Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Prove it. Devise a test to directly measure the one way speed of light and win the Nobel Prize. Again, I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about. C is obtained by directly measuring the round trip travel time for light and dividing the distance by two, which of course is what those of us who speak English call an average! This average value is the same no matter what convention you use, hence why many scientists were able to calculate a fairly accurate value for c long before the Einstein Synchrony Convention was even developed. I am not the least bit shocked you would not know this though; you don’t even accept the well established historical fact of Jesus’ existence. Thanks for playing though.

I did propose such an experiment in my last post -

The idea was to use the folcott method but add an extra mirror to average between three distances instead of two. If light moves at a constant speed, then there should be no difference between measuring it in one direction (which you can measure using distant radio messages), two directions (standard folcott method), and three directions.
If it moves at two speeds, then there should be two different averages between the two and three mirror method.

---

Well I have not had a chance to read all of your last response yet :-( This is an interesting idea, but what I think you will find is it is impossible to synchronize the clocks necessary to conduct the experiment without using a synchrony convention. You could use the Einstein convention to do this but this would be begging the question because it assumes light moves at the same speeds in all directions relative to the observer (hence why radio waves from the voyager does not measure the speed of light in one direction because the ESC is used to synchronize the two clocks involved). You could also use the ASC to synchronize the clocks, but this would also be begging the question because it assumes light moves at different speeds in different directions relative to the observer. This is why these are conventions

---

---

Since the turnip insist that light travels slower one way than the other to satisfy his biblical craving, one might presume to put the turnip to the same insipid condition he throws at everyone else in the same way that he throws around his biblical turds - and demand the turnip devise a test to demonstrate that light indeed travel slower when fulfilling creationist fantasy requires it to do so and win his "nobel price".

On the second thought, that would be unfair. That would be to demand from a creationist turnip something only a educated human being with conception of objective rigor can attain. So let's give him a easier test. Let's ask him to demonstrate that light travels slower one way than the other in space at ANY TIME AT ALL, thus giving him a theoretically much larger set of samples to choose from than his, in all likelihood null, set of biblical compliant samples.

So How about it, tulip?

---

What are you even talking about? That's been the whole point of this discussion from the get-go. There is no test that can demonstrate light moves at different speeds or the same speed for that matter relative to the observer. All of these tests require a synchrony convention in order to synchronize the clocks. If I use the Einstein Synchrony Convention it will show that light moves the same speed in all directions relative to an observer and that time-dilation due to motion is negligible at speeds not approaching 14 percent of the speed of light, but that's because this convention assumes all of this to be true! If I used the ASC to synchronize the clocks it would show that light moves at different directions relative to the observer and that time-dilation is not negligible even at speeds only 1 percent of the speed of light. That's why these are called conventions. They are different ways of measuring the same observed phenomenon, and to say that one is somehow more “correct” than the other demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.