(December 5, 2013 at 4:44 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:

(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.

According to special relativity, if two objects are moving (or if one object is moving relative to the other), they are in different frames. If they are not moving, they are in the same frame whether they are 1mm apart or 1 light year apart. The detectors are not moving; the clock is not moving. They are all in the same frame, so there can be no time dilation between them. The only things moving are the laser pulse and the electrons inside the wiring circuit, both of which have known and testable properties.

(December 5, 2013 at 6:20 pm)orogenicman Wrote: According to special relativity, if two objects are moving (or if one object is moving relative to the other), they are in different frames. If they are not moving, they are in the same frame whether they are 1mm apart or 1 light year apart. The detectors are not moving; the clock is not moving. They are all in the same frame, so there can be no time dilation between them. The only things moving are the laser pulse and the electrons inside the wiring circuit, both of which have known and testable properties.

You don't deserve a computer

(December 5, 2013 at 6:49 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:

(December 5, 2013 at 6:20 pm)orogenicman Wrote: According to special relativity, if two objects are moving (or if one object is moving relative to the other), they are in different frames. If they are not moving, they are in the same frame whether they are 1mm apart or 1 light year apart. The detectors are not moving; the clock is not moving. They are all in the same frame, so there can be no time dilation between them. The only things moving are the laser pulse and the electrons inside the wiring circuit, both of which have known and testable properties.

You don't deserve a computer

I'm not sure I understand your response.

(December 5, 2013 at 6:20 pm)orogenicman Wrote:

(December 5, 2013 at 4:44 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: 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 .


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.

According to special relativity, if two objects are moving (or if one object is moving relative to the other), they are in different frames. If they are not moving, they are in the same frame whether they are 1mm apart or 1 light year apart. The detectors are not moving; the clock is not moving. They are all in the same frame, so there can be no time dilation between them. The only things moving are the laser pulse and the electrons inside the wiring circuit, both of which have known and testable properties.

Minor quibble:

No time dilation means the clocks tick at the same rate. It doesn't mean they are set to the same time.

Your experiment requires the clock to be set to the same time.

There are three things you can do to try and set the clocks as close to the same time as possible:L

1) You can put the clocks in close proximity so transmission of information from one to the other takes less time than the granularity of the clock, and hence you can set the clocks to the same time within the granularity of the clocks. In this case the error in synchronizing is larger than what it takes to meter the deviation in the small amount of time taken for light to travel between them.

2) You put the clocks far apart so transmission of light from one to the other takes more time than the granularity of the clock. But since information travels no faster than light, you can't synchronize the clock to a degree of better than any deviation in speed of light, eventhough the clocks themselves have higher precision. So you can't garranty clocks are synchronized accurately enough to measure deviation in livht speed unless you've implicitly assumed speed of light is constant at an earlier stage in the same experiment.

3) You can star the experiment with clocks in close proximity, synchronize them to the tight tolerance allowed by close proximity, and them move them apart. In this case the clock must jump to different frames during the moving process. So there is time dilations between when you synchronize them, and when you conduct the mian part of your experiment. When you get them to their final locations and bring them back to the same frame, the clocks will once again tick at the same rate, but the dilation has already happened and the clock won't be set to the same time any more.

You may say that since the clock has already been synchronized to high precision before the dilation, you should be able to account for the difference in clock setting after dilation by using dead reckoning. But the amount of dilation is a function of speed of light. Without assuming a constant, isotopic speed of light, you can't accurately dead reckon how much dilation has happened. So again you can't synchronize clocks accurately enough to measure deviation in light speed without assuming light speed is constant.

Chuck, none of that is necessary because you only need one clock. The clock starts when it receives the signal from the first detector and stops when it receives the signal from the second detector. The result is calibrated for the time it takes the signals to reach the clock from the detectors.

If you only use one clock to compare the time of arrival of the signals through the cable, then any conclusion you draw about when the signal originated at the other end of the cable must implicitly assume the signals to have traveling through the cable moves at the known speed through the cable regardless of the paths and orientation of the direction, ie isotropically.

But to validate the signal actually travelled isotropically, you would need another clock at the other end of each cable. Hence the need to synchronize clocks over distance.

So if you actually remove the assumption that signals travel isotropically from every stage of your experiment, you would eventually end up with an untestable clock synchronization assumption.



Regardless of your assumption, I think your experiment is a good one, because your assumption is an absolute minimal one, and all other assumptions are equally untestable, but all are more elaborate, and therefore contrived.

