The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[DeistPaladin]

My mother was a school psychologist so I know something about children with mental disabilities from her stories from work. I would never use the term "retard" because it effectively insults people who were born with mental handicaps through no fault of their own.

I prefer "fucktard". I define that term as being willfully ignorant. Fucktards have a brain every bit as functional as you or I but they just choose not to use it. They prefer to believe stupid things and refuse to listen to reason.

[5thHorseman]

PC, great.

[Zen Badger]

'If the math works" you keep saying that but you've never shown how it works.

You claimed awhile ago that you read the peer reviewed article on ASC, so I assumed you also checked the calculations in the article itself. Either way, position dependent relativity rather than velocity dependent relativity still works fine.

I never made any such claim, if fact I have been unable to even find his so-called "peer reviewed" article, so if you have it that would be nice.
All I ever saw was this http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...dgD78xtr2g

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.

This does nothing to disprove ASC; I even believe this was addressed in the article you claim to have read. He was measuring the round trip speed of light, which is exactly the same whether you are using ASC or ISC (also known as ESC).

That is where you are wrong, Roemer was NOT measuring the round trip of the light from Earth to Io and back again, he was only measuring the journey from Io to Earth because the original source was the Sun.
Lisle's "theory"(I LOL at the oxymoron) relies on the fact that we can't theoretically calculate light speed from A to B, we can only measure from A to B and back to A and then taking an average from the two trips.

But when the light travels from X (the Sun) to B (Io) and then to A (Earth) then the only measurement you can take is from B to A.
And if Lisle's theory was correct then the trip would be the same time interval regardless of the distance between Earth and Io i.e, zero.

So the fact that there IS a difference means that light does take a finite amount of time to traverse the distance. Therefore disproving his "theory"

And no-one with even the faintest understanding of basic physics could ever take either seriously.

So the fact that Einstein was originally going to use ASC rather than ISC means he didn’t have the faintest understanding of basic physics? You are priceless.

And where does he actually say this?

---

And if you could give a list of reputable institutions etc that have reviewed Lisle's paper that would also be good.

[Statler Waldorf]

What a fucking retard you really are.

Wait, so you don’t actually have a rational response? I knew you wouldn’t, thanks for not disappointing me there Scooter.

This is a civilized forum, insulting the word "retard" is not acceptable.

Also not a rational response, that’s two in a row, can we make three?

I prefer "fucktard". I define that term as being willfully ignorant. Fucktards have a brain every bit as functional as you or I but they just choose not to use it. They prefer to believe stupid things and refuse to listen to reason.

This sounds an awful lot like….well you to be honest. Mr. I can’t rationally account for anything that I believe, but God is a big meanie-face!

I never made any such claim, if fact I have been unable to even find his so-called "peer reviewed" article, so if you have it that would be nice.

Let’s see how long it takes me to find it, I will time myself….

Wow, first article to pop up in Google! So that took 13 seconds.

https://www.answersingenesis.org/content...ention.pdf

So now that you are going to read the article, I will expect you to not post any further “refutations” that were already addressed in the original article.

---

That is where you are wrong, Roemer was NOT measuring the round trip of the light from Earth to Io and back again, he was only measuring the journey from Io to Earth because the original source was the Sun.
Lisle's "theory"(I LOL at the oxymoron) relies on the fact that we can't theoretically calculate light speed from A to B, we can only measure from A to B and back to A and then taking an average from the two trips.

But when the light travels from X (the Sun) to B (Io) and then to A (Earth) then the only measurement you can take is from B to A.
And if Lisle's theory was correct then the trip would be the same time interval regardless of the distance between Earth and Io i.e, zero.

So the fact that there IS a difference means that light does take a finite amount of time to traverse the distance. Therefore disproving his "theory"

---

No you are just wrong on this one; Roemer assumes a synchrony convention in order to keep his clock synchronized for the experiment. He used the slow transport method in order to assume synchrony. The slow transport method would only work if light was indeed isotropic. So he essentially assumed the very thing he was trying to prove to be true was true in order to prove it was true which is of course invalid. If you would like to read more about the problems with Roemer’s experiment I ‘d recommend reading the article “The philosophical
Significance of the one-way speed of light” by Wesley Salmon.

