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

[Anomalocaris]

But then, if you measure the signal in the wires hundreds to thousands of times and get the same results, I think it is safe to say that the signal is going to be the same during the experiment. As a check, you run the experiment over and over again. But at some point you have to agree with Einstein that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result".

It is Okay to expect that doing the same thing over and over again can lead to different result if you can:

1. Propose a test to detect when the result is different

2. Propose a verifiable underlying mechanism that could cause the result to be difference.

It is pure intellectual dishonesty to assert doing the same thing over and over again will lead to or has led to different result when you:

1. can't propose a test that would show the difference.

2. Can't propose any verifiable underlying mechansim that can account for the difference.

The latter describes the anisotropic light propogation bullshit.

By the way, an electrical wire propagates electrons, not photons. Yeah, I know, it's a moot point, but still a point.

By quantum theory, flow of electrons in a wire is still facilitated by virtual emission and absorption of photons.

[orogenicman]

But then, if you measure the signal in the wires hundreds to thousands of times and get the same results, I think it is safe to say that the signal is going to be the same during the experiment. As a check, you run the experiment over and over again. But at some point you have to agree with Einstein that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result".

It is Okay to expect that doing the same thing over and over again can lead to different result if you can:

1. Propose a test to detect when the result is different

2. Propose a verifiable underlying mechanism that could cause the result to be difference.

It is pure intellectual dishonesty to assert doing the same thing over and over again will lead to or has led to different result when you:

1. can't propose a test that would show the difference.

2. Can't propose any verifiable underlying mechansim that can account for the difference.

The latter describes the anisotropic light propogation bullshit.

By the way, an electrical wire propagates electrons, not photons. Yeah, I know, it's a moot point, but still a point.

By quantum theory, flow of electrons in a wire is still facilitated by virtual emission and absorption of photons.

I stand corrected.

[Statler Waldorf]

Makes sense. Also, the reason that cars were invented was so that we could employ mechanics.

The inventors of the automobile did not possess knowledge of future events so that was a fallacious analogy.

---

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.

---

I love how you act as if I am the one who came up with the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention even though it has been around for nearly 100 years. The Einstein Synchrony Convention is not experimentally testable either so your objections are irrelevant. Conventions are not testable, they are stipulations.

Oh, were you referring to just creationist journals? I took it to mean creationists as a whole - my mistake. I guess I won't bring up "malachite man" then

Yes, and I will not bring up Archaeoraptor either. All bushels have their bad apples.

Well Lisle's objection to ESC seemed to be based on the effects on simultaneity of different inertial reference frames. He specifically noted in regard to ASC that the position of the earth at the moment of creation would not have that different to its position 6 months later.

Accurate statement.

This is the main reason I believe that such a convention should have detectable implications. On the other hand, if the is the act of changing position that causes the time dilation, I don't see how it differs much from ESC in its implications, since the earth is in constant motion.

I think it’s because the change in position is negligible while the change in velocity is not since the Earth is moving in the completely opposite direction every six months.

I was certainly under the impression that it was the speed, rather than acceleration that causes the time dilation in ESC. The formula for the Lorentz contraction uses relative velocity, not acceleration. As an example, this website has a calculator of relativistic change factor that uses speed.

It may be, but this makes it sound as if it is due to acceleration…

“In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as traveling, and so, according to an incorrect naive application of time dilation, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity (because the twins are not equivalent; the space twin experienced additional, asymmetrical acceleration when switching direction to return home), and therefore is not a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction.

Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been numerous explanations of this paradox, many based upon there being no contradiction because there is no symmetry—only one twin has undergone acceleration and deceleration, thus differentiating the two cases. Max von Laue argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial frames, one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason for the aging difference, not the acceleration per se.[1] Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[2]” – Wikipedia, “Twin Paradox” [Emphasis added by SW]

Even if it is the change of position that causes the effect, I'd have thought that it would still be detectable as you could have to different clocks traversing the same distance at different speeds. If take the differences between ASC and ESC into account by calculating the relative distance that each clock travels using the RCF, you can ensure that both clocks do indeed traverse the same distance and so if ASC is correct then each clock should show the same discrepancy with a stationary control clock, regardless of the velocity of each.

