The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Statler Waldorf]

Fuck off Statler,

Spoken like a true intellectual.

Romers [sic] discovery was the one way speed of light heading towards Earth.
Directly contradicting Lisles bullshit dressed up as science.
And all your lame attempts to say otherwise with crap like "conventions" are so much piss and wind.

No it was not, it pre-dated relativity and now we know that it requires a synchrony convention because motion affects time passage. You should not try to address a subject you are so clearly ignorant of.

Even your beloved Wikipedia demonstrates that you are just wrong…

When using the term 'the speed of light' it is sometimes necessary to make the distinction between its one-way speed and its two-way speed. The "one-way" speed of light from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector. What can however be experimentally measured is the round-trip speed (or "two-way" speed of light) from the source to the detector and back again. Albert Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. The constancy of the one-way speed in any given inertial frame, is the basis of his special theory of relativity although all experimentally verifiable predictions of this theory do not depend on that convention.[1][2]

Experiments that attempted to directly probe the one-way speed of light independent of synchronization have been proposed, but none has succeeded in doing so.[3] Those experiments directly establish that synchronization with slow clock-transport is equivalent to Einstein synchronization, which is an important feature of special relativity. Though those experiments don't directly establish the isotropy of the one-way speed of light, because it was shown that slow clock-transport, the laws of motion, and the way inertial reference frames are defined, already involve the assumption of isotropic one-way speeds and thus are conventional as well.[4] In general, it was shown that these experiments are consistent with anisotropic one-way light speed as long as the two-way light speed is isotropic.[1][5]

Although the average speed over a two-way path can be measured, the one-way speed in one direction or the other is undefined (and not simply unknown), unless one can define what is "the same time" in two different locations. To measure the time that the light has taken to travel from one place to another it is necessary to know the start and finish times as measured on the same time scale. This requires either two synchronized clocks, one at the start and one at the finish, or some means of sending a signal instantaneously from the start to the finish. No instantaneous means of transmitting information is known. Thus the measured value of the average one-way speed is dependent on the method used to synchronize the start and finish clocks. This is a matter of convention.” [Emphasis added by SW]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

Look at that! Exactly what I have been telling you for years now. Romer did not measure the one-way speed of light.

As demonstrated by Hans Reichenbach and Adolf Grünbaum, Einstein synchronization is only a special case of a more broader synchronization scheme, which leaves the two-way speed of light invariant, but allows for different one-way speeds. The formula for Einstein synchronization is modified by replacing ½ with ε:[4]

…
As required by the experimentally proven equivalence between Einstein synchronization and slow clock-transport synchronization, which requires knowledge of time dilation of moving clocks, the same non-standard synchronisations must also affect time dilation. It was indeed pointed out that time dilation of moving clocks depends on the convention for the one-way velocities used in its formula.[17] That is, time dilation can be measured by synchronizing two stationary clocks A and B, and then the readings of a moving clock C are compared with them. Changing the convention of synchronization for A and B makes the value for time dilation (like the one-way speed of light) directional dependent. The same conventionality also applies to the influence of time dilation on the Doppler effect.[18] Only when time dilation is measured on closed paths, it is not conventional and can unequivocally be measured like the two-way speed of light. Time dilation on closed paths was measured in the Hafele–Keating experiment and in experiments on the Time dilation of moving particles such as Bailey et al. (1977).[19] Thus the so-called twin paradox occurs in all transformations preserving the constancy of the two-way speed of light. [Emphasis added by SW]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

As I have also told you, the difference observed by Romer was due to time dilation caused by the positional change in the Moons he was observing.

