(December 2, 2013 at 6:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No, I am “sneering” at them for not having the brains to catch such obvious forgeries from the get-go like creationists do.

You mean like the Ica Stones?

(December 2, 2013 at 6:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 24, 2013 at 8:40 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: New knowledge about early galaxies

Thanks. This seems to be assuming stellar formation and evolution right?

As far as I'm aware, they are the actual images of distant galaxies and are arranged as observed by the Hubble telescope. I understand there are astronomers on this forum though, so they should be far more knowledgeable on this subject than I (which isn't exactly difficult).

Quote:Yes, I believe positional time dilation is the cause (I actually got that from RationalWiki and not from Lisle but I believe it is an accurate representation of the convention). I am not seeing why there would be a change in sound frequency though since the speed of sound is dependent upon the speed of light. I wish I knew exactly how the delay was experienced though.

I believe it was experienced by both parties as an extended delay between the end of their own transmission and the reception of the incoming one.

(December 2, 2013 at 6:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 24, 2013 at 8:40 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: Also, if the time dilation is caused by a change in position rather velocity, then the time dilation would continue for as long as that position is maintained. So the longer the Apollo astronauts were on the moon, the greater the difference in time would have become.

No because I believe it is caused by a change in position since that changes the coordinate system.

So are you saying it's the actual change of position rather than the position itself that causes the time dilation? Lisle makes mention of ASC being position dependant. In particular, he writes:

Quote:However, with ASC, the velocity does not matter. Both earth at creation (O) and earth six months later (O’) have approximately the same position, even though the velocity is quite different. Therefore, under ASC, both would consider the creation of the stars to be simultaneous on Day Four—even for the most distant galaxies.

So if position alone causes a difference in the relative of time, then a greater disparity will occur the longer that position is maintained. Presumably the Lorentz factor would apply in much the same way, only replacing velocity for distance in the calculation.

Quote:Well I never argued that the technology would be closer to that of 200 BC than 2,500 BC, I was merely pointing out that such ships could be built pre-Victorian era. Since man’s technological advances seem to be better fit by an exponential growth curve there would not be a huge difference between 2,300 BC and 200 BC when it came to building wooden ships. Time and material seemed to be the biggest limiting factors and Noah had plenty of both. As for tidal waves, they actually do not affect boats on the Ocean much; most of the devastation is experiences in shallower waters and on the shore.

I'd disagree with you there. There appears to be quite a large difference between the ship building techniques of 2300BC and 200BC. The ships built roughly contemporary to noah were of a far more simple design. The structural design used in the article was simply unknown in that time – and for a long time after, I might add.

I'm not questioning the time and resources available, as I believe the bible makes no mention of how long Noah had to build the ark.

Tidal waves wouldn't be a problem when the earth was flooded, no. But the initial waves that washed over the land would be a bit more...um...concerning.

Quote:It’s a possibility but I do not see it being a necessity. The redemptive history of mankind has taught us that God often will act in a manner that has greater symbolic meaning so I could still see a purpose behind the Ark (most likely a foreshadowing of the coming Messiah).

23 centuries in advance? That's one a hell of a teaser campaign

Quote: I think that is Lisle’s entire point, the one way speed of light is something man stipulates; so we can either stipulate that it travels isotropically independent of one’s position and dependent of one’s velocity or we can stipulate that it travels an-isotropically relevant to one’s position and independent of one’s velocity. The relevant question is which convention does scripture use when it describes the events of creation week?

I dunno, this doesn't seem much different to claiming that Genesis uses non-literal days. I mean it's tantamount to saying that the 6 day creation is a convention rather than an empirical truth. It seems a bit of an odd claim for a YEC, I always thought that the whole point was to take the bible literally.

Quote:What is being challenged is the idea that all life arose from a common ancestor 3.5 billion years ago (also a component of the theory of Evolution). This is not something that is experimentally verifiable.

