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

[Zen Badger]

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 very nice and all entirely beside the point.

The core of Lisles "theory" is that the speed of light coming towards Earth is instantaneous(in a pathetic attempt to make YEC credible).

Romers discovery showed that it isn't. It's the very discovery that showed that contrary to then current belief light had finite velocity.

And you can crap on about conventions as much as you like.

It doesn't matter that it happened before Relativity was formulated, it doesn't matter if we can't prove the velocity to the last MPH.

All that matters is that we know that the velocity of light coming towards Earth is finite, and Lisle is just another liar for jesus.

Oh, and by the way..... fuck you. intellectual enough for you buddy?