And where does he actually say this?

It’s in the very article you are supposed to read for your homework.

“Therefore, an infinite number of such synchrony conventions may be stipulated. However, not all such selections will be particularly useful. But there is one that is especially useful. Let us consider a non-Einstein synchrony convention in which all points in the past light cone of p are considered simultaneous. This convention has been used in the technical literature (Sarkar and Stachel 1999). Moreover, Einstein himself considered using this convention, but preferred to use the standard convention because it is position-independent (as we will see shortly). “

And if you could give a list of reputable institutions etc that have reviewed Lisle's paper that would also be good.

Nope, that’s a silly game to play. You have arbitrarily defined “reputable” as only institutions that agree with your position. I could very easily do the same thing and say there are no “reputable” institutions that disagree with the theory because the only “reputable” ones are those that agree with the theory. It’s a silly and irrational game that gets us nowhere. Let’s allow the theory to stand or fall upon its own merits.

[The Grand Nudger]

Repetition doesn't add weight to any given claim Stat. Maybe you should slow down and demonstrate the veracity of any single claim before moving on the the next? If it was bullshit the first time, it's going to bullshit the next time. Unless you have some modifications to make to any of these claims that would give us reason to reassess them? Or, you could stop complaining about science and do science. Be the man who closes the book, so to speak.

Late edit: Just to be clear. It may be that you've happened upon a factually accurate explanation for everything in existence. It's not beyond the realm of possibility even if it stretches plausibility. What you've offered up thusfar in any thread; about any subject, doesn't fit the the evidence. So, if you're correct in your assumptions it isn't for the reasons you've given. Everything we know is wrong. Science is a blank slate for you to work your magic upon. Now, find some evidence, build a better argument, and stop repeating yourself. The things you offer up must be able to withstand criticism to a higher degree than most or any of us here are capable of offering. Nothing in your beliefs-as-science line of argumentation has managed to do this yet. There's a word for people who peddle things like this; charlatan. Whatever you feel you gain by repeatedly pushing this garbage is illusory, you've probably gained the opposite. The particular brand of belief you peddle is a disservice to belief as a whole. You make the bible, and by extension christianity an easy target. It would be much more difficult to criticize faith if people didn't advocate positions such as yours.

[DeistPaladin]

This sounds an awful lot like….well you to be honest. Mr. I can’t rationally account for anything that I believe, but God is a big meanie-face!

We've already been down this road. I have fully explained what I believe and why. Just because you pretend I haven't doesn't mean that I haven't. It only says something about your intellectual honesty.

[Minimalist]

but God is a big meanie-face!

No, god is a figment of your rather fucked up imagination. A fact true of all gods everywhere since the dawn of time which was not 6,000 years ago.[/code]

[Zen Badger]

I never made any such claim, if fact I have been unable to even find his so-called "peer reviewed" article, so if you have it that would be nice.

Let’s see how long it takes me to find it, I will time myself….

Wow, first article to pop up in Google! So that took 13 seconds.

https://www.answersingenesis.org/content...ention.pdf

So now that you are going to read the article, I will expect you to not post any further “refutations” that were already addressed in the original article.

Interesting article that, it starts by assuming that the bible is correct and anyone who doesnt believe it is wrong.
Yep folks, that thar be real scientifical stuff, yuk,yuk.

It then goes on to talk about light cones and the like which is real science......

And then we get to the crux of the article on page 18, which is basically "a miracle occurs"
Yep, real science indeed......
(Strange thing is that I could not copy and paste the relevent passage. It would appear that Lisle doesn't want people quoting his work)

---

That is where you are wrong, Roemer was NOT measuring the round trip of the light from Earth to Io and back again, he was only measuring the journey from Io to Earth because the original source was the Sun.
Lisle's "theory"(I LOL at the oxymoron) relies on the fact that we can't theoretically calculate light speed from A to B, we can only measure from A to B and back to A and then taking an average from the two trips.

But when the light travels from X (the Sun) to B (Io) and then to A (Earth) then the only measurement you can take is from B to A.
And if Lisle's theory was correct then the trip would be the same time interval regardless of the distance between Earth and Io i.e, zero.

