The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Yes, I went over with Statler ages ago regarding ASC and the speed of light.
He doesn't seem to quite understand just how impossible space travel would be if we used a different 'convention' than what relativity uses because that would make communication with space probes impossible - communications would arrive to the probes at half the speed of light and return instantaneously.

Nevermind that 'instantaneous' travel being impossible and our assumptions about C have thus far been proven correct as far as telescopes can see - nevermind the practical applications both on the ground and in space that all rely on relativity being absolutely correct.

I'm sorry, Statler, but simply using a 'different measuring tool' doesn't make ASC's idea that the physical constants of the universe aren't exactly the same regardless of the observer's position - including the speed of light and there's plenty of data (like NASA's entire history of space travel) to prove it.[/hide]

After our previous conversations on ASC I eventually just arrived at the conclusion that you didn't even understand the idea well enough to properly discuss it, I see nothing has changed in the last 12 months. You seem to still live under the delusion that conventions are normative rather than descriptive. Space travel and communication would be just as possible using ASC as it is and was using ESC, just like it would have been using English units rather than Metric units.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, buddy.
You alwasy asked me about proving the 'one way light speed" and I gave you evidence of those.
In order to continue your delusion that the entire difference between ASC and ESC is "measuring numbers", you have to ignore all of the practical aspects of relativity that doesn't depend on light going in a circle or being relfected back.
In other words, we would be able to tell if the speed of light was anything other than (just under) 300,000 km/sec.

EDIT:
Oh, there's also this.
Statler and others, if you check out that link, you'll notice that we filthy humans have invented a camera that can capture light in transit.
Perhaps it's just me, but given that we can speed-time light in real time frame-by-frame, we can easily tell now if light moves at a speed other than 300,000 km a second. That is, using a method you creationists can't BS around given that it's been well established in other reliable methods. I have yet to see any such major headlines by anyone anywhere stating that light moves at a speed other than 300000 km/second.

You see! This is what I was talking about, if you actually understood ASC you would not say stuff like this. In ASC light only moves instantaneously towards the observer, so the fact you can capture it en route moving tangentially to the observer is no surprise at all. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

You forgot the other half of ASC's theory - that it would be moving half as fast away from the observer.
Perhaps it was toard/away from the earth?
Does the speed vary depend on on all of the degrees of seporation between the observer and the earth?
The fact is that unless that camera is measuring a speed OTHER than 300,000km/sec, then that already proves it wrong. It could quite literally be any speed and note that the "observer" is neither human or pointed toward or away from the earth. Also note that light is a wave and not a laser line. Given that the wave moves uniformly (as opposed to differing parts of the wave moving at differing speeds) it's easy to tell that it's all moving at one speed and not multiple speeds.
The fact is that your arguement depends completely on the wish-washy definition of what the 'observer' is. Need to solve the 'starlight' problem? The earth is the observer. Need to prove ASC? Make humans and every rinstrament that measures/proves/disproves relativity so the answer keeps coming up ASC or at least could possibily be relativity.
That's why it's completely obvious just how bunk ASC is.

And no, it's not just two methods of measuring the same thing. Imperial and metric would be that. ASC is directly contradictory to relativity because it posits (unlike relativity) that the laws of physics are different depeniding on where you are.
More accurately, ASC is "Whatever makes creationism possible."

It'st he most intellectually dishonest paper I've ever read and the fact that you fight for it so ferverantly despite its many flaws just shows how much you have to warp everything humanity has discovered impirically about the earth, life, and the universe to fit your retarded book just goes to show that you have no credibility at all when it comes to science or astornomy.