I'm not sure that is the claim per se. I was under the impression that there is no common ancestor for plants and animals, for instance.

Quote: I believe in miracles.

Where're you from, you sexy thing?

(December 2, 2013 at 6:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 26, 2013 at 9:19 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: One such ramification is that the convention predicts a bounded universe (at least in effect, if nothing else).

Why is that?

Nevermind, I misread one of the paragraphs in the paper and thought the model Lisle's proposed was geocentric. Still, ASC does seem to predict a maximum observable distance, at a great enough distance the time dilation would increase to a point at which time would appear to stop. I'm not sure how that fits in with the expanding universe though. It may well be that this hypothetical boundary expands with the universe, though I'm not sure that would work because of cosmological redshift.

(December 2, 2013 at 6:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 26, 2013 at 10:54 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: I'm convinced that this is where Lisle's ASC is gonna fall flat on it's arse, it's just a case of finding the right place to give it a nudge

I doubt it; Lisle knows his material too well to make a mistake like that. I think you’d be better off reading the reasons why CMI rejects Lisle’s idea. The math works, it is consistent with relativity, they merely disagree that Genesis uses such a convention.

They seem to reject it out of preference, more than anything else. That's not good enough for me. If a different position really does have a different time frame, then it should be possible to detect.

orogenicman Wrote:Except that there is no evidence whatsoever that that is the case.

warped one Wrote:It’s a convention!! You do not look for evidence that supports the metric system over the imperial system.

Utter nonsense. It is not a convention. There is simply no evidence for your claim. AT ALL.

orogenicman Wrote:Yes it is, because there is only one observer, not two. The experiments for two-way speed of light measures the round trip speed of light between two points, hence the synchronization issue. This experiment eliminates that problem by only using one point of measurement. In other words, the starting and stopping point is at the same location, thus there is no synchronization issue. That they used mirrors to get the light back to the origin is irrelevant to the measurement because light reflecting off of a mirrored surface doesn't change velocity, only vector direction. That the entire apparatus rotates and they get the same results verifies the Michelson-Morley experiment. You should also read the last link.

warped one Wrote:No, that is still measuring the round-trip speed of light. Under ASC the light would leave the observer at 1/2C and return instantaneously after bouncing off of the reflector.

If you think that means it is measuring the two-way speed of light, you are mistaken. The problem with one-way speed of light measurements is one of synchronizing clocks at different locations. Because the measurement is being taken at the same location at different times, There is no synchronization issue. And as I have already pointed out, if there was a difference in velocities, there would also be a difference in frequencies; but there is no such shift. Rotating the apparatus in a gravity field and getting the same results proves the constancy of the velocity in all directions, and verifies (for the umpteenth time) the Michelson-Morley experiment.

And no sir, there is no evidence whatsoever that light in a vaccum ever travels at 1/2C and even less that it ever bounces off of anything resulting in it travelling instantaneously. None. Nada. Making shit up is not evidence. We call it dishonesty. Even if you are lying for Jesus, it is still a lie.

---

Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:I'm not sure that is the claim per se. I was under the impression that there is no common ancestor for plants and animals, for instance.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...n-ancestor

Quote:One researcher put the basic biological assumption of a single common ancestor to the test--and found that advanced genetic analysis and sophisticated statistics back up Darwin's age-old proposition.

A new statistical analysis takes this assumption to the bench and finds that it not only holds water but indeed is overwhelmingly sound.

(December 2, 2013 at 8:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually I could not tell what he meant. I have heard of the slang term "bafoon" (UrbanDictionary.com) so that is what I assumed he meant. Either way he needs to get his act together before trying to insult others because it just makes him look like a....well....buffoon.

I had never heard the word "bafoon." I thought it might be a slang version of "buffoon" but the definitions seem to diverge somewhat. Either can mean a fool or foolish person, but buffoon implies a clown (a person who is being deliberately silly) while baffoon seems to imply a person who is ignorant (speaking knowledgeably about topics he knows little about).