The Reichenbach-Grünbaum ε-synchronization was further developed by authors such as Edwards (1963),[44] Winnie (1970),[17] Anderson and Stedman (1977), who reformulated the Lorentz transformation without changing its physical predictions.[1][2] For instance, Edwards replaced Einstein's postulate that the one-way speed of light is constant when measured in an inertial frame with the postulate:

The two way speed of light in a vacuum as measured in two (inertial) coordinate systems moving with constant relative velocity is the same regardless of any assumptions regarding the one-way speed.[44]

So the average speed for the round trip remains the experimentally verifiable two-way speed, whereas the one-way speed of light is allowed to take the form in opposite directions:

[Image]
κ can have values between 0 and 1. In the extreme as κ approaches 1, light might propagate in one direction instantaneously, provided it takes the entire round-trip time to travel in the opposite direction. Following Edwards and Winnie, Anderson et al. formulated generalized Lorentz transformations for arbitrary boosts of the form:[2] [Emphasis added by SW]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_spe...way_speeds

Again, exactly as I have been telling you for years; you could have actually read up on the material and saved us both a lot of time. Then again, I would not have been able to have the great satisfaction of proving you wrong by using your own beloved source of information.

All of which, funnily enough, were found to be false and corrected by those same secular sources, and not theistic ones.

You’re overplaying your hand, the Piltdown man hoax was not discovered to be a hoax until 40 years after its publication, and it was not exposed by a scientific journal but rather by Time Magazine. Secondly, if your peer-review system is so amazing, then how were such frauds and hoaxes allowed to ever be published in the first place? A human skull, orangutan jaw bone, and chimpanzee teeth? Give me a break.
Woo-suk’s fraudulent work was published not once, but twice by Science. The fraudulent work was not detected by any of the reviewers or the editor of Science but rather by Seoul National University. Again, if your system is so great, how could something like this get published….twice?
Schön’s fraudulent work was published by both Science and Nature and was not exposed as a fraud by either. It took other Physicists noticing after the publication that many of his data and graphs were obvious duplications and fabrications to expose the hack.

I just can't resist commenting on the ignorance of creationists. Especially the YECS.

Asserting someone is ignorant is one thing; actually demonstrating that they are is something completely different. You seem to conveniently be a fan of the former.

It's a moot point now. I was merely pointing out that your post would require all oceanic crust to have been generated during or after the Noachian flood. Since that is indeed what you claim, it's somewhat irrelevant now

Fair enough my friend.

Ok, but since the distance of a galaxy is calculated using "standard candles" and luminosity, the distance remains the same regardless of the convention employed. If the manner of calculating cosmological redshift is also the same, then it would appear that mature creation is a necessary conclusion. It would also seem to imply that galaxies were created in varying states of "maturity" that are inversely proportional to distance.

I am not following you on the varying stages of maturity part. Yes, the distances are the same but light traveling towards Earth reaches Earth instantaneously- solving any “starlight time problem”. The term mature creation is a bit misleading, but yes the galaxy would be created fully functioning much as we see it today just like the Earth and Adam were created.

I suppose you could also posit that the galaxies underwent massively accelerated development during creation week, with those furthest away being created later (and subject to the same inverse proportionality) and thus subject to a shorter period of rapid development, but this would seem to conflict with the biblical account.

Actually this is a bit like one of the two cosmological models preferred by CMI (I prefer ASC because I think it is simpler). During creation week as the stretching of space was accelerated you’d experience huge levels of time dilation towards the edges of the Universe. One great strength of this model is that it does not require any dark energy or dark matter.

True, but if I've understood Lisle's paper on ASC correctly then time dilation is relative to position rather than speed. If this is the case, then surely the transmissions would still have been received almost instantaneously and would instead have been subject to a doppler shift.

Yes, under ASC the time dilation is due to a change in position rather than in velocity as in the Einstein convention. So it’s two different ways of explaining the same phenomena. I have to know more about exactly how the delay was experienced in the Apollo missions and according to whose clock.

It strikes me that a time dilation of such magnitude being caused by positional time dilation would be easily tested

Well we know that such dilatations occur; we just have to stipulate whether it is due to a change in position or velocity.

