Jump to content


Photo

The One Way Speed Of Light

astronomy time distance light

  • Please log in to reply
342 replies to this topic

#41 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,117 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 08 September 2015 - 09:55 AM

In General Terms, eh?  LOL
 
 
 

 
Really?  How did you Synchronize "THE CLOCKS"?   :laugh_point:
 
 
http://evolutionfair...es/#entry126307
 
There's no way out for you sir.  Your "Science Acumen" is completely and utterly "Kaput"!!  And I'm being "Kind".
 
 

 
Really?  Look UP!!


I don't know, E.....but, your video sure does sound like wishful thinking to me, e.g., starting with an answer first, then interpreting the data to fit that answer. For someone who likes to rattle on about the scientific method, that sure doesn't sound very scientific .....

#42 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 September 2015 - 10:10 AM

I don't know, E.....but, your video sure does sound like wishful thinking to me, e.g., starting with an answer first, then interpreting the data to fit that answer. For someone who likes to rattle on about the scientific method, that sure doesn't sound very scientific .....

 

 

Sir, There is NO.... "Starting with The Answer First", here in regards to Measuring then Validating "The One-Way Speed of Light"...it's a fools errand, as Comprehensively Explained and Illustrated in the Video.

 

 

And GOD, started with the answer FIRST....

 

(Genesis 1:14-19) "¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  {17} And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,  {18} And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. {19} And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

 

 

To refute this, you need to show the "One-Way" Speed of Light!!  Go ahead...?

 

 

*****  Ironically, it is YOU (and your Cohorts) that has started with the Answer FIRST..."evolution" and "Billions Of Years" without VALIDATION... then Incorporated this Yarn to match your Fairytale World View!!

 

 

....that sure doesn't sound very scientific

 

 

What doesn't "Specifically".....? 


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#43 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 September 2015 - 10:53 AM

Absolutely:

 

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

 

The first men and women on earth saw the star lights beginning on the very day of their creation. The light from the celestial bodies was seen in the sky that very evening. At some unknown point God expanded His universe...perhaps more than once. We have His Word on it.

 

starryskyinAdamstimeperhaps.jpg

 

Psalm 33:8-0 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.


#44 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 September 2015 - 10:59 AM

I wondered about the "clumsy claim".

 

 

You still "Wondering"??   :think:

 

Or not so "Clumsy" anymore, eh?



#45 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,117 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 08 September 2015 - 04:24 PM

Sir, There is NO.... "Starting with The Answer First", here in regards to Measuring then Validating "The One-Way Speed of Light"...it's a fools errand, as Comprehensively Explained and Illustrated in the Video.
 
 
And GOD, started with the answer FIRST....
 
(Genesis 1:14-19) "¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  {17} And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,  {18} And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. {19} And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."
 
 
To refute this, you need to show the "One-Way" Speed of Light!!  Go ahead...?
 
 
*****  Ironically, it is YOU (and your Cohorts) that has started with the Answer FIRST..."evolution" and "Billions Of Years" without VALIDATION... then Incorporated this Yarn to match your Fairytale World View!!
 
 

 
What doesn't "Specifically".....?


You know, E,....you, cal, and others here can believe whatever you want; that is your right. But, it is foolish to believe that the scientific community needs to see things as you do....and no they do not have to address statements in the Bible or any other religious document ...

#46 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 September 2015 - 04:47 PM

You know, E,....you, cal, and others here can believe whatever you want; that is your right. But, it is foolish to believe that the scientific community needs to see things as you do....and no they do not have to address statements in the Bible or any other religious document ...

 

Then what in the world are you, piasan, et al, doing here on this Christian/creationist website? 

 

But whether you like it or not WE WILL discuss both science (the realm of God) AND the Word of God and we ARE going to lay those principles before your eyes without hesitation and without apology. It is therefore ludicrous to attempt to debate with us knowing full well how we have answered you (scientifically AND scripturally) and knowing that we WILL bring those arguments before you in the future. 

 

So, what's your point, O hopeless one?



#47 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,117 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 08 September 2015 - 04:56 PM

Then what in the world are you, piasan, et al, doing here on this Christian/creationist website? 
 
