The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Rev. Rye]

Sweet I called it! You did use the "Primitive Egyptians were smarter than modern Egyptians" argument! You're getting very predictable. Since these primitive Egyptians were so smart in your eyes why did they also believe in gods and the super-natural? Or were they only "smart" when they agreed with you?

Well, "primitive Egyptians" were certainly smarter about the time period they lived in than their descendants were about that very same period by virtue of having lived in it. And quite honestly, I, as somebody with functioning brain cells, tend to defer to primary sources when it comes to matters of history.

And they believed in the super-natural because it was in ancient times and there wasn't much in the way of alternate explanations of how the world came to be that were any more sensible than a giant goose laying an egg into the Nile River.

[orogenicman]

I want everyone to stand back and take some time to exam this post. Did he really answer the question "How does he know those fossil beds are so old?". Did he really give us his methodology? Nope, he just said, "I know because I know". Then he goes off on some tangent about AIG. I challenge him to point out which posts he thinks I got from AIG and I can point out the actual website I got them from. I am sure he is aware that AIG has overlap with other websites, so you can get information from other websites that would be similiar to information on AIG. If he claims he got something from Ilovedarwin.com, and I find similiar information on talkorgins I am not going to call him a liar and say he really got it from talkorgins.

Do you honestly want me to give you a free lecture on the relative geologic time scale and how it has been verified and refined by hundreds of thousands of radiometric measurements collected by thousands of geologists over the past 100 years? Hence my question as to whether you have any understanding at all of the relative geologic time scale, and how it was devised. I can give you all that and more. All you need do is meet me (with friends, if you so desire) at the Creation Museum, and you can receive all the explanation you need and more in the field. The field is where it's at, where it can all be best explained. Or are you afraid to get your hands dirty? I'll give you a hint - those fossil beds are middle Ordovician in age, based on biostratigraphy, lithostratigraphy, and radioisotopic analysis of metabentonite deposits found within the beds. If those words are too big for you, I can provide you with a link to an online geology dictionary.

---

You are starting to finally figure out what observed time means. If the stars appeared on day 4 on the Earth that was created on day 1, then the Biblical account would be completely accurate using observed time which it was of course because calculated time was not even used for another 5900 years.

So what you are saying is that beduin tribes in the middle east when Genesis was written, had no concept of the rise and fall of the sun every day,and didn't accept the natural daily rhythms of the planet as a measure of time, but made up some other kind of system for keeping track of time that no one else on the planet at the time was using, based on what you believe today is "observed time?

---

OGM - And just to complete the symmetry, why should anyone believe creationists, who I dare say probably can't among the lot of them demonstrate having spent a single afternoon in the field, much less published anything of consequence, over the innumerable geologists, (of which I am one), mineralogists, paleontologists, geophysicists, oceanographers, chemists and physicists, who have been studying the Earth in minute detail for well over 300 years at the cost of much blood, sweat, and tears?

SW - If you knew anything about Creationists you would not have made your last statement. Apparently you are not aware, but you should be, that there are Creationists with Ph.Ds from Harvard, there are Creationists who have been published in both Science and Nature. There are Creationists who worked for NASA. Your statement is utterly ridiculous and demonstrates your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.

Yeah, let's talk about some of those, shall we? How many of those PhDs are working in the field of geology, biology, geophysics, etc, and have published peer-reviewed scholarly works in accredited journals promoting creationism? Can you name one such publication by any of them that has any relevance to current scientific thought on the theory of evolution, the geologic time scale, or current cosmological theory? Even one? The fact is that there is no body of scholarly work done by any of the people you cite ore may cite that promotes creationism as a valid alternative to todays broadly accepted scientific theories.

---

I am glad you asked!

Dr. Jonahtan Sarfati (Ph.D in Physical Chemistry) was published in Nature when he was only 22 years old. He is actually a really interesting person. He has beaten a dozen peolple simaltaneously at chess while he was blind-folded. He is also more educated in the field of Science than Richard Dawkins (having actually earned his doctorate).

Great. If I want to play a challenging game of chess, I know who to contact. If I want to leanr something about geology, he wouldn't even make my list of science losers to call. Why? His writings on creationism is nothing but religious propaganda, of course. I'm not alone in this opinion of his work.