I believe they would show the same dilation under either convention because under ASC they are traveling the same distance while under ESC the slower of the two traveling clocks is traveling for a longer period of time than the faster clock thus undergoing a longer period of time dilation.

Clock 1 = 2 hours at 20,000MPH
Clock 2 = 4 hours at 10,000MPH

Really? Then why wait so long for christ's debut? I'd have thought that his example, teachings and path to redemption would have been particularly useful to the people of noah's era. I'm sure they would've appreciated that more than global extinction, anyway.

People during Noah’s time were saved by Christ’s death as well as people after Christ.

Yeah, but that's kinda what I'm getting at. If ASC is an illusory effect which is itself caused by time dilations, then the rest of the universe would only have been created in 6 days from the perspective of earth. Surely the whole point in a literal interpretation is that the bible really is inerrant, rather than merely being an accurate depiction as long you look at things the right way. This makes it sound as though the timing of creation week is entirely dependant on interpretation which, to my mind, totally undermines the entire YEC stance.

Well there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity so scripture has to be using a convention in order to describe the timing of creation week. I will give you another example, there are parts of the Bible that describe the Sun rising and setting. There is no such thing as absolute motion, but scripture is speaking from the perspective of the Earth. It could have chosen to describe such motion from the reference frame of the Sun or the Milky Way galaxy but that would have caused utter confusion to the readers. Under this system scripture is not wrong by saying the Universe was created in six days because as far as we know there is no absolute standard to measure the timing of such events by without stipulating a convention.

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?

Yes! I would add a third, “does the experiment subtly assume what it is trying to prove?” Orogenicman’s proposed experiment does this. He claims that we know the speed that electrons travel at but we do not know the one-way speed of an electron any more than we do the one-way speed of light. So his experiment actually has two fatal flaws, the other being the moving of the detector thus causing time dilation as you have already pointed out.

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

No kidding, I have been doing this tango for three years now.

Regardless of your assumption, I think your experiment is a good one, because your assumption is an absolute minimal one, and all other assumptions are equally untestable, but all are more elaborate, and therefore contrived.

As long as your experiment demonstrates the desired results Chuck is completely fine with it fallaciously begging the question!

2. Propose a verifiable underlying mechanism that could cause the result to be difference.

What underlying mechanism causes the results to be the same every time?

[Ryantology]

The inventors of the automobile did not possess knowledge of future events so that was a fallacious analogy.

As the human inventor of the automobile is not all-knowing and all-powerful, the inventor cannot be blamed for his invention being imperfect. If the entire point of creation was to bring along a guy to fix it, then it was created to be intentionally flawed. Your statement demonstrates what has been obvious to all of us for a long time: Christian salvation is a fraud, a spiritual protection racket.

[Anomalocaris]

A protection racket is at least an honest racket. The bad things threatend really would be done to yreact you don't submit.

Christianity is even more contemptible. It is a fraudulent racket.

[orogenicman]

The inventors of the automobile did not possess knowledge of future events so that was a fallacious analogy.

No, what they did was CREATE the future.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

I believe they would show the same dilation under either convention because under ASC they are traveling the same distance while under ESC the slower of the two traveling clocks is traveling for a longer period of time than the faster clock thus undergoing a longer period of time dilation.

Clock 1 = 2 hours at 20,000MPH
Clock 2 = 4 hours at 10,000MPH

Using the standard Lorentz Contraction, Clock 1 experiences a RTF of 1.0000000004447147 for 2 hours. Clock 2 experiences a RTF of 1.0000000001111786 for 4 hours.

So clock 2 maybe travelling for twice the amount of time, but it is subject to a quarter of the contraction. Under ASC, they have travelled the same distance and should be subject to the same RTF. This should be demonstrable.

People during Noah’s time were saved by Christ’s death as well as people after Christ.

True, but what happened to them in the meantime? Were they stuck in hell until the crucifixition? Or purgatory? Or was it a case of cause coming before effect and they were already saved because of an event that would happen in the future?


I'm a bit short on time at the moment so I'll respond to the other points later

[ThomM]

A protection racket is at least an honest racket. The bad things threatend really would be done to yreact you don't submit.

Christianity is even more contemptible. It is a fraudulent racket.

A protection racket is NOT honest if there is NOTHING to be protected from

Then it is pure fraud - nothing more.

