RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 7, 2014 at 11:48 am
(February 6, 2014 at 8:57 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:(January 16, 2014 at 12:36 pm)Chas Wrote: So your basic premise is that the speed of light is entirely dependent on an observer?
It’s not my premise; it’s a stipulation of the convention. Under either convention it’s completely dependent upon the observer, in this one it’s the observer’s position in the isotropic convention it’s the observer’s velocity. Neither is more correct than the other.
Quote: What is the speed of light without an observer?
Where at and measured how?
Quote: N.B. You are utterly misinterpreting special relativity.
Even though I quoted from Einstein’s work that explicitly agrees with me? Nice try.
(January 16, 2014 at 1:49 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Why would light travel instantly in one direction and at light speed in the other?
It doesn’t, it travels at 1/2 experimental c in the opposite direction. All of relativity is counterintuitive.
You are making inferences that are not supported by relativity. You really do misunderstand it.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
