RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 16, 2014 at 5:46 am
Heh, funny. So there are the RMS extension of special relativity and the Standard Model extension, which can be used to parameterize deviations from simple Lorentz invariance - but the relevant parameters are measured by different experiments and are typically to one part in a billionth within the parameters of special relativity. The ludicrous scenario which you mention is not in that range of course 
. Accomodating instant light travel requires special pleading (it does so only where we can't measure, and the universe/God conspires to make all the thousands of observations look exactly as if the universe were billions of years old). It is, in other words, a lia that science accomodates this scenario.
. Accomodating instant light travel requires special pleading (it does so only where we can't measure, and the universe/God conspires to make all the thousands of observations look exactly as if the universe were billions of years old). It is, in other words, a lia that science accomodates this scenario.(February 16, 2014 at 5:32 am)Zen Badger Wrote:(February 16, 2014 at 3:35 am)Alex K Wrote: I'm a bit late to the game, Statler Waldorf claims what exactly wrt light propagation? It's hard to infer from the discussion...
Waldorf likes to throw around a steaming pile of dog turds called anisotropic light propagation. It is the brain fart of a disingenuous liar for Jesus called Jason Lisle.
His claim being that light travelling towards earth has infinite velocity but light travelling away only has half c, therefore the universe could be only a few thousand years old as per the bible and not billions of years old as per reality.
While we have repeatedly pointed out the faults with this hypothesis, this has not stopped Waldorf from claiming its validity.
