If only wordork's meant that light travel at a different speed in one particular direction vs another, then he would have actually exhibited some accidental intellectual integrity by witlessly allowing his "theory" to be testable.

But no. His hypothesis requires light to travel at a different speed from a source to THE observer, regardless of what direction that actually is or what that source is, then when it is traveling between any other pair of points, even if the line between those points lie along exactly the same direction as that between the source and observer. Light travels in his "opinion" at C along any direction unless that direction happen to have an observer at the end of it.

So he presents a theory that is by nature untestable. Since it can not be tested, he insisted it can not be excluded. Since it can not be excluded, and it is pleasing to the baffoons who wrote the bible, it must be as valid as any that can be tested. It since it can't be tested, and stands in no danger, even theoretically, of being falsified, it must be more valid than any that can.

If you prove light travels at constant and identical speed between any pairs of detectors. He would say you have not proven the light traveling between a star and you in particular have thus been proven.

In effect, he resorts to a more distilled version of the eternal christian:

If you can't prove what he says wrong in all senses and for all cases, then he is completely right.

If he can cast any doubt on what you say, however infinitesimal and irrelevent, then you are completely wrong.

(December 4, 2013 at 7:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

Oh, were you referring to just creationist journals? I took it to mean creationists as a whole - my mistake. I guess I won't bring up "malachite man" then

(December 4, 2013 at 7:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(December 3, 2013 at 5:12 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: 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.”

Well Lisle's objection to ESC seemed to be based on the effects on simultaneity of different inertial reference frames. He specifically noted in regard to ASC that the position of the earth at the moment of creation would not have that different to its position 6 months later.

This is the main reason I believe that such a convention should have detectable implications. On the other hand, if the is the act of changing position that causes the time dilation, I don't see how it differs much from ESC in its implications, since the earth is in constant motion.


I was certainly under the impression that it was the speed, rather than acceleration that causes the time dilation in ESC. The formula for the Lorentz contraction uses relative velocity, not acceleration. As an example, this website has a calculator of relativistic change factor that uses speed.

Even if it is the change of position that causes the effect, I'd have thought that it would still be detectable as you could have to different clocks traversing the same distance at different speeds. If take the differences between ASC and ESC into account by calculating the relative distance that each clock travels using the RCF, you can ensure that both clocks do indeed traverse the same distance and so if ASC is correct then each clock should show the same discrepancy with a stationary control clock, regardless of the velocity of each.

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.

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

Really? Then why wait so long for christ's debut? I'd have thought that his example, teachings and path to redemption would have been particularly useful to the people of noah's era. I'm sure they would've appreciated that more than global extinction, anyway.

Quote: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.

Yeah, but that's kinda what I'm getting at. If ASC is an illusory effect which is itself caused by time dilations, then the rest of the universe would only have been created in 6 days from the perspective of earth. Surely the whole point in a literal interpretation is that the bible really is inerrant, rather than merely being an accurate depiction as long you look at things the right way. This makes it sound as though the timing of creation week is entirely dependant on interpretation which, to my mind, totally undermines the entire YEC stance.

(December 4, 2013 at 7:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(December 3, 2013 at 5:12 pm)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.

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

I wouldn't exactly call it crazy, I was just under the impression that it was something that science was unable to determine. The article that Orogenicman kindly provided a link to strongly indicates that my info on this is a touch out of date. I never was particularly good at biology so it's not really something I've made pains to keep up to date with. This is more Zazzy's area of expertise.

(December 4, 2013 at 7:46 pm)orogenicman Wrote: 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.

---

Quote: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.

Separating the detectors will re-introduce the simultaneity problem. The fact that simultaneity has been previously determined via the oscilloscope becomes irrelevant

Quote: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.

Interesting. I hope it's not a fibre optic cable that the experiment uses


Seriously though, I figured you could use a technique such as this to perform an isotropy test whereby you have the emitter and detector in the same location without the use of reflectors. I'm not sure if it would hold up to scrutiny, I haven't really put too much thought into it yet.

Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:Separating the detectors will re-introduce the simultaneity problem. The fact that simultaneity has been previously determined via the oscilloscope becomes irrelevant

You seem to be of the belief that it cannot be accounted for and thus taken into consideration when conducting such an experiment. I take the position that we have been conducting scientific experiments for hundreds of years and are pretty good at taking into consideration such things as instrument error, simultaneity, and the like. Why is it, in your opinion, impossible to measure any differences in the set up at 1,000 feet as opposed to any other distance, or no distance? Why, in your opinion, is a calibration method irrelevant? We know the speed at which electrons move through wires. We have two wires of known length, and detectors with known properties separated by 1,000 feet. If firing a laser beam across those detectors produces the same result regardless of direction, how is that not a significant result? You haven't re-introduced a synchronous issue to the experiment because you are taking all measurements are the same location. You only have one clock. You have accounted for the distances by measuring any error that introduces.

The measurements are being recorded in one position, yes. But the detectors that are relaying that information are in different positions. The information still has to be relayed back to the oscilloscope.

You seem to think a simple conclusion drawn from an experiment can be cast into serious doubt by the expedient of contriving a much more convoluted alternative explanation, without any need to accompany the alternative with even a vague proposal of how the alternative can be tested and the simpler explanation excluded. In this you are more like a Wordorf, trying to find wiggle room for a hoax, or at least a figment of fancy, than a person with a genuine inclination towards finding explanations most likely to be true in light of available explanation.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:40 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: The measurements are being recorded in one position, yes. But the detectors that are relaying that information are in different positions. The information still has to be relayed back to the oscilloscope.

