RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
November 28, 2013 at 7:37 am
(November 28, 2013 at 2:59 am)orogenicman Wrote: Here are some thoughts. If the one-way speed of light and the two-way speed of light are assumed, for purposes of discussion, to be different, why then, when we conduct a two-way measurement, is the frequency the same in both directions? Why is there no shift, which there must be if the velocity had changed?
Bloody good question. I would have thought that accelerating to infinite velocity would produce an infinite doppler shift. I readily admit I'm not an expert on the matter, though.
Quote:Moreover, for purposes of determining the age of the universe, why would we ever need to know the one-way speed of light? Since we are essentially always measuring the two way speed, and that velocity is verified by numerous independent research paths and theoretical calculations for well over 100 years, what's the point? How would the two-way speed of light negate the distances measured in the universe, particularly when those measurements depend ultimately on the standard candle, which is also well understood to depend entirely on the inverse square law, not the speed of light, and on the parallax of stars, which is also well understood? My point is that it doesn't, making warped one's argument that the age of the universe as determined using this measurement being wrong is superfluous. It isn't wrong. What's worse, he doesn't explain how such a "wrong measurement" could ever give us a number such as 10,000 years, or any other such fanciful number.
You're right, we don't need to know the one way speed to work out how far away stars and galaxies are - I made the exact same point to Statler. The thing is, it's the isotropic convention that tells us how long it took the light to reach us from those stars and galaxies.
(November 28, 2013 at 5:18 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Complete bullshit of course. And disproven quite simply by measuring the one way speed of light.
Even though it won't be accurate, it WILL show a finite velocity.
Only if you assume an isotropic convention when setting up the experiment. I really don't know how I can phrase it in more simple terms than have already been used. I'm starting to think that you aren't actually reading any of the posts that explain why you're wrong.
