The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Zen, I don't think this really supports your position like you think it does. I think in special relativity, the frame of reference of the earth changes as it orbits the sun because there is a change in velocity (speed and/or direction). This change in the frame of reference changes the clock used to make the measurements. In other words, once the earth moves from position 1, the clock would not remain synchronized with a clock that stays at position 1. I think this is the whole issue with the conventionality thesis. Without knowing that the clocks remain synchronized, you cannot rely on the results as a measure of the one-way speed of light and the clocks cannot be synchronized without assuming the speed of light.

Three things:
First, relativity predicts time dihilation as an object approaches the speed of light. Objects. Not light.
Second, measuring the speed of light is not dependant upon whether or not clocks are perfectly synchronized unless you're specifically measuring the time Dihilation of objects moving at various speeds (like what is necessary to allow the GPS to continue functioning.)
Third, you need to understand relativity and physics better if you're going to refute it, especially using these ridiculous creationist conventions.

In addition, I found that there is still discussion in the literature regarding the conventionality thesis, some for and some against. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacet...nvensimul/ for a review of both. If what you said really is true, i.e., that the experiment you pointed out really does shoot ASC down, then it seems to me it would also shoot down the conventionality thesis too. Yet, there is still discussion in the literature for and against. It makes me wonder why those for it would even bother if there is an old experiment that shoots it down. It also makes me wonder why those against it provide all sorts of other arguments when they could dispatch the position as quickly as you did. This all makes me think that you have made some serious errors in taking the experimentation that you cited and making the conclusions that you did.

That's cute, but the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy doesn't constitute a scientific journal. It's philosopy. Not science.
Yes, the experiements (all of them) that establish the speed of light and relativity both do shoot down those things because those things are wrong.
Yes, people still work on things and experiments despite mountains of experimental and practical evidence otherwise. That's why we have "creation science" and even actual scientific research behind things that have been supposedly 'proven' wrong because sometimes things supposedly proven correct are actually wrong.
This happened when we figured out gravity and the heliocentric solar system vs. earth being the center of the universe.