I see that some sites claim that bafoon is a variant of buffoon based on a misspelling (or more likely, a mispronunciation?). It sounds funny to me.

This week's etymology lesson brought to you by Google and by the words buffoon and bafoon.

(December 3, 2013 at 5:20 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Utter nonsense. It is not a convention. There is simply no evidence for your claim. AT ALL.

Yes there is. Multiple sources have been cited and many explanations have been given. The only you can continue to think this is if you have either ignored or simply not bothered to read the relevant responses to yourself and others.

Quote:If you think that means it is measuring the two-way speed of light, you are mistaken. The problem with one-way speed of light measurements is one of synchronizing clocks at different locations.

Correct.

Quote:Because the measurement is being taken at the same location at different times, There is no synchronization issue.

Correct. However, as previously explained, this is a measurement of the two way speed.

Quote:And as I have already pointed out, if there was a difference in velocities, there would also be a difference in frequencies; but there is no such shift. Rotating the apparatus in a gravity field and getting the same results proves the constancy of the velocity in all directions, and verifies (for the umpteenth time) the Michelson-Morley experiment.

The Michelson–Morley experiment measured the two way speed.

Quote:And no sir, there is no evidence whatsoever that light in a vaccum ever travels at 1/2C and even less that it ever bounces off of anything resulting in it travelling instantaneously. None. Nada. Making shit up is not evidence. We call it dishonesty. Even if you are lying for Jesus, it is still a lie.

I can assure you that I am most certainly not "lying for Jesus". I have been doing something altogether different; I call it "reading for knowledge". I would heartily recommend it to anyone.

(December 3, 2013 at 5:20 pm)orogenicman Wrote:

Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:I'm not sure that is the claim per se. I was under the impression that there is no common ancestor for plants and animals, for instance.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...n-ancestor

Quote:One researcher put the basic biological assumption of a single common ancestor to the test--and found that advanced genetic analysis and sophisticated statistics back up Darwin's age-old proposition.

A new statistical analysis takes this assumption to the bench and finds that it not only holds water but indeed is overwhelmingly sound.

Awesome, thanks

I was labouring under the (false) impression that ancestry couldn't be determined due to horizontal gene transfer. Thanks again for showing me this

deleted

Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:I can assure you that I am most certainly not "lying for Jesus". I have been doing something altogether different; I call it "reading for knowledge". I would heartily recommend it to anyone.

My comment was not directed at you.

Ah, apologies

(December 3, 2013 at 5:12 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: You mean like the Ica Stones?

The Ica Stones authenticity was never supported by any creation peer-reviewed journal. The only mention of the Ica Stones in any creation scientific literature was in Creation Magazine (23) in the article, “Too Good to Be True?” in which the author cautions people against using the stones as evidence because their authenticity had yet to be verified. Once the stones were discovered to be a forgery in 2002 Creation Magazine (29) had an article detailing the fraudulent nature of the stones. This is hardly analogous to the Piltdown Man hoax which was published in peer-reviewed journals and was not exposed for 40 years.

Quote:I believe it was experienced by both parties as an extended delay between the end of their own transmission and the reception of the incoming one.

That would make sense under either convention. Under ESC the astronaut would send his transmission, it would travel to Houston at c and Houston’s response would return at c causing the 3 second delay. Under ASC the astronaut would send his message and it would travel at 1/2c (according to his clock) to Houston and Houston’s response would return instantaneously (according to his clock) causing the 3 second delay. Under ASC the clocks in Houston would indicate that the message reached them instantaneously and their response traveled at 1/2c back to the astronaut.

Quote:
So are you saying it's the actual change of position rather than the position itself that causes the time dilation? Lisle makes mention of ASC being position dependant. In particular, he writes:

Yes I believe that is the case. According to the Twin Paradox, the twin who traveled would return to Earth having aged less than the twin who stayed home. Under ESC this is due to time dilation from his acceleration (change in velocity). Under ASC this would be due to his switching of inertial frames on his way out and back (change in position).

