Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 4, 2024, 5:23 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
(March 1, 2011 at 8:06 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

"Convention"? The only convention here is your own, which is to put your interpretation of a dirty little "holy" iron age tract you call "bible" above all else in all fields.

In physics the concept light moving the same speed through vacuum in all direction is not a convention. Convention in fact had called for quite the opposite. For 200 years after Newton accepted convention in physics had said that light could travels in vacuum at different speeds in different directions relative to any observer, until Michelson–Morley experiment in 1877 conclusively proved that this was not so. It was in deference to this convention shattering observational fact, that relativity with its constant 1 way C, was eventually developed.

A very coarse measurement of realtive light speed in two directions that does not need any averaging, and does not even need any clock or synchronization, will crush the ASC version you espoused utterly. All you need to be able to do is to measure the wavelength of light and be able to move. Position yourself between two stationary lightsources and move back and forth between them, measure the Doppler induced changes in the observed wave length of each source as you move back and forth between them. If the measured Doppler change in wave length in one light source is the exact opposite of the doppler change in wave length of the other, then light traveled at the same speed in both directions relative to you. Your ASC and your defense of your "bible" goes into a blackhole.

But if synchronization is what you want, synchronization is what you get. Modern atomic clocks can have independent accuracy of less then 1 second deviation in 1 billion years, and two such modern clocks in two non-accelerated frames of reference can synchronize once, and be quite accurate enough to pin down the one way velocity of light between them to 9 decimal places as they are moved apart, and therefore measure whether light goes faster in one direction then the other between them with 9 orders of magnitudes of precision. I've done the work I asked of you, and nominated a means by which ASC might be demonstrated or shattered to within 9 decimal places. Perhaps a little study of actual physics, as oppose to the garbage swimming around inside your "creation science" "journeys", might save your from the ignominy of the moronic present-in-cosmology-shattering-strenght but even-in-theory-undetectable "ASC" bluster.

I might have said you are confused, but confusion carries an inappropriately passive tone, implying a genuine ignorance. The sort of purposed and willful bullshit-sprouting needed to defend your positive interpretation of that dirty little "holy" iron age tract you call "bible" belies the innocence implicit in confusion. So I will say you are simply full of whatever shit you conceive to be able to prop up your devotion to that sorry collection of iron age goat fuckers' wet dreams.

Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd) - by Anomalocaris - March 3, 2011 at 2:07 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Young more likely to pray than over-55s - survey zebo-the-fat 16 2103 September 28, 2021 at 5:44 am
Last Post: Pat Mustard
  Creationism Silver 203 15975 August 23, 2020 at 2:25 am
Last Post: GrandizerII
  A theory about Creationism leaders Lucanus 24 7949 October 17, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Prediction of an Alien Invasion of Earth hopey 21 5221 July 1, 2017 at 3:36 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Science Vs. The Forces of Creationism ScienceAf 15 3492 August 30, 2016 at 12:04 am
Last Post: Arkilogue
  Debunking the Flat Earth Society. bussta33 24 5674 February 9, 2016 at 3:38 am
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  Earth Glare_ 174 24763 March 25, 2015 at 10:53 pm
Last Post: Spooky
  Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically JonDarbyXIII 42 11836 January 14, 2015 at 4:07 am
Last Post: Jacob(smooth)
  creationism belief makes you a sicko.. profanity alert for you sensitive girly men heathendegenerate 4 2157 May 7, 2014 at 12:00 am
Last Post: heathendegenerate
  Religion 'Cause Of Evil Not Force For Good' More Young People Believe downbeatplumb 3 2523 June 25, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Last Post: Brian37



Users browsing this thread: 16 Guest(s)