Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Prove it. Devise a test to directly measure the one way speed of light and win the Nobel Prize. Again, I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about. C is obtained by directly measuring the round trip travel time for light and dividing the distance by two, which of course is what those of us who speak English call an average! This average value is the same no matter what convention you use, hence why many scientists were able to calculate a fairly accurate value for c long before the Einstein Synchrony Convention was even developed. I am not the least bit shocked you would not know this though; you don’t even accept the well established historical fact of Jesus’ existence. Thanks for playing though.

I did propose such an experiment in my last post -

The idea was to use the folcott method but add an extra mirror to average between three distances instead of two. If light moves at a constant speed, then there should be no difference between measuring it in one direction (which you can measure using distant radio messages), two directions (standard folcott method), and three directions.
If it moves at two speeds, then there should be two different averages between the two and three mirror method.

[Anomalocaris]

Since the turnip insist that light travels slower one way than the other to satisfy his biblical craving, one might presume to put the turnip to the same insipid condition he throws at everyone else in the same way that he throws around his biblical turds - and demand the turnip devise a test to demonstrate that light indeed travel slower when fulfilling creationist fantasy requires it to do so and win his "nobel price".

On the second thought, that would be unfair. That would be to demand from a creationist turnip something only a educated human being with conception of objective rigor can attain. So let's give him a easier test. Let's ask him to demonstrate that light travels slower one way than the other in space at ANY TIME AT ALL, thus giving him a theoretically much larger set of samples to choose from than his, in all likelihood null, set of biblical compliant samples.

So How about it, tulip?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Prove it. Devise a test to directly measure the one way speed of light and win the Nobel Prize. Again, I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about. C is obtained by directly measuring the round trip travel time for light and dividing the distance by two, which of course is what those of us who speak English call an average! This average value is the same no matter what convention you use, hence why many scientists were able to calculate a fairly accurate value for c long before the Einstein Synchrony Convention was even developed. I am not the least bit shocked you would not know this though; you don’t even accept the well established historical fact of Jesus’ existence. Thanks for playing though.

I did propose such an experiment in my last post -

The idea was to use the folcott method but add an extra mirror to average between three distances instead of two. If light moves at a constant speed, then there should be no difference between measuring it in one direction (which you can measure using distant radio messages), two directions (standard folcott method), and three directions.
If it moves at two speeds, then there should be two different averages between the two and three mirror method.

---

Well I have not had a chance to read all of your last response yet :-( This is an interesting idea, but what I think you will find is it is impossible to synchronize the clocks necessary to conduct the experiment without using a synchrony convention. You could use the Einstein convention to do this but this would be begging the question because it assumes light moves at the same speeds in all directions relative to the observer (hence why radio waves from the voyager does not measure the speed of light in one direction because the ESC is used to synchronize the two clocks involved). You could also use the ASC to synchronize the clocks, but this would also be begging the question because it assumes light moves at different speeds in different directions relative to the observer. This is why these are conventions

---

---

Since the turnip insist that light travels slower one way than the other to satisfy his biblical craving, one might presume to put the turnip to the same insipid condition he throws at everyone else in the same way that he throws around his biblical turds - and demand the turnip devise a test to demonstrate that light indeed travel slower when fulfilling creationist fantasy requires it to do so and win his "nobel price".

On the second thought, that would be unfair. That would be to demand from a creationist turnip something only a educated human being with conception of objective rigor can attain. So let's give him a easier test. Let's ask him to demonstrate that light travels slower one way than the other in space at ANY TIME AT ALL, thus giving him a theoretically much larger set of samples to choose from than his, in all likelihood null, set of biblical compliant samples.

So How about it, tulip?

---

What are you even talking about? That's been the whole point of this discussion from the get-go. There is no test that can demonstrate light moves at different speeds or the same speed for that matter relative to the observer. All of these tests require a synchrony convention in order to synchronize the clocks. If I use the Einstein Synchrony Convention it will show that light moves the same speed in all directions relative to an observer and that time-dilation due to motion is negligible at speeds not approaching 14 percent of the speed of light, but that's because this convention assumes all of this to be true! If I used the ASC to synchronize the clocks it would show that light moves at different directions relative to the observer and that time-dilation is not negligible even at speeds only 1 percent of the speed of light. That's why these are called conventions. They are different ways of measuring the same observed phenomenon, and to say that one is somehow more “correct” than the other demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

[Anomalocaris]

Don't worm around the issue.

[Thor]

Prove it. Devise a test to directly measure the one way speed of light and win the Nobel Prize.

Since the speed of light has already been determined, I really doubt that I would win the Nobel Prize.

Again, I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about. C is obtained by directly measuring the round trip travel time for light and dividing the distance by two, which of course is what those of us who speak English call an average!

You can call it an average if you want, but what you're doing here is simply measuring the speed of light, because.... THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT!