However, RationalWiki makes it sound as if it is simply due to two clocks being at two different positions in space…

“5.The weirdnesses that we have come to accept in the Einstein isotropic convention (clocks slowing down or speeding up depending on how fast you are moving relative to another observer, for example) are exchanged for a different set of weirdnesses that we have not become accustomed to due to long exposure (like clocks running faster or slower depending on how far apart you are, not how fast you are moving). Thus things like the orbital periods of Jupiter's moons appear to change, not because of the lightspeed delay from Jupiter to Earth changing as the distance between them changes, but because time itself runs differently depending on the differing distance from Earth to Jupiter given their relative orbital positions.”

Quote:So if position alone causes a difference in the relative of time, then a greater disparity will occur the longer that position is maintained. Presumably the Lorentz factor would apply in much the same way, only replacing velocity for distance in the calculation.

This may be the case. After reading a couple of articles on the twin paradox it seems to be due to acceleration under ESC which is a change in velocity and would therefore make sense that under ASC it is a change in position but I am not sure. We also cannot forget that once you are at a different position you are using a different reference frame so the dilation may only occur relative to the first reference frame but not the second.

Quote: I'd disagree with you there. There appears to be quite a large difference between the ship building techniques of 2300BC and 200BC. The ships built roughly contemporary to noah were of a far more simple design. The structural design used in the article was simply unknown in that time – and for a long time after, I might add.

Fair enough.

Quote: I'm not questioning the time and resources available, as I believe the bible makes no mention of how long Noah had to build the ark.

Not explicitly but we can make a fairly good inference. When Noah began building the Ark he already had three sons and they were married. His first son was born 100 years before the flood and his second son was born 98 years before the flood. If his third son was born around 96 years before the Flood this would mean that Noah had between 55 and 75 years to build the Ark (allowing 20-40 years for these sons to grow and to find wives). Of course if Genesis 6:14-18) is merely prophesizing that Noah would take his three sons and their wives aboard the Ark then Noah could have had over 100 years to build the Ark.

Quote: 23 centuries in advance? That's one a hell of a teaser campaign

Well Christ’s redemptive work was the entire purpose behind creation.

Quote: I dunno, this doesn't seem much different to claiming that Genesis uses non-literal days. I mean it's tantamount to saying that the 6 day creation is a convention rather than an empirical truth. It seems a bit of an odd claim for a YEC, I always thought that the whole point was to take the bible literally.

He’s not saying that the six days of creation were not literal Earth days. What he is saying is that in order for scripture to say that the stars were created on Day 4 scripture would have to be using a synchrony convention in order to describe such simultaneity. If scripture is using ASC then the stars could be created on Day 4 and their light reach Earth on Day 4. If scripture were using ESC then things would get rather bizarre because the time at which the stars were created would change depending upon where the Earth was at in its orbit because ESC is velocity dependent. Lisle makes a fairly compelling argument that scripture is using ASC rather than ESC.

Quote:I'm not sure that is the claim per se. I was under the impression that there is no common ancestor for plants and animals, for instance.

As crazy as it may sound, Darwinists do argue that all life on Earth had one single common ancestor.

Quote: Where're you from, you sexy thing?

Response of the year.

Quote: They seem to reject it out of preference, more than anything else. That's not good enough for me. If a different position really does have a different time frame, then it should be possible to detect.

Well we can detect a difference in time passage when atomic clocks are transported. However, nobody knows whether this is because of acceleration or because of the distance traveled.

(December 3, 2013 at 5:20 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Utter nonsense. It is not a convention. There is simply no evidence for your claim. AT ALL.

