• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Speed of light

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
And you drive people away from TOL.
Nah, in fairness to RD that's not true Derf. People have been leaving TOL in droves for the last few years now, both right, left wingers and moderates. Sad to see as this was a once bustling and vibrant forum due in no small part to the founder's ideal that it would be open to all albeit with a self declared conservative bias. About ten years or so ago it was one of the most popular theology sites on the net when it was at its peak. A diverse mix of people from all over the religious and political spectrum where debate was encouraged including the heated variety. Unfortunately it all started going downhill when Knight wasn't so invested although he himself said he wasn't happy with how the forum was going. He even took blame himself for that although unfairly IMO. Unfortunately this place is barely a shadow of its former self as it now seems to be a place for conspiracy rubbish where even some of the old guard on the far right have had enough, those that are still here that is. RD isn't responsible for that. This forum just isn't anything as appealing as it once was is all.
 

Omniskeptical

Well-known member
Source? Or can you elaborate?
Engineering electromagnetics imply this heavily. Still, Einstein kept the ether theory alive in relativity by assuming the waves were not point to point, and [that they] were photons which are massless and infinitely produced. Photons I think are waves of energy and not mass.
 
Last edited:

Stone Mason

New member
Nah, in fairness to RD that's not true Derf. People have been leaving TOL in droves for the last few years now, both right, left wingers and moderates. Sad to see as this was a once bustling and vibrant forum due in no small part to the founder's ideal that it would be open to all albeit with a self declared conservative bias. About ten years or so ago it was one of the most popular theology sites on the net when it was at its peak. A diverse mix of people from all over the religious and political spectrum where debate was encouraged including the heated variety. Unfortunately it all started going downhill when Knight wasn't so invested although he himself said he wasn't happy with how the forum was going. He even took blame himself for that although unfairly IMO. Unfortunately this place is barely a shadow of its former self as it now seems to be a place for conspiracy rubbish where even some of the old guard on the far right have had enough, those that are still here that is. RD isn't responsible for that. This forum just isn't anything as appealing as it once was is all.

A very good observation Arthur. What I have noticed on the Forum, even before it was updated to its current version, has been a consistent flaw in that was not discouraged and that had to do with the idea that "Smack" was acceptable, and even idealized. The lack of respect/civility is eventually what pushes people away. The other thing that I noticed was the incredible lack of many members to be able to concede that their data/position was wrong even in the most simple of arguments. It is difficult to have reasonable discussions on theology when people won't stay on point or admit flaws in their logic. It is just becomes exhausting instead of enjoyable, so people slowly leave to try to find better uses of their time.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
A very good observation Arthur. What I have noticed on the Forum, even before it was updated to its current version, has been a consistent flaw in that was not discouraged and that had to do with the idea that "Smack" was acceptable, and even idealized. The lack of respect/civility is eventually what pushes people away.
It's harmless rhetoric. Just like sticks and stones, but harmless rhetoric will never hurt me.
The other thing that I noticed was the incredible lack of many members to be able to concede that their data/position was wrong even in the most simple of arguments. It is difficult to have reasonable discussions on theology when people won't stay on point or admit flaws in their logic. It is just becomes exhausting instead of enjoyable, so people slowly leave to try to find better uses of their time.
There's harmful rhetoric, that can be done by people irl online, if you know what I mean, it's when people know each other like kids at school, they can inflict harmful rhetoric online that way, but it's really an extension of real life at that point, we can't practice harmful rhetoric here, no matter how 'disrespectful' or 'uncivil' you find it it's all harmless rhetoric.

But you are right. It's embarrassing how difficult it is to persuade someone to see, what they refuse to see. The powers of persuasion here generally stink. Basically nobody ever changes, and that's not on TOL from a lack of trying to make them change; it's from resistance. Users see all attempts to persuade as just part of the rhetorical game here and they resist or block out the rhetoric of others, while trying to promote their own.

