The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[rjh4 is back]

My position is that your arguments are apologetic garbage; already considered and dismissed as factually inaccurate. "Theories" only clung to by those who must absolutely believe that their fiction has been proven a fact, or that is it even a remote possibility. It has not, it is not. Fail.

Let's have ourselves a little fun RJ, lets call a point A, and a point B. Lets call the trip from A-B: Outgoing. Lets call the trip from B-A: Incoming. We'll begin at A. A one way trip will be A-B or B-A, roundtrip will be A-B-A. Which of these two routes would you like to propose light moving at different speeds. The A-B leg, or the B-A leg (or, the entire A-B-A, if you'd rather choose that)? Also, what modification would you like to make? An increase in speed, or a decrease (be specific if at all possible)?

Ah. Another one that doesn't want to even look into the book that I cited (which is by a physicist) and doesn't want to consider the math provided in the book. Suit yourself.

And as to your little game...I'm not playing. I already said that I am no expert in relativity and I am quite sure you could confuse me with whatever you are up to. But the book I cited clearly says what I indicated and it is clear from reading the book that the position was not taken with the Bible in view. According to the book, as long as the two way speed of light is isotropic and constant, then there should be no observational differences no matter what convention one uses for clock synchronization. Argue with the math and conclusions of the book...not me.

---

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.

Chapter 7 provides the math and conclusion that any clock synchronization method can be used and there will be no observational differences based on the various transformations provided. While this does not explicitly say ACS, it certainly allows for it. The relativity as per Edwards and the others do not change Einstein relativity, they just generalize it with Einstein relativity being a special case. If you don't want to believe it...fine. I just think it disingenuous to say that ACS is merely some Bible apologetic garbage when the book written by physicists certainly appears to allow for it.