The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[Zen Badger]

You think so? Then look at this......
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...KGK2VDqFYA

To keep it simple for you, in 1676 Ole Roemer, by observing the transit of Io behind Jupiter calculated when it should reappear, then demonstrated that the times differed depending on where Earth was in its orbit. This showed that light was taking longer to get to Earth the further away from Jupiter it was. Therefore proving that contrary to previous belief c was not infinite.

And, incidentally, shooting ASC stone cold dead before it was even born.

Zen, I don't think this really supports your position like you think it does. I think in special relativity, the frame of reference of the earth changes as it orbits the sun because there is a change in velocity (speed and/or direction). This change in the frame of reference changes the clock used to make the measurements. In other words, once the earth moves from position 1, the clock would not remain synchronized with a clock that stays at position 1. I think this is the whole issue with the conventionality thesis. Without knowing that the clocks remain synchronized, you cannot rely on the results as a measure of the one-way speed of light and the clocks cannot be synchronized without assuming the speed of light.

In addition, I found that there is still discussion in the literature regarding the conventionality thesis, some for and some against. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacet...nvensimul/ for a review of both. If what you said really is true, i.e., that the experiment you pointed out really does shoot ASC down, then it seems to me it would also shoot down the conventionality thesis too. Yet, there is still discussion in the literature for and against. It makes me wonder why those for it would even bother if there is an old experiment that shoots it down. It also makes me wonder why those against it provide all sorts of other arguments when they could dispatch the position as quickly as you did. This all makes me think that you have made some serious errors in taking the experimentation that you cited and making the conclusions that you did.

You misunderstand my point RJh4, If Lisles theory was correct there would be no change in the observed times of Io's emergence from behind Jupiter. It wouldn't matter where Earth was in relation to Jupiter because the transit time would always be zero.
The fact that Roemer did in fact observe a delay in transit means that the further away from Jupiter Earth is the longer it is taking the light to reach us and therefore its velocity is finite.

The actual speed might be open to question (plus or minus a percentage point), but it is nonetheless a finite speed.
And not the instantaneous speed that Lisle is claming.