Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Hey Zen,

To be honest I am getting a bit bored with the whole ASC discussion

I'm sure you are since it has been quite thoroughly gutted on this thread, however I'm not.

You advanced this rather silly theory as an answer to the problem of the size of the observable universe flatly contradicting the YEC position, I will show WHY ASC doesn't provide an answer.

but I will answer your question anyways. Well in E=mc^2, "c" is the average speed of light in a vacuum, since we can only measure this in a round trip we do not need to invoke a synchrony convention, so the value for "c" is the same regardless of which synchrony convention is used. Does that make sense?

But this is where you fail, E=mc2 requires that c is a constant. Not an average, not able to wildly vary from 1/2 cto infinity.

Because if it wasn't a constant nuclear physicists would not be able to accurately calculate the output of nuclear weapons and reactors..amongst other things.

And it is this one little fact that consigns ASC to the rubbish bin of half assed ideas( such as Lysenkoism) where it belongs.

And since you failed to realise the implications of what ACS means to physics in general I have to admit to serious misgivings as to your actual scientific competence.

---

Well so much for being cordial eh? That's too bad; I was kind of starting to like you Zen. I am actually getting bored with the topic because nobody on here even understands it (I think because they have not read the actual article but rather articles written by others who don't understand it). So it's not unlike trying to debate the greatest quarterback of all time with a bunch of people who don't know what a football is.
Your argument is just fundamentally flawed, it would be like saying, "light can't move at different rates through different substances because that would violate "c" as being a constant!" C is a constant because it is the average speed at which light moves in a vacuum in a round trip. Like I said, you don't even need to use synchrony convention to measure the value of "c", so why you would try and use this to argue against different conventions is beyond me. I suggest you actually read the articles on ASC because every single issue that has been raised against it is addressed in the actual literature. As to your point about Nuclear Physicists, their observations would be exactly the same under the ASC as they are under the ESC because the linear term in the time-dilation formula is not negligible under ASC like it is under ESC. This means we make the same observations under both conventions, just for different reasons, this is why they are called conventions and not theories. However, questioning my science credentials goes to show just how misinformed you really are.