But whether you like it or not WE WILL discuss both science (the realm of God) AND the Word of God and we ARE going to lay those principles before your eyes without hesitation and without apology. It is therefore ludicrous to attempt to debate with us knowing full well how we have answered you (scientifically AND scripturally) and knowing that we WILL bring those arguments before you in the future. 
 
So, what's your point, O hopeless one?


Cal, I am a huge supporter of the first amendment; I would never tell you what you can say or can't say on a forum that I do not own. I'm just saying that it's silly to think that the scientific community is going to follow you in their approach.....ain't going to happen....

#48 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 September 2015 - 05:14 PM

You know, E,....you, cal, and others here can believe whatever you want; that is your right. But, it is foolish to believe that the scientific community needs to see things as you do....and no they do not have to address statements in the Bible or any other religious document ...

 

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

We "believe" that it's Impossible to Ascertain the "One-Way" Speed of Light.  Scientifically VALIDATED FACT!

 

We "believe" Information/CODE/Software only ever ever ever comes from an Intelligent Agency.  Scientifically VALIDATED FACT!

 

We "believe" that an Intelligent Agent MUST HAVE collapsed the Wave Function to Create Reality.  Scientifically VALIDATED FACT!

 

We 'believe" that it is both Physically and Chemically Impossible to form Life From Non-Life.  Scientifically VALIDATED FACT!

 

We "believe" that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Nature/Natural Law to Create or Destroy Matter/Energy.  Scientifically VALIDATED FACT!

 

Got another 85 or so....Interested?

 

 

Stop the "Science Community" from Reminiscing with Strangers and Drag them out of 18th Century Pseudo-Science and have them Join Us!!!  

 

You may come too   :D

 

 

regards



#49 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,117 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 08 September 2015 - 05:44 PM

What on Earth are you talking about?

We "believe" that it's Impossible to Ascertain the "One-Way" Speed of Light. Scientifically VALIDATED FACT!

We "believe" Information/CODE/Software only ever ever ever comes from an Intelligent Agency. Scientifically VALIDATED FACT!

We "believe" that an Intelligent Agent MUST HAVE collapsed the Wave Function to Create Reality. Scientifically VALIDATED FACT!

We 'believe" that it is both Physically and Chemically Impossible to form Life From Non-Life. Scientifically VALIDATED FACT!

We "believe" that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Nature/Natural Law to Create or Destroy Matter/Energy. Scientifically VALIDATED FACT!

Got another 85 or so....Interested?


Stop the "Science Community" from Reminiscing with Strangers and Drag them out of 18th Century Pseudo-Science and have them Join Us!!!

You may come too :D


regards

Is there any physical reason to believe that light travels one speed going one way and an entirely different speed going the other way (outside of faith-based reasons)? Pi mentioned GPS; GPS satellites are not geosynchronous meaning that they appear at widely varying directions from a given location and that doesn't affect their accuracy. Also, SIGINT systems (military jargon) triangulate emitter location via multiple sensor directions .......something they could not do if the speed of light was directional dependent ....

#50 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 September 2015 - 07:04 PM

Is there any physical reason to believe that light travels one speed going one way and an entirely different speed going the other way (outside of faith-based reasons)? 

 

Is there any reason why it doesn't?  Light is a very strange Phenomenon (SEE: Quantum Mechanics, 1/ea).

 

And we don't "believe" in Science...we Validate/Confirm via Experiment.

 

Pi mentioned GPS; GPS satellites are not geosynchronous meaning that they appear at widely varying directions from a given location and that doesn't affect their accuracy.

 

 

GPS has Absolutely ZERO to do with disputing the "One-Way" Speed of Light.

 

All they did was send Gravity Probe A up in 1976...and said "Hey, our clocks are off"....let's error correct and place these satellites here. Voila 

 

 

Also, SIGINT systems (military jargon) triangulate emitter location via multiple sensor directions .......something they could not do if the speed of light was directional dependent ....

 

 

Wrong.  Watch the Video above slowly; The Speed is just a "Convention" sir.  This has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with disputing the "One-Way" Speed. 



#51 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,117 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 08 September 2015 - 07:18 PM

Is there any reason why it doesn't? Light is a very strange Phenomenon (SEE: Quantum Mechanics, 1/ea).