Dr. Kurt P. Wise- holds a B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. He studied under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. Dr Wise has written a wide range of articles on origins issues. He is a member of the Geological Society of America. (Taken from his biography)

From Wikipedia - "Despite believing that science supports his position, Wise has written that "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

You see, I have a problem with people such as Wise gaining any sort of degree. Why? Because, in order to obtain such a degree, one must complete specific coursework and take tests on specific course work. So, this guy who openly claims that everything he has been taught in his own field is a lie, and yet passed enough tests to obtain said degree so he can now claim to be an expert in a field he is openly trying to destroy. This is the worst kind of unethical behavior, and if I was a member of the faculty at Harvard, I'd demand that his degree be taken away. The man is a fraud.

Then one of my Professors was an Atmospheric Researcher for NASA for 15 years before becoming a professor, and he is a Creationist.

Wow, a mystery professor. That's wonderful.

[Statler Waldorf]

Wow. I leave for day and a half and the thread explodes. Then again, the fail in this thread seems to measure at fifty giga-creationisms.

Yay! The youtube guy is back. Actually kinda missed you. Yes it's been fun around here the last day, lots of posts.

It's more like someone made up a unit of measurement and made a conversion rate between units people actually use to actually measure something and the fictional unit.
The problem here is that I have read physics books well beyond the high school level by actual physicists and they all seem to have no record of your inane theories.

Kind of funny you would say that. So how did people measure time before Calculated Time was first used in the 20th Century? People just not believe in time back then? Did they not have a way of measuring it? Wow you own all of those Phsyics books? The one I own is Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett, “Physics for Scientists and Engineers,6 Ed”. Yes it does have a section about observational time vs. calculated time so you can stop saying I just made those up. As I have said nearly a dozen times before, you are arguing against something that Creationists do not even claim (that light propagates an-isotropically using claculated time), so I really do not know why you continue to beat that dead horse.

I don't need to understand what details about creation that creationists believe to know it's wrong.

This could be my favorite quote since I have been here! "I don't need to know how you did the math problem to know that you did it wrong!". Classic! Is it ok if I quote you when someone tries to tell me I don't understand what Evolutionists believe? Please!? I will give you credit for this amazing quote, I promise.

I also found this and as you might note, the only one proclaiming a noah-style flood on mars is Answers in genesis, not the people who actually know planetary science, geology, and all that.
But leave it to you to actually point to an article that doesn't exist at its source anymore and make claims about what it says, but ultimately, every other source on the topic from an actual scientific source actually points to there being water and volcanism, not sudden catastropic volcanism and appearance of water within the space of days on a single event. That's just crazy-talk.
So no, unless you mean by 'many scientists today' means to you 'many creationists who happen to use science-speak'.

Actually AIG doesn't believe in a global flood on Mars. So I suggest you actually read the New York Times article and stop blaming all of this on AIG. It is not their fault you can't find the article it is the New York Times fault I guess (or your own). This website cites the same article, so contrary to your little conspiracy theory, I am quite sure it existed.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/nati...index.html

Interesting how there are no records of the entire crust of the planet shifting in days rather than millenia. You might want to read that geology book I linked from Oxford earlier. It completely refutes this as a thing that can happen.
This is one of those things they teach in elementary and middle school school geography about the history of the earth. If my google-fu is strong enough, I may just find some children's science websites that can prove that this never happened.

Still using your high school textbooks eh? lol. Non-catestrophic plate technoics would take a very long time, but this in turn assumes no flood so you cannot turn around and use this to argue against catestrophic plate tectonics because you'd be assuming the very thing you were trying to prove. Assuming the proof, bad bad bad.

In other words, evolution is fine when creationists are teaching it, nevermind that they don't actually study or understand it.

Yay! I can't believe it! I was hoping you'd use this argument in the future so I could use your own quote but I never dreamed you would use it in the very same post!!! Ok so here it goes, I am going to use the immortal words of TheDarkestAngel here and respond by saying....

"I don't need to understand what details about [evolution] that [evolutionists] believe to know it's wrong."

