The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Anomalocaris]

If only wordork's meant that light travel at a different speed in one particular direction vs another, then he would have actually exhibited some accidental intellectual integrity by witlessly allowing his "theory" to be testable.

But no. His hypothesis requires light to travel at a different speed from a source to THE observer, regardless of what direction that actually is or what that source is, then when it is traveling between any other pair of points, even if the line between those points lie along exactly the same direction as that between the source and observer. Light travels in his "opinion" at C along any direction unless that direction happen to have an observer at the end of it.

So he presents a theory that is by nature untestable. Since it can not be tested, he insisted it can not be excluded. Since it can not be excluded, and it is pleasing to the baffoons who wrote the bible, it must be as valid as any that can be tested. It since it can't be tested, and stands in no danger, even theoretically, of being falsified, it must be more valid than any that can.

If you prove light travels at constant and identical speed between any pairs of detectors. He would say you have not proven the light traveling between a star and you in particular have thus been proven.

In effect, he resorts to a more distilled version of the eternal christian:

If you can't prove what he says wrong in all senses and for all cases, then he is completely right.

If he can cast any doubt on what you say, however infinitesimal and irrelevent, then you are completely wrong.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

[orogenicman]

Separating the detectors will re-introduce the simultaneity problem. The fact that simultaneity has been previously determined via the oscilloscope becomes irrelevant

You seem to be of the belief that it cannot be accounted for and thus taken into consideration when conducting such an experiment. I take the position that we have been conducting scientific experiments for hundreds of years and are pretty good at taking into consideration such things as instrument error, simultaneity, and the like. Why is it, in your opinion, impossible to measure any differences in the set up at 1,000 feet as opposed to any other distance, or no distance? Why, in your opinion, is a calibration method irrelevant? We know the speed at which electrons move through wires. We have two wires of known length, and detectors with known properties separated by 1,000 feet. If firing a laser beam across those detectors produces the same result regardless of direction, how is that not a significant result? You haven't re-introduced a synchronous issue to the experiment because you are taking all measurements are the same location. You only have one clock. You have accounted for the distances by measuring any error that introduces.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

The measurements are being recorded in one position, yes. But the detectors that are relaying that information are in different positions. The information still has to be relayed back to the oscilloscope.

[Anomalocaris]

You seem to think a simple conclusion drawn from an experiment can be cast into serious doubt by the expedient of contriving a much more convoluted alternative explanation, without any need to accompany the alternative with even a vague proposal of how the alternative can be tested and the simpler explanation excluded. In this you are more like a Wordorf, trying to find wiggle room for a hoax, or at least a figment of fancy, than a person with a genuine inclination towards finding explanations most likely to be true in light of available explanation.

[orogenicman]

The measurements are being recorded in one position, yes. But the detectors that are relaying that information are in different positions. The information still has to be relayed back to the oscilloscope.

The measurements are being recorded in two positions separated by 1,000 feet. The signal from each detector is running along identical wires with identical lengths with known properties. The issue is synchroneity of clocks, NOT synchroneity of detectors. That isn't an issue here because there is only one clock measuring arrival times at each detector. You don't actually want synchroneity of detectors and wouldn't expect to have it because you are trying to measure the arrival times of the laser light at each detector. The measurement is a one-way measurement from the source (the laser) to the two detectors set at different locations along the light path. You know the speed at which the signal will reach the oscilloscope from each detector (from prior testing) and used that information to calibrate your result.

[Anomalocaris]

The measurements are being recorded in one position, yes. But the detectors that are relaying that information are in different positions. The information still has to be relayed back to the oscilloscope.

The measurements are being recorded in two positions separated by 1,000 feet. The signal from each detector is running along identical wires with identical lengths with known properties. The issue is synchroneity of clocks, NOT synchroneity of detectors. That isn't an issue here because there is only one clock measuring arrival times at each detector. You don't actually want synchroneity of detectors and wouldn't expect to have it because you are trying to measure the arrival times of the laser light at each detector. The measurement is a one-way measurement from the source (the laser) to the two detectors set at different locations along the light path. You know the speed at which the signal will reach the oscilloscope from each detector (from prior testing) and used that information to calibrate your result.

Anyone who could argue, based on no evidence whatsoever, that photons as near identical as could be determined, traversing two otherwise indistinguishable linear stretches of space, could nonetheless do so at different velocities just so as to save the bible, can also argue electrical signals as near identical as could be determined, traversing two otherwise indistinguishable wires, could nonetheless travel at different speeds on those occassions where such difference appears to them to be necessary to saving the bible.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

You seem to think a simple conclusion drawn from an experiment can be cast into serious doubt by the expedient of contriving a much more convoluted alternative explanation, without any need to accompany the alternative with even a vague proposal of how the alternative can be tested and the simpler explanation excluded. In this you are more like a Wordorf, trying to find wiggle room for a hoax, or at least a figment of fancy, than a person with a genuine inclination towards finding explanations most likely to be true in light of available explanation.

I'm not trying to find "wiggle room" at all. I want ASC to be proven wrong and it should be perfectly clear from my posts that I'm trying to find a flaw with it, but every experiment I've found so far and every example given on this forum has suffered from confirmation bias. I'm not going to overlook a flaw just because doing so would give a preferred result - doing so would only undermine our position.

Even if you don't believe my intentions and really do think I'm trying to find "wiggle room", you should note the two main questions I am asking when looking at each experiment are:
1) Is this actually a test of the one way speed of light?
2) Is there an issue with simultaneity that hasn't been taken into consideration?

If people could ask those questions themselves before they post a experiment that "proves" isotropy, it would save time and effort for all involved .

The measurements are being recorded in two positions separated by 1,000 feet. The signal from each detector is running along identical wires with identical lengths with known properties. The issue is synchroneity of clocks, NOT synchroneity of detectors. That isn't an issue here because there is only one clock measuring arrival times at each detector. You don't actually want synchroneity of detectors and wouldn't expect to have it because you are trying to measure the arrival times of the laser light at each detector. The measurement is a one-way measurement from the source (the laser) to the two detectors set at different locations along the light path. You know the speed at which the signal will reach the oscilloscope from each detector (from prior testing) and used that information to calibrate your result.

But if there is a time dilation then the detectors will be affected by it. It's not just clocks that are subject to time dilation. You can't prove one way isotropy unless you eliminate this possibility.

[Chas]

Do you even Google?

Michelson-Morley, Special Relativity, ...

The Michelson-Morley experiments were dealing with the proposed luminiferous aether and not with the one-way speed of light. With the advent of relativity we now know that it is impossible to measure the one-way speed of light and that a position dependent system can be stipulated.

The universe has been shown to be isotropic. We can measure the speed of light constantly while our position and orientation in the universe constantly vary. The same result is measured every time.

"One-way speed of light" is nonsense, just like "irreducible complexity". Just made-up shit to try to patch up an incoherent belief system.

[Anomalocaris]

The universe has been shown to be isotropic. We can measure the speed of light constantly while our position and orientation in the universe constantly vary. The same result is measured every time.

Actually, Michaelson Morley experiment does not demonstrate the universe is isotropic. It only shows testable properties of local light propogation is isotropic, and therefore the notion that light propogation depends on a medium is untenable.

Whether universe itself is isotropic is an open question. It is a question that deserves to be asked because different hypothetical answers produce different testable predictions.

"One-way speed of light" is nonsense, just like "irreducible complexity". Just made-up shit to try to patch up an incoherent belief system.

"One-way speed of light" is nonsense because it is not accompanied by any testable unique predictions, therefore has no business being proposed.