The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[Zen Badger]

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.

Interesting article that, it starts by assuming that the bible is correct and anyone who doesnt believe it is wrong.
Yep folks, that thar be real scientifical stuff, yuk,yuk.

It then goes on to talk about light cones and the like which is real science......

And then we get to the crux of the article on page 18, which is basically "a miracle occurs"
Yep, real science indeed......
(Strange thing is that I could not copy and paste the relevent passage. It would appear that Lisle doesn't want people quoting his work)

---

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.

You know what Stat?
I think this one passage alone of all the drivel you ever have posted on this forum really, truly illustrates what a pig ignorant, uninformed dolt you really are.

The "slow transport method" that you claimed Roemer used was actually proposed by Einstein as a way of getting around the problems imposed by time dilation generated when you try to seperate your two measuring devices so as to measure c.
Since Roemer made his discovery two and a half CENTURIES before Einsteins work he would've known nothing about Relativity, time dilation or the slow tranport method.

And if you weren't just a vacous emptyheaded handpuppet for the disingenous malarkey merchants parading themselves as creation "scientists" and actually had some genuine knowledge of the subject you would've known that.

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). “

No, I asked where Einstein said it, not where some cretinist fucktard claimed he said it.

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.

Translated, " No Scientific body has even looked at it"

Ok then how about a list of institutions that have reviewed it, or even a list of who it has been submitted to?

BTW Stat, this place you claim to work at as a scientist. Do they know you're a scientist or do they still think you're the janitor?