Now I know why you used that form of largument in the first place! It's very simple and easy because now I don't even have to watch all those videos you posted, just like you don't have to actually read what Creationists believe.

Rapid Speciation does occur, don't make me use your own Evolutionists to argue against you. That just would not be right, kind of like Darth Vader being killed by his own light saber.

---

Repopulation is one thing -that can happen very fast - what you didn't answer about the arc was everything about caring for the nostril-animals for the entirety of their voyage and everything else I mentioned about that.
In regard to your statement above, this does not answer how one "kind" of bear (a "kind" of creature is something you have yet to define) can become every other kind of bear in such a short amount of time from only two creatures when genetic testing reveals a diversity of genetic information that could not have possibly come two creatures of a completely different species.
You haven't even stated what you believe 'information loss/gain' means in terms of genetics.

---

You have done this more than once, when you say "arc" you really mean "ark" right? Just making sure we're on the same page here. The rest of this paragraph does not make a lot of sense, but I will try to guess where you are going with this. We already discussed that rapid speciation can occur, so I don't think I have to address that any further. We can get different types of dogs really quickly using artificial selection, yes natural selection would be a bit slower but not a lot slower considering the animals would have been re-populating new empty niches and experiencing lots of selective pressures while the Earth was settling down after the flood.

As for the genetic inormation thing, were you talking about the Ecological rule that you need a minimum of 50,000 animals in a population to have a healthy population?

As you might guess, there is a link to a book that is actually about the fossil record above done by people who know what they're talking about. As you might guess, it's not in agreement with any form of creationism, noah's flood, or anything else in your silly bronze-age book.

I am sure you are aware that there are books about the fossil record written by Creationists (one of which got his Ph.D from Harvard). So your assertion that only people who know what they are talking about deny the biblical account of Creation is complete circular reasoning.

"Everyone who knows what they are talking about believes the Earth is old!"

"Oh how do you know they know what they are talking about?"

"Well because they think the Earth is old of course!"

"Well what about these other Geologists who are also very educated that think the Earth is young?"

"Well they do not know what they are talking about!"

"Oh really? How do you know that?"

"Well because they think the Earth is young of course!"

[sarcasm]Good one, that line of reasoning is really effective.[/sarcam]

---

Behold the wonders of dendrochronology in the link above.
I even found a book that at least partially covered the topic from Richard Dawkins, who is an evoluationary biologist and noted Atheist, but since I'm sure you'd focus on this Atheism and not the fact that he is a scientist with peer-reviewed papers among other scientists (and not merely other atheists or atheist-specific websites or people with his worldview).

---

You used an Evolutionary Biologist to talk about dendrochronology? I at least used someone with a Ph.D in Agronomy and Horticultural Sciences. I will take his word on Tree Physiology any day over Mr. Dawkins. Dawkins does not write for a like minded audience? Please tell me which Creationists are on his peer-review boards when he submits articles. They are all a bunch of like-minded non-objective Evolutionists like yourself. It's easy to get away with bad science when everyone who reviews your work practices the same bad science. Dawkins is small-time.

Which is true that anyone can make a video, but it's also obvious when a video uses and explains in clear detail the science behind the information they give, as my videos have done isofar as disproving your source.

Hardly, the first video you posted looked like something made by some guy with flash animation and Windows Movie Maker in his dorm room. What did you do before youtube? Did you just not try and argue your case?

This also explains why you haven't bothered to post any of your links, as I'm certain they come from creationist and belief-based websites and institutions instead of any reputable scientific sources, such as from where I can find Richard Dawkin's scientific works.

Dawkins again eh? That little gnome has been refuted time and time again, that's why he runs from debates now. You are back to your old circular arguments again.

"There are no reputable Creation sites" "why not?" "because Creation Scientists are not reputable!"

Kind of getting old, but I guess you can keep using it. It's easy to refute that kind of stuff.

The difference between what they can do and what your "Christian Scientists" do is that actual scientists can back up their claims with repeatable evidence-based tests that don't make assumptions based on no evidence.
That's why the 'secular review boards' as you call them do actual science and yours do not.

More circular arguments. I am sure you are aware that Creation guys HAVE been published in your so called "reputable" peer reviewed journals. This must make them reputable now right? Yay!! Creation Scientists are finally reputable in the eyes of the TheDarkestAngel!