[orogenicman]

Warped one, if the speed of light is not a constant, what do you think that does for all the astronomical discoveries made in the last 100 years? What does it do for the Hubble constant, the expanding universe, the fact that other galaxies are not a part of our own? The constancy of the speed of light made all these discoveries possible. Since you don't believe that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, how do you fit 100 billion galaxies inside our own? Or do you own some magical ruler that somehow shrinks when exposed to the Bible?

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Well Lisle's objection to ESC seemed to be based on the effects on simultaneity of different inertial reference frames. He specifically noted in regard to ASC that the position of the earth at the moment of creation would not have that different to its position 6 months later.

Accurate statement.

But if the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then the one way speed of light stops being a convention. The objection to ESC that Lisle raised in regard to a young earth was that a galaxy 13 billion light years away would have a 2.6 million year variation in age depending on the time of year. There isn't just a problem for creation week, according to YEC, we should still see some galaxies popping in and out of existence every 6 months when we stipulate ESC. Either the light has reached us or it hasn't and it is ludicrous to say that whether or not we can detect light from a distant galaxy is dependant on what you stipulate the one way speed of light to be. To my knowledge, disappearing/reappearing galaxies have yet to be reported, so either isotropy is non-conventional and ASC is empirically correct or the earth is much older than 10,000 years.

It may be, but this makes it sound as if it is due to acceleration…

---

“In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as traveling, and so, according to an incorrect naive application of time dilation, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity (because the twins are not equivalent; the space twin experienced additional, asymmetrical acceleration when switching direction to return home), and therefore is not a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction.

Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been numerous explanations of this paradox, many based upon there being no contradiction because there is no symmetry—only one twin has undergone acceleration and deceleration, thus differentiating the two cases. Max von Laue argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial frames, one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason for the aging difference, not the acceleration per se.[1] Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[2]” – Wikipedia, “Twin Paradox” [Emphasis added by SW]

---

I guess that makes sense, but the amount of time dilation experienced is still dependant on the duration of the difference in relative velocity and acceleration alone doesn't account for that. Likewise, in ASC the amount of time dilation experienced would be dependant on the duration of the difference in position.

So clock 2 maybe travelling for twice the amount of time, but it is subject to a quarter of the contraction. Under ASC, they have travelled the same distance and should be subject to the same RTF. This should be demonstrable.

I was thinking about this again and it reminded me of the formula for kinetic energy: Ek=1/2mv^2

So if time is relative to position rather than velocity, this means that velocity is also subject to Lorentz Contraction and should therefore require less energy than predicted by ESC.

Well there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity so scripture has to be using a convention in order to describe the timing of creation week. I will give you another example, there are parts of the Bible that describe the Sun rising and setting. There is no such thing as absolute motion, but scripture is speaking from the perspective of the Earth. It could have chosen to describe such motion from the reference frame of the Sun or the Milky Way galaxy but that would have caused utter confusion to the readers. Under this system scripture is not wrong by saying the Universe was created in six days because as far as we know there is no absolute standard to measure the timing of such events by without stipulating a convention.

I don't think it would have created utter confusion, how is it confusing to know that the earth orbits the sun or that the universe was in existence for at least 13.7 billion years before humanity? Considering some of the things that are written in the old testament, I doubt it would have raised an eyebrow.

I mean I don't find it confusing at all, I just find it somewhat odd that it took so long for us to turn up if we're so damn special. On the other hand, it would lend great credence to the veracity of biblical claims if such information was written down before humanity had even invented the telescope!

I also don't think it unlikely that the book of genesis assumes instantaneous light. On the contrary, I would be rather surprised if it didn't as that would add credence to claims of its veracity – light was only shown to have a finite speed in the 17th Century (IIRC). Even though the concept of a finite speed of light can be traced back through Alhazen to Empedocles, for the bible to assume instantaneous light is to be expected and not at all indicative of an awareness of SR conventions in biblical times.

How does it make sense to describe the passage of light from the perspective of something that has yet to be created? Doesn't it make more sense to describe events from the perspective of the creator? After all, humans were the last thing to be created on the last day of creation, so it would make no difference to them if the previous “days” were literal, relative or figurative.

If Lisle assumes that the timing of creation “week” is relative to the perspective of humanity, why not also assume that descriptions of the Noachian deluge were written from the local perspective and that it was the known world which flooded rather than an actual global flood?