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

[orogenicman]

[quote='orogenicman' pid='573309' dateline='1388457870']
Perhaps you could elaborate on what you consider to be my ignorance regarding "relativity’s conventionality thesis".

The fact that you think the one-way speed of light is an inherent property of Nature and not a mere stipulation; that completely contradicts the conventionality thesis.

Are you suggesting that the speed of light is not natural?

You're the one who considers the one-way speed of light to be instantaneous (and thus magically affects the age of the universe) sans any supporting evidence whatsoever. Congratulations.

Hehehe. Pot-kettle-black.

I do not personally attack you, believe me I could.

I'm all a tremble.

Referring to my ex-wife's Jewry is an appeal to authority? Perhaps you should reconsider that bullshite argument.

Yes, anytime you make an appeal to someone fallible and who does not possess the proper credentials you’re making a fallacious appeal to authority. I do not make the rules, I merely enforce them sir.

And of course, you know someone who is infallible, right? (This should be entertaining)

So what you are saying is that you know my ex-wife better than I do. I suspect she would be surprised to learn of this.

No, I am saying that I know that Freundel is more qualified to comment upon such matters since he is the World’s leading expert.

And yet he seems (or rather, judging from your claim) rather ignorant of the facts, as pointed out already:

http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/denominations.htm For instance, according to a 1990 nationwide survey, 7 percent of American Jews are Orthodox. And like you and your fundy brothers and sister, they got Genesis wrong as well.

http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/denominations.htm

That is not what I claimed. Do I need to give you a lesson in reading comprehension?

In the mean time, have you ever wondered why the only people who believe the book of genesis is anything but a work of mythology are evangelical Christians?

Sure sounds to me like you’re saying the only people who believe in a young Earth are evangelical Christians considering that’s exactly what you said.

If there are (and there may well be), they aren't trying to cause permanent damage to our education system by demanding that it be taught in our science classrooms?

The fact remains that those who believe in a young Earth are far outnumbered by those who don't, many of whom are religious. So you are basically a Calvanist. You have my sympathies.

Changing your tune now I see. The number of people who believe something is irrelevant to whether it is true or not. The overwhelming majority of people reject naturalism, are you going to now relinquish it?

Extraordinary claims, O' warped one.

Not “basically” a Calvinist, I am one.

You have my sympathies. Truly.

Getting back to our original discussion, there are plenty of equations that imply or else provide mathematical proofs of the finite speed of light.

Two-way yes.

Can you show us a valid equation that implies that light can travel instantaneously, as you and your mentor claims?

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

Excuse me? Where in that article does it make the claim that light travels instantaneously? Moreover, where in that article is there an equation that provides a proof that light can travel instantaneously? What it does say is this:

To date, all experimental results agree with special relativity within the experimental uncertainty.

I might add that the problem with your claim that light can travel instantaneously has to do with the nature of light itself.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...eed-of-lig

Light, by definition, is an electromagnetic wave, a propagating disturbance in space and time that carries information about the acceleration of charges.

Were there an infinite value for the speed of light, light itself would not exist at all. Mathematically, the wave equation that describes light as an electromagnetic wave would lose its time-dependence.

an electromagnetic wave arises due to the finite time it takes for news of the change of location of an accelerated charge to arrive at a distant point. Think of an electric charge as being like a hedgehog with flexible rubber spikes going out to infinity in all directions. These spikes represent the electric field lines, the lines along which a test charge would move.

If the charge is jerked, the segments of the spikes close to the charge will move, but those farther out will still point in their original directions. The result is that each spike will get a kink that moves out to infinity. This kink relays the news that the charge has moved to the distant parts of the spikes and corresponds to an electromagnetic wave. If the wave moves infinitely fast, it is as if it were not there at all; the spikes are infinitely stiff and the news gets out to everywhere without any seeming kinks. In other words, there would be no electromagnetic wave, and thus no light.

The previous two arguments are two slightly different ways to say that if you think light is a wave, then it has to be something that propagates and takes time to go from one point to another. In other words, it has to travel at a finite speed. Infinite speed of propagation is an instantaneous magical change in things everywhere all at once, and not a wave at all!