This average value is the same no matter what convention you use,

EXACTLY! Because the speed of light does not fluctuate! It's a CONSTANT, not an AVERAGE!

I am not the least bit shocked you would not know this though; you don’t even accept the well established historical fact of Jesus’ existence.

"Well established historical fact"? Like I've said before, show me ANY first hand accounts that mention "Jesus" during his alleged lifetime. Oh, yeah. You can't. I don't accept unsubstantiated tales as true without strong evidence. You, on the other hand, believe that the planet is less than 10,000 years old. Which flies in the face of ALL evidence. You believe the Grand Canyon was carved in a matter of days by Noah's Flood. Which flies in the face of ALL evidence. You believe people living in a place that was unknown to Europeans had knowledge of a European deity. Which flies in the face of ALL evidence.

Who is the one that does not accept "well established historical fact"?

[Dotard]

You, (Statler Waldorf) on the other hand, believe that the planet is less than 10,000 years old. Which flies in the face of ALL evidence. You (SW) believe the Grand Canyon was carved in a matter of days by Noah's Flood. Which flies in the face of ALL evidence. You (SW) believe people living in a place that was unknown to Europeans had knowledge of a European deity. Which flies in the face of ALL evidence.

Who is the one that does not accept "well established historical fact"?

I believe Statler's personal insight is not subordinate to a validation discipline. As such his fallacious thinking has caused confusion within his mind.

Just my opinion.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Well I have not had a chance to read all of your last response yet :-( This is an interesting idea, but what I think you will find is it is impossible to synchronize the clocks necessary to conduct the experiment without using a synchrony convention. You could use the Einstein convention to do this but this would be begging the question because it assumes light moves at the same speeds in all directions relative to the observer (hence why radio waves from the voyager does not measure the speed of light in one direction because the ESC is used to synchronize the two clocks involved). You could also use the ASC to synchronize the clocks, but this would also be begging the question because it assumes light moves at different speeds in different directions relative to the observer. This is why these are conventions

Choosing a convention is completely unnecessary, but re-reading the Foucault Method, which to my embarassment I apparently didn't read thoroughly enough or mistaked another experiment for this one because I must have somehow erroneously thought that the method involved an average between two distances.
... but I was wrong, but interestingly, in doing so I've proven how little you know about the measurement of the speed of light and how absolutely wrong ASC is about the speed of light.
I had it in my head at some point that the Foucault Method involved an average, but I was wrong. In fact, most methods of measuring the speed of light doesn't average between two distances - it only measures for one distance.

The Foucault method uses the deflection angle of the beam of light and measures the distance exactly once because it measures the displacement of light upon a particular lens that acts as a beam splitter.

I had also mentioned a number of other methods that involve the use of chocolate or marshmellows and a microwave.

What are you even talking about? That's been the whole point of this discussion from the get-go. There is no test that can demonstrate light moves at different speeds or the same speed for that matter relative to the observer. All of these tests require a synchrony convention in order to synchronize the clocks. If I use the Einstein Synchrony Convention it will show that light moves the same speed in all directions relative to an observer and that time-dilation due to motion is negligible at speeds not approaching 14 percent of the speed of light, but that's because this convention assumes all of this to be true! If I used the ASC to synchronize the clocks it would show that light moves at different directions relative to the observer and that time-dilation is not negligible even at speeds only 1 percent of the speed of light. That's why these are called conventions. They are different ways of measuring the same observed phenomenon, and to say that one is somehow more “correct” than the other demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

This wasn't addressed to me, but I need to answer this as well.
No modern test I've looked up requires the average between two distances.
We have cooborating evidence from our robotic and human explorations throughout the solar system both with and without clocks of any kind and none of these methods require clocks to be sychronized. The foucault method was invented and used to come very close to the modern measurement of the speed of light well before Einstein was even born, let alone had a 'method' named after him.

Not to mention to the fact that all of the sciecne today that uses relativity and depends on relativity assume the speed of light is constant, which has been able to produce predicable results as per what allows all science to qualify as science. The atomic bomb (much to Einstein's dismay) was invented based on that principle of light and matter being two states of the same thing, which itself is built upon the assumption that the speed of light is constant and the same to all observers.
ASC contradicts more than a hundred years of physics, which was founded to be true based on repeated experiment and confirmed predictions based on those hypothosis.

[Zen Badger]

Well so much for being cordial eh? That's too bad; I was kind of starting to like you Zen.

Should I be upset? I'll try it and let you know how I go.

I am actually getting bored with the topic because nobody on here even understands it (I think because they have not read the actual article but rather articles written by others who don't understand it). So it's not unlike trying to debate the greatest quarterback of all time with a bunch of people who don't know what a football is.

The only one who doesn't understand it is you.

