RE: The Statler Waldorf Balcony
October 20, 2010 at 9:13 pm
(This post was last modified: October 20, 2010 at 9:29 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
Those words are not too big for me, but thanks for offering!!! An infinite number of scientists conducing an infinite number of tests all using the same erroneous pre-suppositions does not amount to a hill of beans. This is why your appeals to popular belief and consensus are no less illogical today than they have ever been. I will give you credit though, you are good at masking your logical fallacies with Scientific jargon.
Quote: So what you are saying is that beduin tribes in the middle east when Genesis was written, had no concept of the rise and fall of the sun every day,and didn't accept the natural daily rhythms of the planet as a measure of time, but made up some other kind of system for keeping track of time that no one else on the planet at the time was using, based on what you believe today is "observed time?
No, I am saying that they used the same definition of time as every other person did in the history of the World before the development of calculated time in the 20th century! Pretty simple. Do you seriously think people didn't keep track of time before the 20th century? Well if they did (which they did) they did it in observed time.
Quote: Yeah, let's talk about some of those, shall we? How many of those PhDs are working in the field of geology, biology, geophysics, etc, and have published peer-reviewed scholarly works in accredited journals promoting creationism? Can you name one such publication by any of them that has any relevance to current scientific thought on the theory of evolution, the geologic time scale, or current cosmological theory? Even one? The fact is that there is no body of scholarly work done by any of the people you cite ore may cite that promotes creationism as a valid alternative to todays broadly accepted scientific theories.
[quote]I am glad you asked!
Dr. Jonahtan Sarfati (Ph.D in Physical Chemistry) was published in Nature when he was only 22 years old. He is actually a really interesting person. He has beaten a dozen peolple simaltaneously at chess while he was blind-folded. He is also more educated in the field of Science than Richard Dawkins (having actually earned his doctorate).
Well you will notice that the above question is answered by my post about Sarfati. He was published in your beloved journals and more than once. So that was pretty easy. He is more educated than you will ever be so to see you mock him kind of makes you look...well just that....uneducated lol.
Quote:Dr. Kurt P. Wise- holds a B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. He studied under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. Dr Wise has written a wide range of articles on origins issues. He is a member of the Geological Society of America. (Taken from his biography)
We already discussed what he meant when he used that quote, it's not his fault he understands the nature of evidence relative to absolute truth better than you do. I love your circular reason and someone contradictory statements.
"There are no Creationists who have real degrees and work in the field, and the ones that do should have them take away!" hahaha. I am glad your bigoted and pro-cencorship views don't dominate a country like America. Freedom of ideas is important to me, even if I disagree with those ideas.
As to your claims about my "mystery" professor, he has a name and is a real person I assure you. However, considering your obviouis bigotry I do not give out personal information like that for fear you may mail a pipe bomb to his office or something like that (in the name of Science of course).
[quote='orogenicman' pid='100502' dateline='1287622406']
Quote:Using observed time it does travel exactly how I said. Using calculated time it travels exactly how you said it does. You should know though that it is impossible to meausre the one way speed of light. If you can devise an experiment that does this you will win yourself a nobel prize my friend.
http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/phys...ure_c.html
The first successful measurement of c was made by Olaus Roemer in 1676. He noticed that the time between the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter was less as the distance away from Earth is decreasing than when it is increasing. He correctly surmised that this is due to the varying length of time it takes for light to travel from Jupiter to Earth as the distance changes. He obtained a value equivalent to 214,000 km/s which was very approximate because planetary distances were not accurately known at that time.
In 1728 James Bradley made another estimate by observing stellar aberration, being the apparent displacement of stars due to the motion of the Earth around the Sun. He observed a star in Draco and found that its apparent position changed during the year. All stellar positions are affected equally in this way. This distinguishes the effect from parallax which affects nearby stars more noticeably. A useful analogy to help understand aberration is to imagine the effect of motion on the angle at which rain falls. If you stand still in the rain when there is no wind it comes down vertically on your head. If you run through the rain it appears to come at you from an angle and hit you on the front. Bradley measured this angle for starlight. Knowing the speed of the Earth around the Sun he found a value for the speed of light of 301,000 km/s.
The first measurement of c on Earth was by Armand Fizeau in 1849. He used a beam of light reflected from a mirror 8 km away. The beam passed through the gaps between teeth of a rapidly rotating wheel. The speed of the wheel was increased until the returning light passed through the next gap and could be seen. Then c was calculated to be 315,000 km/s. Leon Foucault improved on this a year later by using rotating mirrors and got the much more accurate answer of 298,000 km/s. His technique was good enough to confirm that light travels slower in water than in air.
After Maxwell published his theory of electromagnetism it became possible to calculate the speed of light indirectly from the magnetic permeability and electric permitivity of free space. This was first done by Weber and Kohlrausch in 1857. In 1907 Rosa and Dorsey obtained 299,788 km/s in this way. It was the most accurate value at that time.
Many other methods were employed to improve accuracy further. It soon became necessary to correct for the refractive index of air. In 1958 Froome had the value of 299,792.5 km/s using a microwave interferometer and a Kerr cell shutter. After 1970 the development of lasers with very high spectral stability and accurate caesium clocks made even better measurements possible. Up until then the changing definition of the metre had always kept ahead of the accuracy in measurements of the speed of light. Then the point was reached where the speed of light was known to within an error of plus or minus 1 m/s. It became more practical to fix the value of c in the definition of the metre and use atomic clocks and lasers to measure accurate distances instead.
__________________
Still waiting for you to address my response in post #12.
Not sure why you posted this. None of these experiments involve measuring the one way speed of light. They all either just divde a beam of light traveling in two directions by two (the mirror experiment) or they have obvious clcck syncrinization problems due to special relativity. You can infer the one way speed of light by measuring two directional light, but it is impossible to truly measure it for obvious reasons. Figure otu a way and I will come over to see your nobel prize!
(October 20, 2010 at 9:05 pm)orogenicman Wrote:Quote:I do work for the DoA, but my degree is not Biochem. It's Environmental Sciences with an emphasis in Biology and Chemistry. I also have a Minor in Geospatial Science and will soon have my M.A. in GeoScience. Thanks for the apology, no hard feelings. What about you?
So your degrees are not science degrees but "arts' degrees. That makes sense. Why not get a MS in geoscience? Is the math too difficult, or is it really an ethical problem for you to answer geology questions correctly on the tests when you believe in your heart that they are the wrong answers?
I have a B.S. from the University of Louisville with a major in Geology and a minor in mathematics and psychology. I was previously an an anthropology student at EKU and was one semester from completing a B.A. when I switched schools and changed majors. I have a M.S. from the University Of Kentucky. Although my specialty was originally invertebtrate paleontology (I am published in the Journal of Paleontology), the economy being what it was at the time, I became an environmental consultant (and am a registered professional geologist in Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee), specializing in groundwater hydrology, and site remediation methodology. Nevertheless, I have remained active in paleontology and mineralogy for the past 21 years. I have also been an avid amateur astronomer since childhood, and am an active member of the Louisville Astronomical Society, and a member of the GSA. I am currently disabled.
Well last time I checked the degree B.S. stood for Bachelor of Science, so I am pretty sure that still counts as a Science degree, not an arts degree. As for the M.A.- the universty was originally going to make it an M.S. but they realized that GeoScience is better served by final research projects not a research thesis. So that is the only difference. Nice try at belittling my education, but fail.