And we don't "believe" in Science...we Validate/Confirm via Experiment.


GPS has Absolutely ZERO to do with disputing the "One-Way" Speed of Light.

All they did was send Gravity Probe A up in 1976...and said "Hey, our clocks are off"....let's error correct and place these satellites here. Voila



Wrong. Watch the Video above slowly; The Speed is just a "Convention" sir. This has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with disputing the "One-Way" Speed.


I did watch it; however, that does not explain how SIGINT techniques such as time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA) that rely explicitly on a fixed EM signal speed are able to so accurately geo-locate an enemy emitter.

#52 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 September 2015 - 04:01 AM

I did watch it; however, that does not explain how SIGINT techniques such as time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA) that rely explicitly on a fixed EM signal speed are able to so accurately geo-locate an enemy emitter.

 

:huh:



#53 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 09 September 2015 - 05:37 AM

Cal, I am a huge supporter of the first amendment; I would never tell you what you can say or can't say on a forum that I do not own. I'm just saying that it's silly to think that the scientific community is going to follow you in their approach.....ain't going to happen....

 

No one questions your right to be wrong. That is not now nor ever was an issue. But you didn't answer the question....why are you here since you must realize by now you aren't going to convert any of us?

 

Will the scientific community follow us in our approach....NO! Because they are just as bigoted towards the truth as you are and they will stretch, twist, contort, or outright deny they evidence we lay before them no matter how much dishonesty it takes to maintain their belief in the fairytale.

 

Moses was right, Darwin was wrong.

Jesus was right, Dawkins is wrong.



#54 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 09 September 2015 - 03:22 PM

If the light from distant galaxies arrives on Earth instantaneously, why do we observe increased red shift according to distance ? If the light arrives in an instant from all points then there would be no opportunity for the wavelengths to stretch.



#55 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 September 2015 - 03:43 PM

If the light from distant galaxies arrives on Earth instantaneously, why do we observe increased red shift according to distance ? If the light arrives in an instant from all points then there would be no opportunity for the wavelengths to stretch.

 

 

Because Red Shift is a Fiasco: SEE, Here (the part just after the Bludgeoning of the CMB):

 

http://evolutionfair...e-2#entry115078



#56 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 09 September 2015 - 07:10 PM

If the light from distant galaxies arrives on Earth instantaneously, why do we observe increased red shift according to distance ? If the light arrives in an instant from all points then there would be no opportunity for the wavelengths to stretch.

 

Because, as Halton Arp (Hubbles personal assistant years ago) said, "But a high redshift value does not necessarily mean the object is far away. There is another, more important cause of high redshift values."

 

http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

 

Happy reading.



#57 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 10 September 2015 - 03:50 PM

Because, as Halton Arp (Hubbles personal assistant years ago) said, "But a high redshift value does not necessarily mean the object is far away. There is another, more important cause of high redshift values."

 

http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

 

Happy reading.

 

I'm sure there are some objects that don't follow the pattern but the fact is that if you plot a load of galaxies on a graph there is a strong correlation between distance and the amount of redshift. But whether you accept the correlation is valid or not how do you explain the presence of redshift at all if the light transits space instantly ? If the photons aren't taking any time to traverse space then there would be no wavelength increase either as a result of the Doppler effect or to cosmological expansion.



#58 keysi

keysi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Zooloogy, Anthropology, Psychology, Books, Video Games, Martial Arts.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United Kingdom

Posted 11 September 2015 - 12:35 AM

What is half of instantaneous?

#59 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 11 September 2015 - 12:41 AM

What is half of instantaneous?

Lisle's claim is that the speed of light is infinite from the source, but only half of "c" on the way back.  If this were true, it would give the exact same speed of light as we get with the current (two way) measurements.

 

Despite Lisle's claim his Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) can't be tested, his objections are easily overcome, as I will explain (again) as soon as I get a chance.



#60 keysi

keysi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Zooloogy, Anthropology, Psychology, Books, Video Games, Martial Arts.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United Kingdom

Posted 11 September 2015 - 01:25 AM

It just sounds a bit like one of these logical fallicies to me. And a tad ridiculous.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: astronomy, time, distance, light

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users