Just not in every direction from any point if you use your silly an-isotropic propogation of light. You even stated that light can travel instantaneously in some instances.

Using observed time it does travel exactly how I said. Using calculated time it travels exactly how you said it does. You should know though that it is impossible to meausre the one way speed of light. If you can devise an experiment that does this you will win yourself a nobel prize my friend.

No. Physics done by actual physicists prove otherwise. It breaks relativity whether you choose to realize it or not.

Relativity only applies to calculated time. Fail.

Because your theory is easier to understand than you realize, at least given the context to which you've explained it. You've only assumed my understanding is off because I've disagreed and given my evidence that it's not an accurate take on how things actually work.

Considering the evidence you think you have given does not even pertain to what I have been talking about this whole time, I think it's pretty obvious you really do not understand "my theory".


[quotes] Actually, he has proven it in the things that he says and the evidence he's provided here on Atheistforums. You have provided nothing but things that clearly violate the fundemental laws of nature with all the understanding of a person who cares nothing for truth except in the dogma of his beliefs.
[/quote]

So when he agrees with your pre-conceived ideas he is a legit Scientist, but when a Scientist doesn't agree with your idea he is not one? That makes so much sense now! That way you always look like you agree with the "legit" Scientists out there! When in all actuality you have cherry-picked the guys you want to call legit and thrown out the ones that disagree with you and call them not real scientists. ]/hide]

[orogenicman]

Statler, you still haven't responded to my post #12!

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Why did you just accept his claim that he is a Physicist? I thought you guys were supposed to call him a liar and ask him who he works for and what school he went to and what courses he took? Or do you only do this when the person with the Science degree disagrees with you? Not very objective I see, not surprised though. The aricle posted earlier about water in the mantle actually said that it is a popular belief amongst geophysicists that the mantle DOES contain water (even though the article was aruging against this view, it admitted that this is a view held by many in the field). So to claim that this is a silly or uncommon view makes you actually look rather silly. Rather you should say that this is a view that is debated in modern science today, but the evidence is certainly not conclusive.

Actually, he has proven it in the things that he says and the evidence he's provided here on Atheistforums. You have provided nothing but things that clearly violate the fundemental laws of nature with all the understanding of a person who cares nothing for truth except in the dogma of his beliefs.

Because Statler Waldorf is going to bitch about this - yes, I am a 3rd year biophysics student at UCLA. For people I trust on these forums, they already know my name and where I am. They also can easily match my name with where I've been, where I go to university and easily can request my CV with awards, references and papers listed.

But, sir, because you've consistently shat on physics, denied basic science and routinely reference known cranks, some of which who have an obvious ideological aim against scientific thought, I have little reason to believe you'd handle even my name in good conscience. Hence, I will give you nothing.

---

Ahh so you are not a Physicist! You are just a student. That makes more sense now. I am glad I didn't just blindly accept your claim that you were an actual Physicist like everyone else on here did.

---

I'm pretty sure in our conversations that you said you had a degree in biochemistry, but worked as an environmental scientist for the DOA. If I was wrong, then my apologies, and perhaps you could again clarify what degrees, exactly you have, if any, and how they related give you expertize in any of the fields we are discussing.

I do work for the DoA, but my degree is not Biochem. It's Environmental Sciences with an emphasis in Biology and Chemistry. I also have a Minor in Geospatial Science and will soon have my M.A. in GeoScience. Thanks for the apology, no hard feelings. What about you?

[orogenicman]

Using observed time it does travel exactly how I said. Using calculated time it travels exactly how you said it does. You should know though that it is impossible to meausre the one way speed of light. If you can devise an experiment that does this you will win yourself a nobel prize my friend.

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/phys...ure_c.html

The first successful measurement of c was made by Olaus Roemer in 1676. He noticed that the time between the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter was less as the distance away from Earth is decreasing than when it is increasing. He correctly surmised that this is due to the varying length of time it takes for light to travel from Jupiter to Earth as the distance changes. He obtained a value equivalent to 214,000 km/s which was very approximate because planetary distances were not accurately known at that time.

