The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[Statler Waldorf]

What a fucking retard you really are.

Wait, so you don’t actually have a rational response? I knew you wouldn’t, thanks for not disappointing me there Scooter.

This is a civilized forum, insulting the word "retard" is not acceptable.

Also not a rational response, that’s two in a row, can we make three?

I prefer "fucktard". I define that term as being willfully ignorant. Fucktards have a brain every bit as functional as you or I but they just choose not to use it. They prefer to believe stupid things and refuse to listen to reason.

This sounds an awful lot like….well you to be honest. Mr. I can’t rationally account for anything that I believe, but God is a big meanie-face!

I never made any such claim, if fact I have been unable to even find his so-called "peer reviewed" article, so if you have it that would be nice.

Let’s see how long it takes me to find it, I will time myself….

Wow, first article to pop up in Google! So that took 13 seconds.

https://www.answersingenesis.org/content...ention.pdf

So now that you are going to read the article, I will expect you to not post any further “refutations” that were already addressed in the original article.

---

That is where you are wrong, Roemer was NOT measuring the round trip of the light from Earth to Io and back again, he was only measuring the journey from Io to Earth because the original source was the Sun.
Lisle's "theory"(I LOL at the oxymoron) relies on the fact that we can't theoretically calculate light speed from A to B, we can only measure from A to B and back to A and then taking an average from the two trips.

But when the light travels from X (the Sun) to B (Io) and then to A (Earth) then the only measurement you can take is from B to A.
And if Lisle's theory was correct then the trip would be the same time interval regardless of the distance between Earth and Io i.e, zero.

So the fact that there IS a difference means that light does take a finite amount of time to traverse the distance. Therefore disproving his "theory"

---

No you are just wrong on this one; Roemer assumes a synchrony convention in order to keep his clock synchronized for the experiment. He used the slow transport method in order to assume synchrony. The slow transport method would only work if light was indeed isotropic. So he essentially assumed the very thing he was trying to prove to be true was true in order to prove it was true which is of course invalid. If you would like to read more about the problems with Roemer’s experiment I ‘d recommend reading the article “The philosophical
Significance of the one-way speed of light” by Wesley Salmon.

And where does he actually say this?

It’s in the very article you are supposed to read for your homework.

“Therefore, an infinite number of such synchrony conventions may be stipulated. However, not all such selections will be particularly useful. But there is one that is especially useful. Let us consider a non-Einstein synchrony convention in which all points in the past light cone of p are considered simultaneous. This convention has been used in the technical literature (Sarkar and Stachel 1999). Moreover, Einstein himself considered using this convention, but preferred to use the standard convention because it is position-independent (as we will see shortly). “

And if you could give a list of reputable institutions etc that have reviewed Lisle's paper that would also be good.

Nope, that’s a silly game to play. You have arbitrarily defined “reputable” as only institutions that agree with your position. I could very easily do the same thing and say there are no “reputable” institutions that disagree with the theory because the only “reputable” ones are those that agree with the theory. It’s a silly and irrational game that gets us nowhere. Let’s allow the theory to stand or fall upon its own merits.