The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[Zen Badger]

Interesting article that, it starts by assuming that the bible is correct and anyone who doesnt believe it is wrong.
Yep folks, that thar be real scientifical stuff, yuk,yuk.

You start by assuming the Bible is incorrect and proceed from there, so why are you allowed to start on biased ground but not creationists? Special pleading!

Since all of the discoveries we have made about the universe in the last few centuries flatly contradict the bible it is not an assumption.

It then goes on to talk about light cones and the like which is real science......

So you must have missed the fact that those light cone diagrams explain exactly how ASC is completely mathematically possible?[/quote]
I must have, maybe you could explain in your own words how it does.

And then we get to the crux of the article on page 18, which is basically "a miracle occurs"
Yep, real science indeed......

Please directly quote where Lisle states a miracle occurs, thanks.

There it is.....
" For all practical purposes, we are using the lower light cone as the surface of simultaneity; except I am displacing it by an infinitesimal amount (ϕ) in order to ensure that simultaneous events are always space-like rather than light-like, thereby making them causally unconnected. This is an anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC) because we are stipulating that light travels at different speeds depending on its direction or position relative to observer O."

No reason why, or how this can happen or anything, just "I am displacing" and suddenly, miraculously, light is capable of instantaneous velocity.

Indeed.

The "slow transport method" that you claimed Roemer used was actually proposed by Einstein as a way of getting around the problems imposed by time dilation generated when you try to seperate your two measuring devices so as to measure c.

Yes, good so far. Of course Einstein proposed this after he had settled on using ISC because it would only be valid with ISC.

Since Roemer made his discovery two and a half CENTURIES before Einsteins work he would've known nothing about Relativity, time dilation or the slow tranport method.

You crack me up, that doesn't stop Roamer's method from using the slow transport method even though it was 'discovered' by Einstein years later, just like people could conduct experiments that involved gravity before the 'discovery' of the laws of motion. The movement of the second clock in the experiment (Jupiter's moon) would be an example of the slow transport method. You are too much Zen.

You really have no idea of what the "slow transport method" is, do you Stat.
See herehttp://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=slow%20transport%20method%20%20einstein&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOne-way_speed_of_light&ei=j8X-TpLKJI_2mAX5iI2YAg&usg=AFQjCNHEi6CGRepOBqpZOlPLcgFZeeg6iw

Specifically "It is easily demonstrated that if two clocks are brought together and synchronized, then one clock is moved rapidly away and back again, the two clocks will no longer be synchronized.[13][14]
If however one clock is moved away slowly and returned the two clocks will be very nearly synchronized when they are back together again. The clocks can remain synchronized to an arbitrary accuracy by moving them sufficiently slowly. If it is taken that, if moved slowly, the clocks remain synchronized at all times, even when separated, this method can be used to synchronize two spatially separated clocks.

So you're telling that Roemer separated Io from his clock at very low speed in order to keep the two synchronised?

No, I asked where Einstein said it, not where some cretinist fucktard claimed he said it.

Did you notice I didn't have any issues copying and pasting from Lisle's article? Funny how that works huh? Lisle is an appropriate authority on such matters and cites his sources, you can certainly find the piece of Einstein's work he cites and double check it if you don't believe him, however that's not my job to double check all of his facts.
Nope, didn't find it, you'll have to do better than that.

Translated, " No Scientific body has even looked at it"

Did you miss the part about it being peer-reviewed? You are really off your game today aren't you?
Oh, I saw it but since AIG is famous for its empty claims that means nothing. I did do a search on Google and found only reviews by cretinist groups like AIG and ICR (no surprise there)

Ok then how about a list of institutions that have reviewed it, or even a list of who it has been submitted to?

You'd have to look to the Answers Journal for that information, it's not my job to do your hunting for you just like I wouldn't expect you to find the peer reviewers for Science or Nature.

Sorry pal, but as you said earlier "Assertion made above.....now waiting for proof." or does that only apply to other people, not you?

BTW Stat, this place you claim to work at as a scientist. Do they know you're a scientist or do they still think you're the janitor?

John is our janitor. They actually really like the scientific work I do.

And what would that be?

I think I agree with that. Nothing wrong with pretending light particles move a different speeds for different observers; even if it seems a bit silly to me.

No more silly than pretending it moves at different speeds dependent on the observer's velocity like Einstein proposed. A lot of this stuff is not intuitive.

You really have no idea at all, Einsteins core premise is that light speed is THE SAME regardless of the observers velocity.
Be a good lad and read up on special relativity before you go spouting about what you think it is.

This may be the case for the ASC convention, but certainly not for the ASC model. Occam's razor should apply to the model and its predictions.

It's not a model though, it's a convention. The trick is figuring out which convention of time measurement Genesis uses.

No, the trick is understanding that genesis is a bronze age fantasy with no correlation to reality.

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.

And you see no discrepancy here? that a light beam that is travelling at infinite speed if viewed from the side will be seen to be travelling at 186000mph.

That the laws of physics would change based on point of observation is completely without basis in reality. We've never seen it happen and have no reason to believe its true. Simply more wishful thinking by the willfully ignorant.

So you are completely denying Special Relativity? Nice.

No, he's not. But you are completely misunderstanding it.