In 1728 James Bradley made another estimate by observing stellar aberration, being the apparent displacement of stars due to the motion of the Earth around the Sun. He observed a star in Draco and found that its apparent position changed during the year. All stellar positions are affected equally in this way. This distinguishes the effect from parallax which affects nearby stars more noticeably. A useful analogy to help understand aberration is to imagine the effect of motion on the angle at which rain falls. If you stand still in the rain when there is no wind it comes down vertically on your head. If you run through the rain it appears to come at you from an angle and hit you on the front. Bradley measured this angle for starlight. Knowing the speed of the Earth around the Sun he found a value for the speed of light of 301,000 km/s.

The first measurement of c on Earth was by Armand Fizeau in 1849. He used a beam of light reflected from a mirror 8 km away. The beam passed through the gaps between teeth of a rapidly rotating wheel. The speed of the wheel was increased until the returning light passed through the next gap and could be seen. Then c was calculated to be 315,000 km/s. Leon Foucault improved on this a year later by using rotating mirrors and got the much more accurate answer of 298,000 km/s. His technique was good enough to confirm that light travels slower in water than in air.

After Maxwell published his theory of electromagnetism it became possible to calculate the speed of light indirectly from the magnetic permeability and electric permitivity of free space. This was first done by Weber and Kohlrausch in 1857. In 1907 Rosa and Dorsey obtained 299,788 km/s in this way. It was the most accurate value at that time.

Many other methods were employed to improve accuracy further. It soon became necessary to correct for the refractive index of air. In 1958 Froome had the value of 299,792.5 km/s using a microwave interferometer and a Kerr cell shutter. After 1970 the development of lasers with very high spectral stability and accurate caesium clocks made even better measurements possible. Up until then the changing definition of the metre had always kept ahead of the accuracy in measurements of the speed of light. Then the point was reached where the speed of light was known to within an error of plus or minus 1 m/s. It became more practical to fix the value of c in the definition of the metre and use atomic clocks and lasers to measure accurate distances instead.
__________________
Still waiting for you to address my response in post #12.

[Statler Waldorf]

Sweet I called it! You did use the "Primitive Egyptians were smarter than modern Egyptians" argument! You're getting very predictable. Since these primitive Egyptians were so smart in your eyes why did they also believe in gods and the super-natural? Or were they only "smart" when they agreed with you?

Well, "primitive Egyptians" were certainly smarter about the time period they lived in than their descendants were about that very same period by virtue of having lived in it. And quite honestly, I, as somebody with functioning brain cells, tend to defer to primary sources when it comes to matters of history.

And they believed in the super-natural because it was in ancient times and there wasn't much in the way of alternate explanations of how the world came to be that were any more sensible than a giant goose laying an egg into the Nile River.

So then you believe in the historical claims of the Bible since it is a primary source? Or do you only follow this rule when the primary sources agrees with your pre-conceived ideas about History?

[orogenicman]

I do work for the DoA, but my degree is not Biochem. It's Environmental Sciences with an emphasis in Biology and Chemistry. I also have a Minor in Geospatial Science and will soon have my M.A. in GeoScience. Thanks for the apology, no hard feelings. What about you?

So your degrees are not science degrees but "arts' degrees. That makes sense. Why not get a MS in geoscience? Is the math too difficult, or is it really an ethical problem for you to answer geology questions correctly on the tests when you believe in your heart that they are the wrong answers?

I have a B.S. from the University of Louisville with a major in Geology and a minor in mathematics and psychology. I was previously an an anthropology student at EKU and was one semester from completing a B.A. when I switched schools and changed majors. I have a M.S. from the University Of Kentucky. Although my specialty was originally invertebtrate paleontology (I am published in the Journal of Paleontology), the economy being what it was at the time, I became an environmental consultant (and am a registered professional geologist in Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee), specializing in groundwater hydrology, and site remediation methodology. Nevertheless, I have remained active in paleontology and mineralogy for the past 21 years. I have also been an avid amateur astronomer since childhood, and am an active member of the Louisville Astronomical Society, and a member of the GSA. I am currently disabled.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Do you honestly want me to give you a free lecture on the relative geologic time scale and how it has been verified and refined by hundreds of thousands of radiometric measurements collected by thousands of geologists over the past 100 years? Hence my question as to whether you have any understanding at all of the relative geologic time scale, and how it was devised. I can give you all that and more. All you need do is meet me (with friends, if you so desire) at the Creation Museum, and you can receive all the explanation you need and more in the field. The field is where it's at, where it can all be best explained. Or are you afraid to get your hands dirty? I'll give you a hint - those fossil beds are middle Ordovician in age, based on biostratigraphy, lithostratigraphy, and radioisotopic analysis of metabentonite deposits found within the beds. If those words are too big for you, I can provide you with a link to an online geology dictionary.