Review of experiments to test the isotropy of the speed of light
K.C. Turner and H. A. Hill

Thanks! It’s an interesting subject because there really is no experiment that can calculate the one way speed of light without first assuming what it is trying to prove. Lisle is not the first to use such an anisotropic convention, he is merely the first to explain how it could apply to Genesis 1 and distant stars.

I think there was one found recently that is just over 5000 years old, but either way, those are just the trees that are still living. We also have samples from dead trees which I believe date back about 9000 years.

I think I remember reading an article on those trees, but it seemed that they were making some rather dubious assumptions in order to arrive at those dates (much like we see when they use ice core dating). I’d have to go back and look. You do not find it a bit odd that there are not any living trees that are 10,000 years old? I see no reason why there wouldn’t be given a deep time model for the Earth’s history.

Rings are not just used to determine the age of tree, they give a lot of information regarding the history of the tree, the area in which it grew and the climactic conditions at that time, so any such period of special conditions should be easily identifiable.

I am not sure, possibly.

The occurrence of double tree rings in bristlecone pines is very rare [Ferguson, 1968, p.840]. Missing rings occur far more often, so if anything, you're far more likely to get an age that is too young, rather than too old.

In the study performed by Glock in 1960 entitled, “Classification and multiplicity of growth layers in the branches of trees” they found that Bristlecone Pines in the White Mountains add multiple rings per year more than twice as often as they do a single ring per year.

In his book The Genus Pinus N.T. Mirov states concerning Bristlecone Pines and multiplicity, “Apparently a semblance of annual rings is formed after every rather infrequent cloudburst.” If we had a climate that was very dry with periods of occasional rain we could generate many rings per year.

While the article looked into the arks ability to self-right, it didn't appear to take into account its stability in strong waves and winds. With a strong, side on wind in a rough sea, the ship will roll much harder. Without a method of propulsion, this is quite a problem.

It also didn't seem to account for the stresses and strains caused by twisting and rolling. With wooden ships this size, this puts incredible strain on the hull planks and creates gaps which let in water. 18th century wooden ships were no more than 2/3 of the size, had bilge pumps, much shorter voyage times and the opportunity to repair damage.

I believe ships from that time period (the 18th Century) were actually inferior in technology to ships from antiquity because they did not use mortice and tenon joints due to time constraints. The Leontifera was a large war vessel from 200 BC that housed 1600 men and had 100 rowers on each side of the ship (making it between 400 and 500 feet long). Athenaeus describes a warship built by Ptolemy Philopator around 200 BC. The ship was 420 feet long, 57 feet wide, and 72 feet high. This is almost identical in size to Noah’s vessel. The ship also housed 7,250 men and supplies for all of them. I do not think we give men of antiquity enough credit for their genius.

Aside from the massive impact forces involved in the collision of tectonic plates moving at those speeds? No problem at all. I don't really need any other problems.

Yes, that might kill everyone on Earth….wait….

Even if we allow the movement of the plates to be spread out over the entire year, the forces involved in the collision of tectonic plates at such speed would be......noticeable.

Yes, I do not see a problem with that; we know this was a catastrophic event killing all but eight people.

I notice that nowhere is there anything approaching evidence for that instantaneous light speed.

That’s because it is a convention, that’s as absurd as saying, “I notice that nowhere is there anything approaching evidence for the metric system.” There is just as much evidence to support such a notion as there is to support a finite speed towards the observer (velocity dependent system). Conventions are stipulated; they are not demonstrated.

on another note, frauds and errors do happen which is why the Piltdown man is the perfect example of good science, it was studied further and debunked.

Allowing something as ridiculous as the Piltdown man to be published in the most prestigious secular journal in the world and not being debunked until 40 years later by a news magazine is your idea of “good science”? I guess we just differ on our notions of good science.

Jesus titty fucking christ that was a long post.

I had a lot to respond to. I try to take the time to respond to everyone’s points, you’re welcome.