This is why your assumption is not a problem for me.

I raised the point because you brought up the time dilation issue. I wanted to point out lack of time dilation does not remove the fundamental assumption. But the experiment is convincing even with the fundamental assumption,

(December 5, 2013 at 9:20 pm)Chuck Wrote: If you only use one clock to compare the time of arrival of the signals through the cable, then any conclusion you draw about when the signal originated at the other end of the cable must implicitly assume the signals to have traveling through the cable moves at the known speed through the cable regardless of the paths and orientation of the direction, ie isotropically.

But to validate the signal actually travelled isotropically, you would need another clock at the other end of each cable. Hence the need to synchronize clocks over distance.

So if you actually remove the assumption that signals travel isotropically from every stage of your experiment, you would eventually end up with an untestable clock synchronization assumption.



Regardless of your assumption, I think your experiment is a good one, because your assumption is an absolute minimal one, and all other assumptions are equally untestable, but all are more elaborate, and therefore contrived.

This is why your assumption is not a problem for me.

I raised the point because you brought up the time dilation issue. I wanted to point out lack of time dilation does not remove the fundamental assumption. But the experiment is convincing even with the fundamental assumption,

The problem I am having is that I don't see an assumption being made. You said "then any conclusion you draw about when the signal originated at the other end of the cable must implicitly assume the signals to have traveling through the cable moves at the known speed through the cable regardless of the paths and orientation of the direction, ie isotropically."

But there wouldn't be any assumption being made there, since you can rather easily measure the signals in the cable for calibration purposes. You can do it 1 time, or a thousand times and take the geometric mean. Either way, you are taking a direct measurement, not making an assumption about what is happening in the cables.

All this said, the entire argument warped one is trying to make is absurd anyway, since we send and receive telemetry (travelling through the vacuum of space at the speed of light) from satellites around other planets and can predict with great precision when the satellites will receive them and when we will receive responses. It is all very absurd to try to argue for a 10,000 year old universe based on some lame argument about a well known constant.

You know, the argument they used to make was that the speed of light was much faster and that it somehow slowed down in 10,000 years to get to the speed it is now. So we had to believe that its speed became what it is just when we started looking at it. How ridiculous is that? Just as ridiculous as warped one's argument.

The problem of calibration is you assume none of the changes in condition between the calibration and the experiment matters to the applicability of the calibration results to the experiment. If this assumption is not challenged, then calibration is good. But if this assumption is challenged, then you measure the actual experiment, and can't rely on calibration.

The experiment is to test whether photon propogate isotropically. But signal traveling through the cable, whether it is an electrical signal, or a fiber optic signal, are still electromagnetic and relies on photons as its messenger particle. So if you are testing whether photon travel isotropically, to assume the calibration of the wire holds during the experiment is to assume the conclusion.

(December 5, 2013 at 10:09 pm)Chuck Wrote: The problem of calibration is you assume none of the changes in condition between the calibration and the experiment matters to the applicability of the calibration results to the experiment. If this assumption is not challenged, then calibration is good. But if this assumption is challenged, then you measure the actual experiment, and can't rely on calibration.

The experiment is to test whether photon propogate isotropically. But signal traveling through the cable, whether it is an electrical signal, or a fiber optic signal, are still electromagnetic and relies on photons as its messenger particle. So if you are testing whether photon travel isotropically, to assume the calibration of the wire holds during the experiment is to assume the conclusion.

But then, if you measure the signal in the wires hundreds to thousands of times and get the same results, I think it is safe to say that the signal is going to be the same during the experiment. As a check, you run the experiment over and over again. But at some point you have to agree with Einstein that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". By the way, an electrical wire propagates electrons, not photons. Yeah, I know, it's a moot point, but still a point.

(June 27, 2012 at 4:43 am)Justtristo Wrote: Albert Mohler is the president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville Kentucky. He is a Young Earth Creationist, however he does not deny that the universe appears to be old. However since he believes the universe is less than say 10,000 years old. So Mohler argues that either god created the universe to appear "old" or that the "fall" rapidly aged the universe.

A Christian Fundamentalist friend of mine, who admitted that he leans to a "six day" creation position thought Mohler's argument was appealing.

Essentially this speech he gave to a ministry conference outlines his argument.

Transcript in this link below.

http://biologos.org/resources/albert-moh...ook-so-old

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Wi5OYZ7Ks

There's a sucker born again every minute.