---

Those words are not too big for me, but thanks for offering!!! An infinite number of scientists conducing an infinite number of tests all using the same erroneous pre-suppositions does not amount to a hill of beans. This is why your appeals to popular belief and consensus are no less illogical today than they have ever been. I will give you credit though, you are good at masking your logical fallacies with Scientific jargon.

So what you are saying is that beduin tribes in the middle east when Genesis was written, had no concept of the rise and fall of the sun every day,and didn't accept the natural daily rhythms of the planet as a measure of time, but made up some other kind of system for keeping track of time that no one else on the planet at the time was using, based on what you believe today is "observed time?

No, I am saying that they used the same definition of time as every other person did in the history of the World before the development of calculated time in the 20th century! Pretty simple. Do you seriously think people didn't keep track of time before the 20th century? Well if they did (which they did) they did it in observed time.

Yeah, let's talk about some of those, shall we? How many of those PhDs are working in the field of geology, biology, geophysics, etc, and have published peer-reviewed scholarly works in accredited journals promoting creationism? Can you name one such publication by any of them that has any relevance to current scientific thought on the theory of evolution, the geologic time scale, or current cosmological theory? Even one? The fact is that there is no body of scholarly work done by any of the people you cite ore may cite that promotes creationism as a valid alternative to todays broadly accepted scientific theories.

---

[quote]I am glad you asked!

Dr. Jonahtan Sarfati (Ph.D in Physical Chemistry) was published in Nature when he was only 22 years old. He is actually a really interesting person. He has beaten a dozen peolple simaltaneously at chess while he was blind-folded. He is also more educated in the field of Science than Richard Dawkins (having actually earned his doctorate).

Well you will notice that the above question is answered by my post about Sarfati. He was published in your beloved journals and more than once. So that was pretty easy. He is more educated than you will ever be so to see you mock him kind of makes you look...well just that....uneducated lol.

Dr. Kurt P. Wise- holds a B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. He studied under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. Dr Wise has written a wide range of articles on origins issues. He is a member of the Geological Society of America. (Taken from his biography)

We already discussed what he meant when he used that quote, it's not his fault he understands the nature of evidence relative to absolute truth better than you do. I love your circular reason and someone contradictory statements.

"There are no Creationists who have real degrees and work in the field, and the ones that do should have them take away!" hahaha. I am glad your bigoted and pro-cencorship views don't dominate a country like America. Freedom of ideas is important to me, even if I disagree with those ideas.

As to your claims about my "mystery" professor, he has a name and is a real person I assure you. However, considering your obviouis bigotry I do not give out personal information like that for fear you may mail a pipe bomb to his office or something like that (in the name of Science of course).

---

[quote='orogenicman' pid='100502' dateline='1287622406']

Using observed time it does travel exactly how I said. Using calculated time it travels exactly how you said it does. You should know though that it is impossible to meausre the one way speed of light. If you can devise an experiment that does this you will win yourself a nobel prize my friend.

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/phys...ure_c.html

The first successful measurement of c was made by Olaus Roemer in 1676. He noticed that the time between the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter was less as the distance away from Earth is decreasing than when it is increasing. He correctly surmised that this is due to the varying length of time it takes for light to travel from Jupiter to Earth as the distance changes. He obtained a value equivalent to 214,000 km/s which was very approximate because planetary distances were not accurately known at that time.

