The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

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

It has to do with the whole 'clock sychronization' thing you've been talking about. The only reason they would be unsynchronized as per relativity is because of time dilation.
One of the many tests of relativity include things like taking a 747 around the world and taking an atomic clock sychronized with another atomic clock on the ground and measuring the difference from time dilation.
An atomic clock is required because the effect is so small at such low speeds, but it is measurable.

On that point, given that that test is one that confirms relativity (which states that light is the same speed in all directions, among other things) it would in turn disprove ASC.

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.)

and I counter that human space exporation, which all use relativity's principles and relativity (in which our instraments utterly depend upon for successful operation) prove beyond any conclusive doubt that the speed of light is just under 300,000 kilometers per second.
I pointed this out, but it was apparently ignored.
Earlier in this thread, I even provided a link to a camera that operates at a trillion frames per second - enough to actually capture light in transit.
That's just the modern metholodogy - the past methodologies never use any method that indicates ASC because all of those would produce a varying result.
That is to say that depending on the text, the speed of light would never measure the same in any given test because the varying distances light would travel would vary between instantaneous and half c enough to produce varying results.
Any test that uses three seporate directions for light to travel (or any odd number) would prove that light only has one speed beyond a reasonable doubt.
Given that
1) Our space program uses relativity ("one way" light speed) as a measure for all of their tools and instraments succesfully - in other words, if light travels away from the earth at half light speed and we expect it to reach its destination at full light speed for a critical in-flight adjustment to a probe's trajectory would result in total failure of an entire mission consistently multiple times. Instead, voyager 1 and 2 were two of the m ost successful space probe missions ever devised and executed, both of which required many, many of these adjustments over the course of their mission.
The fact is that given that the earth is constantly moving and that if light speed weren't the same in every direction, then light would never measure at the same speed anywhere ever. At any given time, the earth is spinning around its axis, revolving around the sun, and the sun is revolving around the galaxy and the galaxy itself is rotating and moving.
2) Measuring the speed of light uses methods that do not depend on the direction of light and all such tests have given the same results (differing only through refinement of the methods).
3) If your book supports light being more than one speed, it's simply wrong for the above reasons.
I'll admit that I didn't read your book, if only because I don't have the time or patience to read over your entire book. I read the introduction, the table of contents, and a few selected points in the book to get a sense of what it's saying.
The book outright stated in the intro that it's there to tell you everything but that which tells you that there's a universally constant speed of light. It certainly pulls out several scientific papers, but the ones about the anisotropic synchrony convention curiously do not in the list of selected scientific papers.

I'm not even going to go into all the physics related problems that simply cease to work if ASC were true - those being things like electromagnetism. It is, simply, wrong.

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.

Except that it doesn't for many, many reasons that I pointed out above.

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.

I have a theory that aliens crashed at roswell, new mexico many years ago and they are being experimented upon and the technology is being reverse engineered at Area 51.
If you think that theory is wrong, I can show you pictures of area 51 and links to online news sources about something crashing in new mexico over five decades ago that the government seemed to cover up.

Or perhaps we should talk about my theories on the JFK assassination.
Marylin Monroe's death? Ancient aliens?

My point is that intermixing crap with facts doesn't make the conclusion factual or even factually based. Yes, scientific papers were linked and used as a basis, but one of relativity's primary principles is that physics is the same everywhere.
Because ASC postulates that light speed isnt' the same everywhere, it cannot exist with relativity and relativity has been proven as much as scientific facts can be.

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?

My conclusions have already been proven because relativty disproves ASC. If you need further proof, perhaps you should ask the internet or a physicist why and how we know that sunlight reaches the earth in 8 minutes or how voyager is able to make precision adjustments at a time consistent with our command signals reaching the probe and it reacting exactly when we expect it to assuming it reaches the probe in X time when X time is synchronus with C instead of half C.

THere's a almost limitless number of ways in which C is used in science, astronomy, and physics and all of them assume (correctly) that C = C in all instances and it literally couldn't be any other way without thorwing science back into the dark ages.

ASC's only purpose is to say "Hey - I can obscure the rdiculousness of the bible with MATH!" and it can't even do that right.

If you're still wondering why I'm almost 100% certain that ASC is crap, look no further than a particle accelerator. The thing about relativity is that the speed of light is the absolute limit of the speed of everything in the universe. Objects can't even reach the speed of light, but they can get fantastically close. In particle accelerators, that's 99.9999999999999999% or better of the speed of light.
Would you like to guess what that measured speed is at any given place within any given accelerator?

There's also that plane experiement with the two atomic clocks i mentioned. That test was evidence for relativity because it measured the effect of time dilation, which is absolutely related to the speed of light and I can guarentee you that that speed of light was thought to be C and not half C or C times infinity or any number other than C.

If you still doubt that, look at any GPS receiver. Those have their clocks constantly adjusted for time dilation because of the differing location and relative speeds of the satilites and the clocks on those machines and on the ground have to be synchronized. Given that they were built on relativity being a thing, their clocks are adjusted according to the time dilation predicted by relativity (which is a funciton of C). So, this machine is a practical benefit of the speed of light always being the speed of light. Always.

Therefore, Anisotropic synchrony convention is wrong.