You might say why fight so much, but that's wrong. Fighting isn't the problem. And resistance isn't the problem. The problem is we stink at rhetoric. It's the number one thing we stink at on TOL. Nobody can ever persuade another user to change about any single thing ever, almost basically never, I've been off and on here since 98.

Users just leave. They fight rhetorically, they fail to persuade anybody, they leave. That's the pattern, the variable is in how long and how intensely they are at it.

Rhetoric doesn't have to be fighting. But sometimes even the Lord's own rhetoric made some of His rhetorical opponents want to fight. It wasn't Him Who started the fights, but it was His rhetoric that evoked the fights. If He hadn't engaged in rhetoric then He wouldn't have evoked them to execute Him.
 

tieman55

Member
I've really enjoyed listening to the recent RSR programs on the speed of light. As a YEC the light-time travel problem is one that's fascinated and stumped me for years.

A while ago I read one of Lisle's books wherein he proposed the ASC (infinite one-way speed of light convention). I liked the idea, but something about it never felt right. After thinking through this again I've concluded that the one-way speed of light can't be infinite.

If the one-way speed of light in a given direction is truly instantaneous, then no time passes during which light traverses a given distance. To put it another way, the same light (i.e. photon) is in two places at once. Only God can be in multiple places at once, so the idea that a photon can also is a problem.

There's also a fascinating implication of a photon being in two places at once. When light is bounced off a mirror, the initial photon of light would pop into existence at the source AND be reflected off the mirror at exactly the same moment. Sounds cool, but again, none of this makes sense.

And there's another problem. The equation for speed is speed = distance / time. Therefore, a speed of infinity would require time to be 0 (infinity = distance / 0). But division by zero leads to absurd and clearly false expressions like 0=1.

To illustrate this, let's say that on a one-way trip, light travels 100,000 miles in an instant. Therefore infinity = 100,000 miles / 0. Multiply both sides of the equation by 0, and you get 0 miles = 100,000 miles. You can do this with any distance and will always get 0 = whatever distance you use.

Of course, we can get around these problems by saying that the one-way speed of light in one direction is some real number so fantastically large that it might as well be infinity. However, the idea of the speed of light being different in different directions seems counterintuitive, like the results of the double-slit experiment but much weirder. That alone isn't a reason to dismiss it, but it raises a number of even more difficult questions such as how light "knows" what direction it's going or whether it's being measured on the return trip.

Anyway, change my mind :cool:
I have what I think is an easy way to determine the one way speed of light, I would be interested in you thoughts.

In space, using three satellites...rotate a laser on the center satellite, another satellite is say, 49.712 km away and another is 45.712 kilometers form the laser and at an angle of 5 degrees radius apart from each other, that will give you a 45 degree angle between the two satellites at that radius, with the mean radius at 47.712 KM

Spin, rotate or move the laser on its axis at the rate of 1,000 Rev/per/sec. At that mean distance the tip of the laser is moving the conventional believed speed of light. When the light hits both the other satellites at the same time, and using simple math, calculate the speed of light. If the light never hits them both at the same time either light is instant or you need to keep going higher rotational speeds and or at further distances.

Timing gets interesting... if timing is the right term. If you use a clock to measure the sequence of the two beams hitting the two satellites, which is not absolutely necessary, When the light hits them both at the same time, that would mean that the clock doesn't move, when the speed of light is achieved. If you use a clock to measure "0" time are you measuring time and or using the clock ?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
No, light, of course, has a speed - no expert disputes this.

This is called question begging and appeal to authority, both of which are fallacies.

We have measured the TWO-WAY speed of light, and "c" is how we've defined the result.

What we're trying to determine however, which has NOT been measured, EVER, is the ONE-WAY speed of light, from a source to the first object that the light encounters.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
[Emily Litella] What's all this I hear about the speed of light? Why is nobody ever talking about the speed of heavy!!! [\Emily Litella]



(with apologies to Gilda Radner, rest her soul)
 
Top