In 1728 James Bradley made another estimate by observing stellar aberration, being the apparent displacement of stars due to the motion of the Earth around the Sun. He observed a star in Draco and found that its apparent position changed during the year. All stellar positions are affected equally in this way. This distinguishes the effect from parallax which affects nearby stars more noticeably. A useful analogy to help understand aberration is to imagine the effect of motion on the angle at which rain falls. If you stand still in the rain when there is no wind it comes down vertically on your head. If you run through the rain it appears to come at you from an angle and hit you on the front. Bradley measured this angle for starlight. Knowing the speed of the Earth around the Sun he found a value for the speed of light of 301,000 km/s.

The first measurement of c on Earth was by Armand Fizeau in 1849. He used a beam of light reflected from a mirror 8 km away. The beam passed through the gaps between teeth of a rapidly rotating wheel. The speed of the wheel was increased until the returning light passed through the next gap and could be seen. Then c was calculated to be 315,000 km/s. Leon Foucault improved on this a year later by using rotating mirrors and got the much more accurate answer of 298,000 km/s. His technique was good enough to confirm that light travels slower in water than in air.

After Maxwell published his theory of electromagnetism it became possible to calculate the speed of light indirectly from the magnetic permeability and electric permitivity of free space. This was first done by Weber and Kohlrausch in 1857. In 1907 Rosa and Dorsey obtained 299,788 km/s in this way. It was the most accurate value at that time.

Many other methods were employed to improve accuracy further. It soon became necessary to correct for the refractive index of air. In 1958 Froome had the value of 299,792.5 km/s using a microwave interferometer and a Kerr cell shutter. After 1970 the development of lasers with very high spectral stability and accurate caesium clocks made even better measurements possible. Up until then the changing definition of the metre had always kept ahead of the accuracy in measurements of the speed of light. Then the point was reached where the speed of light was known to within an error of plus or minus 1 m/s. It became more practical to fix the value of c in the definition of the metre and use atomic clocks and lasers to measure accurate distances instead.
__________________
Still waiting for you to address my response in post #12.
Not sure why you posted this. None of these experiments involve measuring the one way speed of light. They all either just divde a beam of light traveling in two directions by two (the mirror experiment) or they have obvious clcck syncrinization problems due to special relativity. You can infer the one way speed of light by measuring two directional light, but it is impossible to truly measure it for obvious reasons. Figure otu a way and I will come over to see your nobel prize!

---

I do work for the DoA, but my degree is not Biochem. It's Environmental Sciences with an emphasis in Biology and Chemistry. I also have a Minor in Geospatial Science and will soon have my M.A. in GeoScience. Thanks for the apology, no hard feelings. What about you?

So your degrees are not science degrees but "arts' degrees. That makes sense. Why not get a MS in geoscience? Is the math too difficult, or is it really an ethical problem for you to answer geology questions correctly on the tests when you believe in your heart that they are the wrong answers?

I have a B.S. from the University of Louisville with a major in Geology and a minor in mathematics and psychology. I was previously an an anthropology student at EKU and was one semester from completing a B.A. when I switched schools and changed majors. I have a M.S. from the University Of Kentucky. Although my specialty was originally invertebtrate paleontology (I am published in the Journal of Paleontology), the economy being what it was at the time, I became an environmental consultant (and am a registered professional geologist in Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee), specializing in groundwater hydrology, and site remediation methodology. Nevertheless, I have remained active in paleontology and mineralogy for the past 21 years. I have also been an avid amateur astronomer since childhood, and am an active member of the Louisville Astronomical Society, and a member of the GSA. I am currently disabled.

Well last time I checked the degree B.S. stood for Bachelor of Science, so I am pretty sure that still counts as a Science degree, not an arts degree. As for the M.A.- the universty was originally going to make it an M.S. but they realized that GeoScience is better served by final research projects not a research thesis. So that is the only difference. Nice try at belittling my education, but fail.

[Autumnlicious]

Ahh so you are not a Physicist! You are just a student. That makes more sense now. I am glad I didn't just blindly accept your claim that you were an actual Physicist like everyone else on here did.

Not a physicist... yet. In the final stages of the process.

With respect to you, now from what I've heard of your denial of basic science, I wouldn't accept your statements on the color of the sky without checking first.

At least I've some credibility.

At least more than a joke of a man you are.