The Speed of Light, Time, and the Bible

[rjh4 is back]

Ad hominem by implication doesn't exist as a fallacy, nor would it. There is a difference between saying outright that "Person X is a liar, so we shouldn't trust anything he says." and making an argument against what someone has said on logical grounds, and then adding that they are a liar. In the first case, the person being a liar is linked directly to the conclusion to not trust them. In the second, there is no such direct link.

Ok...so a direct link is needed for the ad hominem fallacy to be present. Fine. I'll remember that.

You wanting it to be a fallacy reveals much about your intellectual honesty in my opinion. There is more to debates than pointing out fallacies.

Personally, I could care less whether or not it was a fallacy on Void's part. Fallacy or not, it did nothing to support Void's position except maybe make him look like he's already got a chip on his shoulder relative to Lisle which immediately makes me wonder whether or not his emotions would allow him to evaluate Lisle's paper in an evenhanded manner.

---

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.

I get that and have no problem with that. I would have done the same thing. It doesn’t change the fact that it was based on assumptions, as you point out.

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.

No. The issue is about one-way vs. two-way speed of light.

Fourthly, Why … would you post a link to an abstract for a book than i have to pay to read? Disingenuous much?

I tried to post the link to the pdf article. I did notice that the first time I clicked on the link I got to that page where the book or journal is being sold. Nonetheless, if you get to that page and look right under the picture of the book or journal (whatever it is), there is a link to the full pdf of the particular article. I did the best I could at providing the proper link.

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.

I understand and agree with your assessment here. However, notice that Einstein assumed the speed in either direction.

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.

No. When you apply your car scenario to light, you would get the same conclusion: Nobody actually knew the speed of light in any given direction, either could be true. And as I have been pointing out, there does not appear to be any way to prove a fundamental value for the one-way speed of light. You can refer to Occam’s Razor all you like but it does not prove the one-way speed of light, it merely provides you with a practical way of doing things.

This is no argument relative to the issues proposed by Lisle.

He's credited with much of the work in Moore's "paper".

What are you talking about? I never mentioned a paper by Moore and neither did you.

Neither are these.

I'm not claiming to have disproved Special Relativity.

Again…What are you talking about? Nobody said you claimed to have disproved Special Relativity.

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

Fine. I addressed this in my reply to Adrian.

“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.

That is your response???? This indicates to me that you did not even read Lisle’s paper before you responded the first time because he didn’t change tack in the specific paper I cited. Furthermore, if you had actually read it you would have known that this was not the position he was putting forth.

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

Did you even read the paper yet?

You know, if you don’t want to read Lisle’s paper, you don’t have to. But it seems to me that if you don’t, you should also refrain from commenting on it.