So the fact that there IS a difference means that light does take a finite amount of time to traverse the distance. Therefore disproving his "theory"

---

No you are just wrong on this one; Roemer assumes a synchrony convention in order to keep his clock synchronized for the experiment. He used the slow transport method in order to assume synchrony. The slow transport method would only work if light was indeed isotropic. So he essentially assumed the very thing he was trying to prove to be true was true in order to prove it was true which is of course invalid. If you would like to read more about the problems with Roemer’s experiment I ‘d recommend reading the article “The philosophical
Significance of the one-way speed of light” by Wesley Salmon.

You know what Stat?
I think this one passage alone of all the drivel you ever have posted on this forum really, truly illustrates what a pig ignorant, uninformed dolt you really are.

The "slow transport method" that you claimed Roemer used was actually proposed by Einstein as a way of getting around the problems imposed by time dilation generated when you try to seperate your two measuring devices so as to measure c.
Since Roemer made his discovery two and a half CENTURIES before Einsteins work he would've known nothing about Relativity, time dilation or the slow tranport method.

And if you weren't just a vacous emptyheaded handpuppet for the disingenous malarkey merchants parading themselves as creation "scientists" and actually had some genuine knowledge of the subject you would've known that.

And where does he actually say this?

It’s in the very article you are supposed to read for your homework.

“Therefore, an infinite number of such synchrony conventions may be stipulated. However, not all such selections will be particularly useful. But there is one that is especially useful. Let us consider a non-Einstein synchrony convention in which all points in the past light cone of p are considered simultaneous. This convention has been used in the technical literature (Sarkar and Stachel 1999). Moreover, Einstein himself considered using this convention, but preferred to use the standard convention because it is position-independent (as we will see shortly). “

No, I asked where Einstein said it, not where some cretinist fucktard claimed he said it.

And if you could give a list of reputable institutions etc that have reviewed Lisle's paper that would also be good.

Nope, that’s a silly game to play. You have arbitrarily defined “reputable” as only institutions that agree with your position. I could very easily do the same thing and say there are no “reputable” institutions that disagree with the theory because the only “reputable” ones are those that agree with the theory. It’s a silly and irrational game that gets us nowhere. Let’s allow the theory to stand or fall upon its own merits.

Translated, " No Scientific body has even looked at it"

Ok then how about a list of institutions that have reviewed it, or even a list of who it has been submitted to?

BTW Stat, this place you claim to work at as a scientist. Do they know you're a scientist or do they still think you're the janitor?

[Darwinning]

Evolution is a fact, and those who choose to deny it are denying a fact.

I hope you realize by now that when you make baseless assertions like this I am going to simply make the opposite claim back since it holds as much water, so here goes…

“Creation is a fact, and those who choose to deny it are denying a fact.”

Evolution is a process which can be (and has been) proven to occur. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Specific_examples]

Perhaps you do not ascribe to the idea that all life on Earth was formed this way, but surely you accept the fact that evolution through natural selection as a process is real?

Creation is also a process, but I have yet to see any evidence that it can occur.

I, for one, cannot accept any explanation for life on Earth that relies on a process that cannot be proven to occur. If you have any references (so no talky, just links) to support the claim that Creation as a process is real, please share.

The laws of nature may not align with your absurd and offensive belief that the earth is only 6000 or so years old,

What law of nature are you referring to? Stop making assertions and actually back them up with at least something please.

I believe that quote is referring to the current scientific consensus that the Earth is about four and a half billion years old, based mostly on radiometric dating. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth]

"Goddidit" is not a fucking answer, it's something people made up a long time ago because they had no real answers.

So when a person looks at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and says “Michelangelo did it”, that’s also not the correct answer? It’s just an answer because we don’t have the real answer?
 

I find it a lot easier to believe a man named Michelangelo existed and painted a ceiling a few hundred years ago than I find it to believe some supernatural being named God existed and created the universe 6.000 years ago. The latter requires far more assumptions and fantasizing about the world around us.

Also, I do not believe that was the point. It's not that "Goddidit" is not the correct answer (it isn't, but that's irrelevant here), it's that it fails to explain the world around us without requiring extreme assumptions that cannot be substantiated. Meanwhile, “Michelangelo did it” requires us only to assume a man named Michelangelo could paint rather well.