The measurements are being recorded in two positions separated by 1,000 feet. The signal from each detector is running along identical wires with identical lengths with known properties. The issue is synchroneity of clocks, NOT synchroneity of detectors. That isn't an issue here because there is only one clock measuring arrival times at each detector. You don't actually want synchroneity of detectors and wouldn't expect to have it because you are trying to measure the arrival times of the laser light at each detector. The measurement is a one-way measurement from the source (the laser) to the two detectors set at different locations along the light path. You know the speed at which the signal will reach the oscilloscope from each detector (from prior testing) and used that information to calibrate your result.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:06 pm)orogenicman Wrote:

(December 5, 2013 at 12:40 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: The measurements are being recorded in one position, yes. But the detectors that are relaying that information are in different positions. The information still has to be relayed back to the oscilloscope.

The measurements are being recorded in two positions separated by 1,000 feet. The signal from each detector is running along identical wires with identical lengths with known properties. The issue is synchroneity of clocks, NOT synchroneity of detectors. That isn't an issue here because there is only one clock measuring arrival times at each detector. You don't actually want synchroneity of detectors and wouldn't expect to have it because you are trying to measure the arrival times of the laser light at each detector. The measurement is a one-way measurement from the source (the laser) to the two detectors set at different locations along the light path. You know the speed at which the signal will reach the oscilloscope from each detector (from prior testing) and used that information to calibrate your result.

Anyone who could argue, based on no evidence whatsoever, that photons as near identical as could be determined, traversing two otherwise indistinguishable linear stretches of space, could nonetheless do so at different velocities just so as to save the bible, can also argue electrical signals as near identical as could be determined, traversing two otherwise indistinguishable wires, could nonetheless travel at different speeds on those occassions where such difference appears to them to be necessary to saving the bible.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:49 pm)Chuck Wrote: You seem to think a simple conclusion drawn from an experiment can be cast into serious doubt by the expedient of contriving a much more convoluted alternative explanation, without any need to accompany the alternative with even a vague proposal of how the alternative can be tested and the simpler explanation excluded. In this you are more like a Wordorf, trying to find wiggle room for a hoax, or at least a figment of fancy, than a person with a genuine inclination towards finding explanations most likely to be true in light of available explanation.

I'm not trying to find "wiggle room" at all. I want ASC to be proven wrong and it should be perfectly clear from my posts that I'm trying to find a flaw with it, but every experiment I've found so far and every example given on this forum has suffered from confirmation bias. I'm not going to overlook a flaw just because doing so would give a preferred result - doing so would only undermine our position.

Even if you don't believe my intentions and really do think I'm trying to find "wiggle room", you should note the two main questions I am asking when looking at each experiment are:
1) Is this actually a test of the one way speed of light?
2) Is there an issue with simultaneity that hasn't been taken into consideration?

If people could ask those questions themselves before they post a experiment that "proves" isotropy, it would save time and effort for all involved .

(December 5, 2013 at 4:06 pm)orogenicman Wrote: The measurements are being recorded in two positions separated by 1,000 feet. The signal from each detector is running along identical wires with identical lengths with known properties. The issue is synchroneity of clocks, NOT synchroneity of detectors. That isn't an issue here because there is only one clock measuring arrival times at each detector. You don't actually want synchroneity of detectors and wouldn't expect to have it because you are trying to measure the arrival times of the laser light at each detector. The measurement is a one-way measurement from the source (the laser) to the two detectors set at different locations along the light path. You know the speed at which the signal will reach the oscilloscope from each detector (from prior testing) and used that information to calibrate your result.

But if there is a time dilation then the detectors will be affected by it. It's not just clocks that are subject to time dilation. You can't prove one way isotropy unless you eliminate this possibility.

(December 3, 2013 at 4:48 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(December 2, 2013 at 11:56 pm)Chas Wrote: Do you even Google?

Michelson-Morley, Special Relativity, ...

The Michelson-Morley experiments were dealing with the proposed luminiferous aether and not with the one-way speed of light. With the advent of relativity we now know that it is impossible to measure the one-way speed of light and that a position dependent system can be stipulated.

The universe has been shown to be isotropic. We can measure the speed of light constantly while our position and orientation in the universe constantly vary. The same result is measured every time.

"One-way speed of light" is nonsense, just like "irreducible complexity". Just made-up shit to try to patch up an incoherent belief system.

(December 5, 2013 at 5:26 pm)Chas Wrote: The universe has been shown to be isotropic. We can measure the speed of light constantly while our position and orientation in the universe constantly vary. The same result is measured every time.

Actually, Michaelson Morley experiment does not demonstrate the universe is isotropic. It only shows testable properties of local light propogation is isotropic, and therefore the notion that light propogation depends on a medium is untenable.

Whether universe itself is isotropic is an open question. It is a question that deserves to be asked because different hypothetical answers produce different testable predictions.

(December 5, 2013 at 5:26 pm)Chas Wrote: "One-way speed of light" is nonsense, just like "irreducible complexity". Just made-up shit to try to patch up an incoherent belief system.

"One-way speed of light" is nonsense because it is not accompanied by any testable unique predictions, therefore has no business being proposed.