(August 9, 2010 at 7:07 pm)rjh4 Wrote: 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.
His proposition was that it will take the light exactly the same amount of time to be refracted over two half-meter distances as it would for the light to travel a straight meter as the momentum of the light would not decrease over time nor with refraction. This was supported by measuring a light path involving multiple refractions and finding that the time between any two refractions down the chain did not change. The problem with the measurements has to do with the relationship between the observer and detector moving through space time in relation to the light.
Quote: 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.
Firstly, the ambiguity in Einsteins equations is in relation to the movement of the observer and the detector through space time in relation to the light, making a perfect measurement potentially impossible. It does not suggest that the light refracts at a slower momentum than it's one-way speed. It certainly does not suggest as you did that this could be as much as a variance as 1/2 c.
Secondly, Edwards theory is a more mathematically complex, also unverified hypothesis that is currently experimentally indistinguishable from Special Relativity, the difference between the two would increase the initial (one way) speed proportional to the two way speed, but yield the exact same result as Einsteins equations. Until verified in some way that Edwards formula for the relationship of one-way and two-way light is more accurate than Special Relativity there is no reason to prefer it as an explanation. Thus far it is the same thing with extra conjecture. A simple application of Occam's razor is all you need, and that clearly falls on Special Relativities side for now.
Quote: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?
Let me guess, you're about to quote the Discovery Institute or AIG for some bullshit masquerading as science?
Quote: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).
I guess correct.
Typical AIG assumptive noise disguised as science, mangled with biblical references.
Is that article published in a scientific journal? Nope.
Been peer reviewed? Nope.
Free of premises that are purely assumptive: Nope.
They even go to the trouble at AIG to make their "papers" look like they were published, entirely to fool suckers like you into swallowing their loads.
This is Jason Lisle, a fucking dishonest little weasel, and if you actually bother to chew through all the word salad and obfuscation he is really trying to suggest that God created light-in-motion. He failed miserably to demonstrate this, which is why nobody takes it seriously.
Quote: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.)
No fucking way. For reasons listed above.
.