Your argument is just fundamentally flawed, it would be like saying, "light can't move at different rates through different substances because that would violate "c" as being a constant!" [quote]
This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about
[quote] C is a constant because it is the average speed at which light moves in a vacuum in a round trip.

Apparently you don't even know what the difference between a "constant" and an "average" is.

Like I said, you don't even need to use synchrony convention to measure the value of "c", so why you would try and use this to argue against different conventions is beyond me. I suggest you actually read the articles on ASC because every single issue that has been raised against it is addressed in the actual literature.

I have, though oddly enough I can't find Lisle's original paper, even though he said he would submit it to peer review. I did though find this on his blog http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/...n-genesis/

Scientific research takes time—a lot of time. A full-time research scientist might spend half a year or more working on a particular project, in order to write one technical paper about it. But that’s the way it has to be. Research must be thorough and rigorous; otherwise we may overlook an important fact that disproves the hypothesis in question. Peer review is just as important for the same reason. When other qualified scientists with a correct biblical worldview offer constructive criticism, it can be very helpful in refining an article or technical paper.

Well yes, that would be a unbiased peer review wouldn't it...........

As to your point about Nuclear Physicists, their observations would be exactly the same under the ASC as they are under the ESC because the linear term in the time-dilation formula is not negligible under ASC like it is under ESC. This means we make the same observations under both conventions, just for different reasons, this is why they are called conventions and not theories. However, questioning my science credentials goes to show just how misinformed you really are.

But I'm not talking about observations, I'm talking about the calculations that require c to be a constant, that wouldn't work if it was an average, and yet, strangly enough do work.

Another consequence of Lisles "theory" is that it requires the Earth to be the centre of the universe, which isn't borne out by any observations at all.
P.s if light arrives at Earth instantaneously how do you explain red shift.

As to your scientific credentials, since you appear willing to embrace a half arsed theory that requires 95% of accepted Physics to be tossed out because it looks like it will validate your little creation fantasy,
I think they should be questioned.

[Anomalocaris]

What are you even talking about? That's been the whole point of this discussion from the get-go. There is no test that can demonstrate light moves at different speeds or the same speed for that matter relative to the observer. All of these tests require a synchrony convention in order to synchronize the clocks. If I use the Einstein Synchrony Convention it will show that light moves the same speed in all directions relative to an observer and that time-dilation due to motion is negligible at speeds not approaching 14 percent of the speed of light, but that's because this convention assumes all of this to be true! If I used the ASC to synchronize the clocks it would show that light moves at different directions relative to the observer and that time-dilation is not negligible even at speeds only 1 percent of the speed of light. That's why these are called conventions. They are different ways of measuring the same observed phenomenon, and to say that one is somehow more “correct” than the other demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

"Convention"? The only convention here is your own, which is to put your interpretation of a dirty little "holy" iron age tract you call "bible" above all else in all fields.

In physics the concept light moving the same speed through vacuum in all direction is not a convention. Convention in fact had called for quite the opposite. For 200 years after Newton accepted convention in physics had said that light could travels in vacuum at different speeds in different directions relative to any observer, until Michelson–Morley experiment in 1877 conclusively proved that this was not so. It was in deference to this convention shattering observational fact, that relativity with its constant 1 way C, was eventually developed.

A very coarse measurement of realtive light speed in two directions that does not need any averaging, and does not even need any clock or synchronization, will crush the ASC version you espoused utterly. All you need to be able to do is to measure the wavelength of light and be able to move. Position yourself between two stationary lightsources and move back and forth between them, measure the Doppler induced changes in the observed wave length of each source as you move back and forth between them. If the measured Doppler change in wave length in one light source is the exact opposite of the doppler change in wave length of the other, then light traveled at the same speed in both directions relative to you. Your ASC and your defense of your "bible" goes into a blackhole.

But if synchronization is what you want, synchronization is what you get. Modern atomic clocks can have independent accuracy of less then 1 second deviation in 1 billion years, and two such modern clocks in two non-accelerated frames of reference can synchronize once, and be quite accurate enough to pin down the one way velocity of light between them to 9 decimal places as they are moved apart, and therefore measure whether light goes faster in one direction then the other between them with 9 orders of magnitudes of precision. I've done the work I asked of you, and nominated a means by which ASC might be demonstrated or shattered to within 9 decimal places. Perhaps a little study of actual physics, as oppose to the garbage swimming around inside your "creation science" "journeys", might save your from the ignominy of the moronic present-in-cosmology-shattering-strenght but even-in-theory-undetectable "ASC" bluster.

I might have said you are confused, but confusion carries an inappropriately passive tone, implying a genuine ignorance. The sort of purposed and willful bullshit-sprouting needed to defend your positive interpretation of that dirty little "holy" iron age tract you call "bible" belies the innocence implicit in confusion. So I will say you are simply full of whatever shit you conceive to be able to prop up your devotion to that sorry collection of iron age goat fuckers' wet dreams.