The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[rjh4 is back]

Three things:
First, relativity predicts time dihilation as an object approaches the speed of light. Objects. Not light.

I think you mean "dilation". But in any event, I fail to see how this addresses anything I said.

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.)

So how does one go about measuring the one way speed of light without perfectly synchronizing the two clocks use. (I think Zhang has already shown that attempts to measure the one way speed over a closed loop really measures the two way speed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light and http://books.google.com/books?id=jryk42J...&q&f=false which is a big book where you cannot read all the pages but you might want to take a look at Chapter 7 in particular (begins on page 377) as well as the last few chapters. Please note relative to the book, I do not pretend to understand it all, especially all the math. But from reading the conclusions, I think it does support the conventionality thesis and the possibility for the anisotropic speed of light in one direction as long as the two way speed is constant and isotropic.)

Third, you need to understand relativity and physics better if you're going to refute it, especially using these ridiculous creationist conventions.

If I was trying to refute relativity and/or physics, I would certainly need to understand both better. However, I am not trying to refute either. Furthermore, I think the above cites demonstrate that the anisotropic synchrony convention is not a "ridiculous creationist convention" but falls within the allowances of relativity.

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.

I realized that the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is not a scientific journal. However, it does cite the original papers, many of which are in scientific journals. Maybe you need to go look at the original papers. So far all you have provided is a conclusion that the conventionality thesis and ASC are wrong but have not provided any reasons. I have provided several sites that cite the work of those who clearly are competent in relativity and physics and are not creationists (as far as I can tell from their writings) and what they say certainly seems to support both.

Now I freely admit that I have not read all these things completely (the book is over 500 pages long and not all are available online) and I also admit again that the math presented is far beyond my level so I may have missed some important point. So to further the discussion, why not present something more than mere conclusions on your part?

---

Of course, this is why our understanding of the subject was enhanced with the use of satellites and probes as points of reference. Differing speeds, differing trajectories, differing positions........... same readings. You failed hard on this one.

So I am correct (the "Of course" indicates you think I was correct in what I said) but somehow I failed hard on this one. I don't understand your position.

---

You misunderstand my point RJh4, If Lisles theory was correct there would be no change in the observed times of Io's emergence from behind Jupiter. It wouldn't matter where Earth was in relation to Jupiter because the transit time would always be zero.
The fact that Roemer did in fact observe a delay in transit means that the further away from Jupiter Earth is the longer it is taking the light to reach us and therefore its velocity is finite.

The actual speed might be open to question (plus or minus a percentage point), but it is nonetheless a finite speed.
And not the instantaneous speed that Lisle is claming.

I don't think I misunderstood you. I just think you are not considering the change in frame of reference and the synchronization issue when a clock is moved. I will refer you particularly to Chapter 7 of the book I cited earlier as it discusses Roemer's work (some of the discussion appears to be on the missing pages) but the conclusion from the book seems to be quite clear and that is that even in ASC, the clocks would read differently and there would be no experimental difference no matter what sychronizing convention one used as long as the two way speed of light remains constant in the two frames.