoros, described by Memnon of Heraclea. I was unable to find Memnon's version, but there appears to be a series of misunderstandings both in Ussher's account and of those quoting him. I was always lead to to believe that the quinquereme had 5 oarsmen on 3 oars, with a 2-2-1 pattern. You can't really judge the length of the ship unless you know the rowing pattern, though I think it's probable that it would have had 3 rows of oars. While it could have been 3-3-2, giving three banks of 100 oars, it could also have been 4-4-2, 5-3-2 or pretty much any other combination. I think it's unlikely that there would have been 3 banks of 100 oars though, as the ship apparently performed very well in combat (during an era in which ramming was a key tactic).

I was using the Usher reference. I believe it is common to give each oarsman about 3-4 feet of space in order to row. We both agree that It was undoubtedly a huge vessel.

Quote: Another point I feel worth bearing in mind is the date. These ship are from around 400BC to 200BC and most creationist sources I've found date the flood to around 2300BC, so I think it's fair to say that there would be quite a gap in engineering between those two dates. Egyptian shipbuilders from that time period did use mortise and tenon joints, but strongly relied upon rope lashings to hold the structure together.

Yes there’d be a bit of a gap, but technology did not develop nearly as fast back then so not a huge gap. Given the time Noah was given to build the vessel I believe it is completely feasible. Most of the technology advances seem to be applying more to vessels that needed to travel great distances and navigate; the ark just needed to float and remain floating.

Quote:
I recommend reading Lisle's paper on ASC. A good question would be this: If the difference Roemer recorded of 42 minutes and 10 seconds is accounted for in ASC as being due to relativistic effects, why do you assume that we're seeing distant galaxies in near real time when scaling up the time delay to match the distance of the furthest known galaxy would give a time delay in excess of 33 trillion years?

He’ll never read that article, that would require work. I am not sure that such time dilations are indeed linear in nature. I believe the time delay is what gives us the instantaneous travel. An imperfect analogy would be time zones. If I fly from Boise, Idaho to Spokane, Washington I can leave Boise at 1PM and arrive in Spokane at 1PM. According to the clocks on the ground my flight was instantaneous. All we have when measuring the speed of light are “the clocks on the ground”. I may be off with this analogy but I have heard Lisle compare ASC to time zones before.

Quote: The thesis that the choice of standard synchrony is a convention, rather than one necessitated by facts about the physical universe (within the framework of the special theory of relativity), has been argued particularly by Reichenbach (see, for example, Reichenbach 1958, 123–135) and Grünbaum (see, for example, Grünbaum 1973, 342–368). They argue that the only nonconventional basis for claiming that two distinct events are not simultaneous would be the possibility of a causal influence connecting the events. In the pre-Einsteinian view of the universe, there was no reason to rule out the possibility of arbitrarily fast causal influences, which would then be able to single out a unique event at A that would be simultaneous with E. In an Einsteinian universe, however, no causal influence can travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum, so from the point of view of Reichenbach and Grünbaum, any event at A whose time of occurrence is in the open interval between t1 and t2 could be defined to be simultaneous with E. In terms of the ε-notation introduced by Reichenbach, any event at A occurring at a time t1 + ε(t2 − t1), where 0 < ε < 1, could be simultaneous with E. That is, the conventionality thesis asserts that any particular choice of ε within its stated range is a matter of convention, including the choice ε=1/2 (which corresponds to standard synchrony). If ε differs from 1/2, the one-way speeds of a light ray would differ (in an ε-dependent fashion) on the two segments of its round-trip journey between A and B. If, more generally, we consider light traveling on an arbitrary closed path in three-dimensional space, then (as shown by Minguzzi 2002, 155–156) the freedom of choice in the one-way speeds of light amounts to the choice of an arbitrary scalar field (although two scalar fields that differ only by an additive constant would give the same assignment of one-way speeds).

It might be argued that the definition of standard synchrony makes use only of the relation of equality (of the one-way speeds of light in different directions), so that simplicity dictates its choice rather than a choice that requires the specification of a particular value for a parameter. Grünbaum (1973, 356) rejects this argument on the grounds that, since the equality of the one-way speeds of light is a convention, this choice does not simplify the postulational basis of the theory but only gives a symbolically simpler representation.

[Emphasis added by SW]

- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacet...nvensimul/

As long as the round-trip speed of light remains c, we can stipulate differing one-way speeds of light.

(November 22, 2013 at 8:05 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Lisles paper starts from the proposition that the bible is unarguably true and then bends everything to fit.

You start with the proposition that the bible is unarguably false and then bend everything to fit. The difference between Lisle and you is that he is intellectually honest enough to identify his axioms.

Quote: It's not even close to being science.

Nothing in the definition of science disallows for the use of axioms.

But you're not being open minded if you don't watch it.


I also don't need someone to put a video up arguing for the existence of Thor, not watch it, to know it is fucking bullshit.

The data is in, the biblical stories are bullshit, the earth is 4 billion years old and the universe is 14 billion years old. Theists lack of understanding of science does not make their superstition real.

(November 22, 2013 at 6:47 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The data is in, the biblical stories are bullshit, the earth is 4 billion years old and the universe is 14 billion years old. Theists lack of understanding of science does not make their superstition real.

Assertions are fun but prove nothing. I find it funny that 50 years ago people like you would have been asserting that they knew the Universe was less than 10 billion years old, but now you know it is 14 billion years old. I wonder how old atheists will know it is 50 years from now? Too funny. To sum it up, you do not know anything.

And yet...he knows that your invisible sky-daddy is a massive pile of bullshit which puts him several miles up the ladder from you.