According to Wikipedia, One-way Speed of Light, what we normally consider the “speed of light” is really a “two way” speed of light, i.e., the speed of light determined by measuring the round-trip speed from the source to the detector and back. Apparently, Einstein, chose a convention such that the one-way speed was the same as the two-way speed but there is nothing requiring it to be the same. Apparently one could choose a different convention such as light travelling infinitely fast in one direction and ½ c in the opposition direction and result in the same experimental results as one choosing Einstein’s convention. See the part of the article that talks about Edward’s Theory. I tried to do some checking to see if anyone has proven that the one-way and two-way speeds are fundamentally the same but could not find any.
At this point you might ask: So what?
Well the reason I bring this up here is that one of the best arguments I have ever heard against young earth creationism is relative to starlight. It goes something like: How can the universe be only 6000 to 10000 years old when we can see the light from stars that are billions of light years away?
Recently, I ran across and article that provides two relatively simple possible explanations. See Distant starlight and Genesis: conventions of time measurement. In the article, Robert Newton, aka Jason Lisle of AiG, proposes two relatively simple solutions. Both are based on the concept of “observed time” with one of them also being based on an anisotropic speed of light (the speed depending on the direction relative to the observer).
So anyway my question is this. In your opinion, does this article provide a reasonable answer to the possibility of seeing starlight even given a young age to the universe? If not, why? (I am certainly no expert in relativity so I may very well be missing something important.)
(I know there are other arguments against a young earth position and do not want to go down those other roads here in this thread. So I will request that comments be limited to the questions raised above.)
Thanks for any input.
At this point you might ask: So what?
Well the reason I bring this up here is that one of the best arguments I have ever heard against young earth creationism is relative to starlight. It goes something like: How can the universe be only 6000 to 10000 years old when we can see the light from stars that are billions of light years away?
Recently, I ran across and article that provides two relatively simple possible explanations. See Distant starlight and Genesis: conventions of time measurement. In the article, Robert Newton, aka Jason Lisle of AiG, proposes two relatively simple solutions. Both are based on the concept of “observed time” with one of them also being based on an anisotropic speed of light (the speed depending on the direction relative to the observer).
So anyway my question is this. In your opinion, does this article provide a reasonable answer to the possibility of seeing starlight even given a young age to the universe? If not, why? (I am certainly no expert in relativity so I may very well be missing something important.)
(I know there are other arguments against a young earth position and do not want to go down those other roads here in this thread. So I will request that comments be limited to the questions raised above.)
Thanks for any input.