What does the “C” stand for in ESC and ASC?

orogenicman Wrote:Yes it is, because there is only one observer, not two. The experiments for two-way speed of light measures the round trip speed of light between two points, hence the synchronization issue. This experiment eliminates that problem by only using one point of measurement. In other words, the starting and stopping point is at the same location, thus there is no synchronization issue. That they used mirrors to get the light back to the origin is irrelevant to the measurement because light reflecting off of a mirrored surface doesn't change velocity, only vector direction. That the entire apparatus rotates and they get the same results verifies the Michelson-Morley experiment. You should also read the last link.

The light does change velocity because it changes direction and velocity is a vector quantity (speed plus direction). Under ASC the light travels towards the mirror at 1/2c and back instantaneously.

Quote:If you think that means it is measuring the two-way speed of light, you are mistaken. The problem with one-way speed of light measurements is one of synchronizing clocks at different locations. Because the measurement is being taken at the same location at different times,

No, that is only one of several problems with measuring the one-way speed of light.

Quote: There is no synchronization issue. And as I have already pointed out, if there was a difference in velocities, there would also be a difference in frequencies; but there is no such shift.

And as I have already pointed out there is a difference in velocities because you reversed the direction the light is traveling. You would not see any such change in frequencies because light always travels away from you at the same rate.

Quote: Rotating the apparatus in a gravity field and getting the same results proves the constancy of the velocity in all directions, and verifies (for the umpteenth time) the Michelson-Morley experiment.

You can rotate the apparatus all you like (the light is still going to begin by traveling away from the observer and return towards the observer) but you are still only measuring the two-way speed of light which is the same under ASC as it is under ESC.

Quote: And no sir, there is no evidence whatsoever that light in a vaccum ever travels at 1/2C and even less that it ever bounces off of anything resulting in it travelling instantaneously.

There is no evidence demonstrating that the one-way speed of light is the same in all directions relative to the observer either so what is your point?

Quote: None. Nada. Making shit up is not evidence. We call it dishonesty. Even if you are lying for Jesus, it is still a lie.

Your astonishing ignorance concerning this matter and reluctance to remedy it in no way proves that I am lying about anything.

Quote:Well Christ’s redemptive work was the entire purpose behind creation.

Makes sense. Also, the reason that cars were invented was so that we could employ mechanics.

Here is a method for determining the one-way speed of light:

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopi...=2&t=23451

Take two photon detectors. These can be arbitrarily thin - less than a millimeter if necessary. Take the two detectors and place them side by side. From each detector take a cable of a convenient length. Put both of those cables into fast electronics (a modern digital oscilloscope will work just fine).

Fire a light pulse through both detectors. Since these two detectors are adjacent to one another, the transit time from one to the other is of order (1 mm)/(speed of light) = (1 x 10-3 m)/(3 x 108 m/s) = 3 x 10-12 seconds. If sub- 3 picosecond speed is needed, there are ways.

Using your oscilloscope, you can calibrate your cables to establish what "simultaneous" means. In the abstract, the cables can be of identical length. This means that the signals from the two detectors will arrive simultaneously at your oscilloscope.

Now move one detector far away...maybe 1000 feet. Do not disconnect the cables, so you have identical conditions. Fire the light pulse (use a laser) through one detector to hit the other. The signals from the two detectors will transit the cables and hit your oscilloscope at a single spatial point. Since you have already established that the transit time in the cables of both detectors are identical, the only difference between the signal arrival time at your detector is the transit time of light from one to the other. If you have measured the distance exactly, you can then determine the speed of light by distance over time.

If you do not want to measure the distance between the two detectors, you can verify the isotropy of space (and consequently, the identical nature of the 1-way speed of light). First do as I said, and fire a laser that first hits detector 1 and then hits detector 2. Record the transit time seen in your oscilloscope. Now have a laser pointing in the opposite direction, hitting detector 2 and then detector 1. Again, record the transit time.

Since the distances are the same, and the only difference is the direction in which the light is travelling, you can establish that light going one way takes the same speed as the other way.

I believe that within the uncertainties of your equipment, this detector configuration will establish that the speed of light is the same in either direction.