# One and Two Way Speed of Light

#41

I see; the one-way speed of light can essentially be anything as long as when added with the speed of light going the other direction and divided by two you get c.

(Robert Byers) #42

Then you have no evidence save your conviction.
Whatever LIGHT you would be measuring would be a source of same light. Yet I’m saying the source is not the source. Its just poking out the real source. The sun is not the source of light. The bible says this.
its just a explosion that overflows the light canopy as it were.
Even if the sun was a source of light one couldn’t prove it. Another one could always say its just exploding out the light.

(James McKay) #43

On the contrary, Robert, the speed of light can be measured. Easily.

In any case, I can’t make head or tail of what point you are trying to make. Your post is rambling, confused and incoherent (what on earth is “the source is not the source” supposed to even mean?) and though you claim “the bible says this” (whatever “this” is) you aren’t citing a single chapter or verse to back up your claim.

(As an aside, what is it with you YECs that you always write “bible” rather than “Bible” with a capital B? Besides being grammatically incorrect, it shows a lack of respect for the Word of God.)

(James McKay) #44

Wouldn’t it actually be \frac 1 c = \frac 1 c_1 + \frac 1 c_2?

#45

Oops, I was wrong. It should be t = t_1 + t_2; the two way time must be equal to the one way times added together, so \frac{2}{c} = \frac{1}{c_1} + \frac{1}{c_2}.

(Robert Byers) #46

Then prove your measurement is measuring light speed. Prove its not just measuring a provocation or explosion in the great light fabric as genesis implies.
My post is not confused etc etc.
Your not understanding the equation criticism.

(James McKay) #47

Robert, I hope you don’t mind me asking, but is English a second language to you? Your vocabulary certainly seems to lack the coherence and clarity that I would expect from a native speaker. “Your not understanding the equation criticism” is not even a grammatically valid sentence for starters, and you haven’t even quoted any equations, let alone criticised them. As for “a provocation or explosion in the great light fabric” – I’m not entirely sure what you even mean there.

(Chris Falter) #48

What about Maxwell’s electromagnetic equation–the one that derives the speed of light from the electric constant and the magnetic constant? This would seem to give the speed of light an intrinsic character. Adopting a different synchronization convention when measuring the speed of light would then become something of a parlor trick that would be wholly irrelevant to the “nature of things,” I think.

In addition, using the anisotropy convention adds an extra parameter to the equations, if I am understanding what physicists say. But adding the complexity of an extra parameter doesn’t change the predictions or give any additional insight. Thus Ockham’s razor, a very useful tool in science, would suggest that we eliminate the extra parameter and adopt the Einstein convention.

Note: I am not a physicist, so I would welcome any corrections from the scientists who really understand this stuff.

(James McKay) #49

Well an infinite speed of light in one direction would mean either an infinite frequency or a zero wavelength.

And then there’s the role played by the speed of light in all sorts of other physical phenomena. e=mc^2 and the fine structure constant (\large \alpha = \frac {e^2} {4 \pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c}) are just two that come to mind.

So, while the ASC may be mathematically coherent, it simply doesn’t respect the physical reality of what light is actually made of in the first place. Incidentally, even Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International is unimpressed with it for that very reason.

Basically, to quote xkcd, it’s a case of maths as “physics unconstrained by precepts of reality.”

(Matthew Dickau) #50

So, this is only the case if Maxwell’s equations hold in every (inertial) reference frame. It is axiomatic in the standard interpretation of special relativity that they do, and the constant isotropic speed of light can be taken as a consequence of that.

But before Einstein came along, as I understand it, a lot of physicists thought that Maxwell’s equations were valid only in a particular reference frame - the reference frame of the luminiferous aether - and famous experiments were devised to see if we could detect anisotropy in the speed of light as a way of measuring our motion relative to the aether.

Special relativity in fact can still be interpreted along those lines. You don’t actually need the aether - the privileged reference frame can do the work itself. As long as all the laws of physics operating in that reference frame share a certain symmetry with Maxwell’s equations, the consequences are empirically identical to the standard interpretation of SR.

(Robert Byers) #51

Actually Maxwells equation was another clue to me that speed of light concept was premature. I understand he measured these two things,electric and magnetic, and finding them the same number it made it impossible to be a coincidence. so thus was born LIGHT as these two properties.
Yet , possibly, it was just showing both properties ALSO went that fast in a , um thing, a corridor. I have tried to find out if there are OTHER fast moving things that are fast as speed of light. some sugest gravitational waves .
others say other things about light.
Yet it might easily be these things just move through a ether’ish thing which is composed of light.
So its only the provocation that speeds along. The speed is the same in the ether for lots of things. yet is not instant. Yet light is instant. Something is in the way.

(Matthew Dickau) #52

That’s… not how it went down.

The electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of free space are two different quantities. They don’t even have the same units, not in SI or any other unit system used in science, so unless your choice of unit system is particularly strange they cannot have the same value.

