## Re: [coCBanned] Re: Creation Astronomy by Jason Lisle (instant incoming SOL)

Expand Messages
• DW here, - - - - previous - - - - ... David: I think about 3 seconds. ####### Pi: Why? It s traveling TOWARD that astronaut on the moon (ie: to him, it s an
Message 1 of 10 , Apr 1, 2011
• 0 Attachment
DW here,
- - - - previous - - - -
>>1) How long would it take a signal from a radio transmitter on Earth to reach a receiver on the moon? >>
David:
#######
Pi:
Why? It's traveling TOWARD that astronaut on the moon (ie: to him, it's an INCOMING signal). According to Lisle, an incoming signal is instant. Therefore, an astronaut on the moon should receive the INCOMING signal that is traveling TOWARD him instantly.>>
- - - - end previous - - - -

David:
The claim made by Lisle is that the SOL is different with respect to a light beam depending on whether it is incoming or outgoing...and that two different positions (at either end of the beam) will measure the speed differently.
####
Pi:
Right. And according to Lisle's claim, the astronaut on the moon sees an INCOMING beam which will reach him instantly. You haven't shown otherwise.

David:
That is "odd" to the common man's common sense, but it is not any different than other odd things which are part of "relativity." Apparently there were two "conventions" one could choose about SOL...either that it was variable based on velocity, or position. The "Einstein convention" said velocity, but even Einstein said that it was just a matter of choice or "stipulation."
#####
Pi:
We have shown Einstein's "convention" works. Lisle's does not.

- - - - previous - - -
>>Pi:
Soon as you explain why the signal requires three seconds in (1) above. Under Lisle's model, this is an INCOMING signal that is coming TOWARD the lunar astronaut .... which Lisle says is instant.

I'll point it out again.... to the lunar astronaut, a signal from Ground Control is INCOMING because it is traveling TOWARD him and, according to Lisle, it will reach that astronaut instantly. Then, to Ground Control, the signal from the astronaut is an INCOMING signal that is traveling TOWARD Ground Control and it too should reach Ground Control instantly.>>
- - - - end previous - - - -

David:
You simply are denying that SOL could be relative to one's position.
######
Pi:
No I'm not. I've said all along that in Lisle's model, the astronaut on the moon should see the INCOMING signal coming TOWARD him instantly while Ground Control would think the OUTGOING signal traveling AWAY from them will appear to take 3 seconds to reach the moon. I've also repeatedly pointed out this paradox in Lisle's model.

David:
The scientists who have studied this issue seem to say that the evidence fits either view...and it is just a stipulation as to which "convention" you will choose.
#####
Pi:
One can "stipulate" whatever one likes. That doesn't make it right. Even Lisle points that out.

David:
It seems that you just are refusing to admit to the conundrum...which even Einstein agreed was real.
#######
Pi:
How many times have I pointed out the paradox created by Lisle's model? If that doesn't "admit to the conundrum," what does?

David:
You should stop insisting your "astronaut signals" idea is valid to refute Lisle's claim...because it isn't...and stick to the GPS idea.
#####
Pi:
Again, for the astronaut on the moon, how long will it take an INCOMING signal coming TOWARD him from Ground Control to reach him.... according to Lisle? Can you reconcile your earlier claim of 3 seconds with Lisle's model? Which of us is "refusing to admit to the conundrum?"

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• OK.... got a little time, so maybe I can finish this one and get it out. DW here, ... Lisle s whole point is that all of our measurements of light rely on a
Message 2 of 10 , Apr 11, 2011
• 0 Attachment
OK.... got a little time, so maybe I can finish this one and get it out.

DW here,

>>>Pi (previous):
Lisle's whole point is that all of our measurements of light rely on a "mirror" method. Because of that we can't tell the difference between the standard approach and his.