Occam's razor is a marvelous tool. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor]

I am not trying to be insulting but saying that science is built on the assumption that God exists seems to be unsubstantiated. With what you believe of course science is based on the existence of God. Based on what I do not believe though it most certainly is not. Making that statement does not prove anything other than what you believe to be true as quantifying how science is based on God seems to be a matter of theology and philosophy.

No insult taken, science is based on the principle of induction. The principle of induction assumes uniformity in nature which can only be justified by the existence of a providential God. The God of scripture is unique in the fact that He has revealed Himself to us and is also providentially controlling over all of His creation.

Induction may be flawed, but it hardly proves the existence of God. However, I like your argument. It has a certain elegance to it, like those mathematical tricks that show that 1=2.

However I am curious as to how God is simply evident through creation. If that were true and I for whatever reason do not see that to be true what does that leave? In my mind that leaves several alternatives: 1) I am being deceived, 2) I am willing not accepting the evidence, 3) It isn't true, and of course 4) something else I potentially didn't put down .

Well the Biblical position on that is that everyone knows God exists in their heart of hearts because of His creative work; unbelievers simply suppress this knowledge because of its implications. So it is a form of self deception really.

I firmly believe the opposite it true. Everyone in his or her hearts of hearts knows there is no God, but some surpress this knowledge because they are afraid of being alone (and wrong).

Surely it had to be made and programmed by somebody? It is actually harder to believe that a supreme deity managed to programme something so complex, not just for us but for billions and trillions of other things too. It's just too easy an answer. Goddidit.

Where do you get this notion that easy answers are always wrong answers?

An answer is not the same as an explanation. "Goddidit" is the former, but not the latter. It's not easy either, because it requires the assumption that God exists in the first place and thus begs the question "Who made God?".

Over TIME. Give it enough time and enough interactions can occur.

So you are essentially using the “Timedidit” answer?

Yes, but it's our friend Occam's razor again. Even if there was no evidence (see above) for the old age of Earth (and thus seas of time), I would still have less trouble /assuming/ the existence of said seas of time than the existence of God.

People don't often seem to me to really comprehend how long a time 4.5 billion years really is. It's just a number right, a big number right, but you need to understand the hugeness of it. Think of light. It travels at c186,000 miles per second. Around 670 million mph. Travelling at the speed of 670 million mph it still takes over 4 years to reach the nearest star. The vast distance travelled in that 4 years is mindboggling, yes? We all understand that right?

If people actually comprehended how long 4.5 billion years is nobody would believe the ridiculous notion that the Earth has been around that long.

Thanks for the laugh. What a silly thing to say.

If people actually comprehended the implications of using God or scripture as an answer or explanation of the world around them (and the assumptions required) nobody woud believe the ridiculous notion that these things are true in the first place.

[Darwinning]

The problem of scientific nature is what neurological malfunction could it be for there to still be "theology" after the bronze age.

That’s actually kind of funny, if you’re an Evolutionist you’d have to believe that Humans developed a belief in God because it provided some sort of survival advantage. So being an atheist would actually make you a bit of an evolutionary throw back.

Nope. Common but fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Evolution is a process without set goals (apart from survival for species as a whole - or more precisely the gene). As such, not every hereditary trait needs a clear reason to exist. Some traits may have provided an advantage in the past, some might be remnants of reduced traits and still others might simply be side-effects of other useful traits developed.

The idea that every trait _must_ have some sort of survival advantage is patently false. As long as the trait does not pose (too great) a disadvantage to the survival rate of the species it can arise and persist.

My personal belief is that religion is a side-effect of several useful psychological traits developed; including the tendency of humans to believe what father figures tell us and our capacity to find causality and intent in everything that happens in the world around us. Children who do not listen to their father when he says "don't play near that tiger" are clearly at a disadvantage when it comes to survival; as are those who cannot connect the rustling of grass with the approach of said tiger.

Some of the time daddy and rustling grass might be wrong, and there is no tiger (or God, for that matter). But better to err on the side of caution and believe His every word.

In this view, theists are simply suffering from the some of the side-effects of the evolution of our species. How ironic.