The Speed of Light, Time, and the Bible

[theVOID]

I’m not really sure what this has to do with the issue I raised.

The wiki article said:

“Albert Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed.”

Over a comparative distance... You seem to have it in your head that he was saying light takes the same time to travel one meter one way as it does two meters two ways, just because he chose to say that... What he was really saying is that all reasonable assumptions and the most efficient calculations see no reason to assume that the speed of light refracted after a half-meter back to it's source is at any different from the speed traveled in a straight line.

Is this a reasonable conclusion for the wiki writers to have drawn? If not, why?

It is, the only thing that stinks here is your understanding of what was said. That's what happens when you wiki mine, you end up trying to draw conclusions from summaries - that's simply stupid.

Zhang in the article Test Theories of Special Relativity seems to support this conclusion when he says on page 492:

“So that we come to the following conclusion…

[quote]
(ii) In other words, the directional parameter q cannot be observed in any physical experiment. That is to say that its modulus can be taken as any value in the range (-1,+1), or to say that the definition of simultaneity can be chosen arbitrarily.” (emphasis added)

[/quote]

You have absofuckinglutely no idea what you posted do you? This whole issue is about the inability to know for certain the momentum of the observer and detector in relation to the journey of the light being measured over a round trip. you cannot know for certain just how far the light actually traveled because both the source of the light, the refraction point and the destination(also the source) have been in momentum over the course of the light's journey.

This certainly seems to support what the wiki article said and it looks like it is in a published scientific journal that is peer reviewed.

Firstly, I have no problem with the content of the wiki article, just your erroneous conclusions.
Secondly, it's a book, not a scientific paper.
Thirdly, it does not support your silly conclusions at all.
Fourthly, Why the fuck would you post a link to an abstract for a book than i have to pay to read? Disingenuous much?

I never suggested Einstein’s synchronization allowed for a variance as much as ½ c. Edwards theory seems to indicate that one can choose a synchronization that allows for the one way speed to vary from infinite to ½ c. See the wiki article where it says:
[quote]
“This allows the one-way speed of light to take the form c/(1+q) in a given direction, with the sign of q reversed in the opposite direction. In the extreme as q approaches 1, light might propagate in one direction instantaneously, provided it takes twice the time to travel in the opposite direction. The average speed for the round trip remains the experimentally verifiable two-way speed. All predictions of Edwards theory are experimentally indistinguishable from those of special relativity; the difference is only that the defined clock time varies from Einstein's according to the distance in a specific direction.”

[/quote]

Lmao, go put that into your own words in context... That should demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that you have no fucking clue what you are reading.

Secondly, i already pointed out why nobody pragmatically uses Edwards theory , there is no way to verify his calculations. It's special relativity + entirely unnecessary conjecture and it adds absolutely nothing to our understanding of light.

It's like saying:
We know the car took 2 hours to get from A to B and back to A.
This distance was 200km total.

Einstein assumed the car went 100kmph in either direction.
Edwards suggested the car went at any possible speed in any direction, so long as the average speed was still 100kmph.

Nobody actually knew the speed of the car in any given direction, either could be true.

However, when you apply this to light, there is no evidence at all of Light travelling at any speed other than 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum, therefore there is no reason to assume that Edwards theory is correct.

Umm…this also is not an argument but I do wish to point out that it was published in 2001 in a journal called TJ (now Journal of Creation).

Precisely.

My comment about Torch Bearing elves was published in fairy-tail-science-weekly, a journal which is run by me, the proponent of the theory. Please smother me with credibility!

…entirely to fool suckers like you into swallowing their loads.

From my original post, it should be clear that I asked the question to make sure I wasn’t missing something. So far you have not really demonstrated a thing.[/quote]

I have pointed out why it is stupid to assume Edward's unsupported theory as accurate, and why it is even more stupid to try an build a proof around it. I have pointed out your egregious mistake in interpreting the concepts presented, pointed out that the "paper" in question wasn't ever published in a serious scientific forum...

Anything else i need to beat through that skull of yours?

argumentum ad hominem

No it isn't. I did not rely on my disdain of Lise as a reason not to accept the theory, the flaws are obvious.

“Others have claimed that God created the light en route, but this would mean that supernova 1987A never actually happened, but rather that God created the image of the exploding star en route to Earth. Moreover, it would mean that the progenitor star never actually existed even though we have been able to see its image throughout time. While some 'appearance of age' is essential in a supernaturally created universe where things were created functionally mature, would God create the image of a star that never actually existed, or a supernova that never happened? Perhaps we cannot completely eliminate this possibility, but it nonetheless seems a remarkably uncharacteristic act for the God of the Bible.”

He's changed tack then.

Lisle later goes on to explain the two possibilities relative to “observed time”. The one possibility would even require the light to have travelled for billions of year in “calculated time” but not in “observed time”. The other possibility, that relies on a choice of clock synchronization (which, as noted above, appears to be supported in the scientific literature) such that light travels infinitely fast toward an observer and ½ c away from an observer coupled with the “observed time” idea. Neither of these seem remotely close to the God created light en route argument.

More noise. There is no substance to this argument, it is a shockingly poor interpretation of a completely unsupported hypothesis.

As noted above, I did not see any real arguments given, just conclusions and ad hominem arguments. You certainly have the right to not think the article provides a reasonable answer to the possibility of seeing starlight even given a young age to the universe regardless of your reasons. I was just hoping for a more substantive response.

Want a more substantive response? Try arguing from some more substantiated material. Using a totally unsupported hypothesis to begin with is enough to reject the argument.

And there were no ad hominem's, as both I and Adrian have pointed out.