Rather, from Maxwell’s equations it can be shown that a changing electric field produces a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field produces an electric field, and these effects together mean that a wave consisting of electric and magnetic fields oscillating in lockstep with each other can propagate through space. Maxwell’s equations show that the speed of such a wave is a function of these two physical constants.

The fact that the speed of electromagnetic waves, which was about 3 x 10^8 m/s, matched the speed of light that had already been measured in experiments led to the hypothesis that light was an electromagnetic wave. But people already had very good reasons to believe that light traveled at finite speed; this idea was not born from Maxwell’s equations.

(ABC) #53

The generalised forms of Maxwell’s equations only predict isotropic waves in all directions when ε = 1/2.

It is the generalised equations that leave ε as a free parameter. The math is easier in most cases under ESC because some terms cancel out when ε = 1/2.

Ockham’s razor applies to competing models not conventions.

From light’s perspective there’s no travel time under ESC either (since clocks stop ticking at the speed of light). Relativity is weird.

According to Einstein, neither convention is more “real” than the other. You might need to use different formulae and you might get different numbers but those numbers have the same physical meaning.

(George) #54

@ABC

If it is impossible to measure even in principle, then there is nothing useful to be gained from the topic.

(Robert Byers) #55

Well I understood Mxwell proved it or was thought to.
Well havinf electromagnetic waves match the light wave is not proof wave is a electromagnetic thing.
Just the same corridor is being used prpobably.
so measuring light was just measuring something speeding along. I say its unlikely its light but only the provocation in the fabric
the origin for the reason of thinking light was a electromagnetic wave was a presumption without allowing other options. Carefless jumping the gun.
rather light should of been see as universal and packed in and other elements of nature just move quickly within/behind this fabric.
Where is the evidence that light speeds along?

(r_speir) #56

You said this:

I think you are incorrect on Lisle being a casualty here.

But Lisle is definitely a ‘casualty’ when it comes to his ASC paradigm. We all missed it because when he came out with his model, we felt 1. that we could not argue with synchrony conventions (which is correct thinking, but that led us to assume) 2. that Lisle had properly constructed his model based on the conventionality thesis. Come to find out, we have been trying too hard. One doesn’t have to measure the one-way speed of light to bring down the ASC paradigm. We only have to look for his model’s internal inconsistencies. Since it was never properly constructed in the first place, one only has to point them out to us and then the picture becomes clear.

Lisle says he upholds the conventionality thesis. However, he violated that thesis because he actually constructed his young ASC universe based solely on the one-way speed of light while ignoring the two-way speed. We missed three subtle clues.

First, he told us that the moment God created distant galaxies, their light was immediately witnessed by Earth. That was the first red flag. Immediately that tells us that his entire ASC universe is constructed solely on a one-way light speed - one which he believes to be of infinite speed.

Second, we forgot that it is precisely the one-way light speed in the conventionality thesis that can hold infinite values - ranging from c (isotropic light speed, Einstein’s speed) all the way to infinite speed. That second red flag should have pointed us to the obvious trouble Lisle had caused himself.

Third, because the conventionality thesis demands that Lisle be able to convert his ASC universe to ESC or any other synchrony convention, when he tried to convert to ESC, he had to invoke a completely new and different universe. That third and final red flag should have told us all we needed to hear.

Putting it all together, we find that Lisle cannot convert his young ASC universe to any synchrony convention without invoking a new and different universe each time in the process. His universe is too young to convert! He has no choice but to invoke a new universe in order to convert to any other synchrony of simultaneity!

This can only mean that in order for Lisle to appear literate in relativity and to uphold the conventionality thesis he must invoke infinite universes – a multiverse – each specifically designed for conversion to the infinite range of synchrony conventions available.

Remember, ASC is the youngest universe ‘allowed’ in a one-way speed of light construct, and ESC is the oldest. When Lisle converted his ASC to ESC he validated both extremes. And in validating both extremes he also necessarily validated infinite universes. He has a multiverse.

But in reality, he has a false construct. There is no such thing as a universe based solely on a one-way speed of light. Even if we let him have it, he must concede a multiverse. If he does not, his paradigm is falsified because his young universe violates the conventionality thesis - in and of itself, it cannot be converted to any synchrony convention unless a new universe is invoked. Summing up: Since he must accommodate all synchrony conventions in his construct, he is forced to admit a multiverse - an infinite range of universes, all with distinct and different ages.

Lisle and his ASC paradigm are definitely ‘casualties’. To overthrow his model was too easy, and we all missed it.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #57

@r_speir thanks for the contribution! I’m not in this area, and looking to learn more about it. Can you tell us more about yourself? Do you have training in physics? Who is the “we” of which you speak?

(r_speir) #58

I have one I consult with who is highly qualified in physics, cosmology, and origins. I did all the hard work while he only kept pointing me in the right direction. One day the light turned on, and I saw it all clearly. I am a six-day creationist who also believes in a 14 billion year old cosmos so you can imagine that I have a lot of details still to work out!

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #59

This conversation was continued elsewhere: The failure of Jason Lisle's ASC paradigm. This conclusion was achieved.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) closed #60