RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
December 4, 2013 at 8:05 pm
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2013 at 8:16 pm by Anomalocaris.)
If only wordork's meant that light travel at a different speed in one particular direction vs another, then he would have actually exhibited some accidental intellectual integrity by witlessly allowing his "theory" to be testable.
But no. His hypothesis requires light to travel at a different speed from a source to THE observer, regardless of what direction that actually is or what that source is, then when it is traveling between any other pair of points, even if the line between those points lie along exactly the same direction as that between the source and observer. Light travels in his "opinion" at C along any direction unless that direction happen to have an observer at the end of it.
So he presents a theory that is by nature untestable. Since it can not be tested, he insisted it can not be excluded. Since it can not be excluded, and it is pleasing to the baffoons who wrote the bible, it must be as valid as any that can be tested. It since it can't be tested, and stands in no danger, even theoretically, of being falsified, it must be more valid than any that can.
If you prove light travels at constant and identical speed between any pairs of detectors. He would say you have not proven the light traveling between a star and you in particular have thus been proven.
In effect, he resorts to a more distilled version of the eternal christian:
If you can't prove what he says wrong in all senses and for all cases, then he is completely right.
If he can cast any doubt on what you say, however infinitesimal and irrelevent, then you are completely wrong.
But no. His hypothesis requires light to travel at a different speed from a source to THE observer, regardless of what direction that actually is or what that source is, then when it is traveling between any other pair of points, even if the line between those points lie along exactly the same direction as that between the source and observer. Light travels in his "opinion" at C along any direction unless that direction happen to have an observer at the end of it.
So he presents a theory that is by nature untestable. Since it can not be tested, he insisted it can not be excluded. Since it can not be excluded, and it is pleasing to the baffoons who wrote the bible, it must be as valid as any that can be tested. It since it can't be tested, and stands in no danger, even theoretically, of being falsified, it must be more valid than any that can.
If you prove light travels at constant and identical speed between any pairs of detectors. He would say you have not proven the light traveling between a star and you in particular have thus been proven.
In effect, he resorts to a more distilled version of the eternal christian:
If you can't prove what he says wrong in all senses and for all cases, then he is completely right.
If he can cast any doubt on what you say, however infinitesimal and irrelevent, then you are completely wrong.