He then goes on to discuss why his method can't be tested using a pulse transmitted from one station to another. Lisle spends a lot of time discussing why he can't synchronize clocks to test his method. For example moving clocks changes their time. Forget that you can move a station 30 km at 30 km/hr and the time shift is less than 1e-13 second or so. Light would need 1e-5 seconds to travel that distance. The impact of moving the clock would be something like a hundredth of a millionth of the time period we're looking at. In other words, his excuses for not testing his model are trivial..... and Lisle should know it.>>
- - - - end previous - - -

David:
Apparently Einstein didn't know it...and didn't see it as a trivial point. Nor did others (Sarker and
Stachel 1999; W.C. Salmon; J. A. Winnie...cited in L's article) who also considered this question. And apparently you neglected to read (or comprehend) the reasoning Lisle gave for why slowly transporting clocks won't solve the problem. Your "slow clock transport" idea was tossed aside by others more qualified than you to evaluate it.
########
Pi:
I both read it and understood it. They are speaking of an exact synchronization. I'm pointing out we can get "close enough" to find out if Lisle or the standard model more accurately represents reality. Notice, I said the time variation by moving the clocks is a hundredth of a millionth of the interval we expect to see if the standard model is correct. You may think that's a big deal, but it's really insignificant for purposes of comparing Lisle's claims to the standard model.

David quotes:

Slow Clock Transport
- - - snip - - -
If we repeated this experiment but moved clock B much
more slowly, we would find that it would be much
closer to synchronization with clock A, though still
not exactly.
#####
Key words: "not EXACTLY." We don't need exact snychronization. Just close enough that we can tell if Lisle's explanation that light travels instantly toward an observer is more accuate than the standard model. I think synchronization within 99.9999% is close enough for a practical test. Apparently you (and Lisle) do not.

David quotes:
- - - snip - - -
The amount
by which clock B becomes desynchronized as it gains
distance from A can be computed, **but only if the oneway
speed of light is known in advance.**

In all cases, the one-way speed of light **must first
be stipulated**
#######
Pi:
Fine. Lets stipulate the speed of light and evaluate the situation with Lisle's model and the standard model. There are three possibilities to consider: the standard model; infinite "c"; and "c" equal to half the accepted value. The equation is t= 1/sqrt(1- (v^2/c^2))

Setting c = infinity (as in Lisle's model) then we get 1/sqrt (1) which equals 1. There would be no time variation in a clock toward an observer. (It is worth note this is NOT what we observe.)

Setting c = 300,000,000 m/sec (the standard value), and v = 8.33 m/sec (30 km/hr) as I did above, we get t= 1 (to at least 20 decimal places). Since the best atomic clocks are only capable of keeping time to +/- 2 or 3 parts to 14 decimal places, the error is insignificant. (It's less than a millionth of the smallest time interval we can measure.)

Finally, setting c = 150,000,000 m/sec (half the standard value as in Lisle's model) and v= 8.33 m/sec we get t = 0.999999999999998. A variation of only 2 in the 15th decimal place. This is still about 10x smaller than our best atomic clocks can measure..

In other words, for all PRACTICAL purposes, the time distortion resulting from moving the clock is not meaningful and we CAN perform a valid test of Lisle's claims.... even if we move one of the clocks. This is especially true since the travel time of a pulse from one clock to another 30 km distant is 0.00001 sec. Since the worst case error induced by moving the clock is less than a millionth of a percent of the time intervel, it is insignificant.

As I said, Lisle's excuses for not testing his model are trivial.

David quotes:
- - - snip - - -
**Einstein himself noted that attempts to measure
the one-way speed of light are inherently circular.** In
discussing the simultaneity of two bolts of lightning
at A and B, as perceived by a person standing exactly
in between them at M, he says,
. . . if only I knew that the light by means of which the
observer at M perceives the lightning flashes travels
along the length A → M with the same velocity as along
the length B → M. But an examination would only be
of measuring time. It would thus appear as though we
were moving here in a logical circle. (Einstein 1961,
pp. 22–23).
######
Pi:
We have, "at our disposal the means of measuring time." that was not available in Einstein's time. Oh yeah.... a 1961 quote from Einstein? He died in 1955.

David quotes:
Einstein rightly concludes that the one-way speed
of light is not an empirical quantity of nature, but a
choice of man. He states,
That light requires the same time to traverse the
path A → M as for the path B → M is in reality neither
a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical
nature of light, but a **stipulation** which I can make
of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of
simultaneity (Einstein 1961, p. 23)
######
Pi:
That it is a "stipulation" only means it's true by definition. It doesn't mean the "stipulation" reflects reality. Why not give a reason (besides Biblical apologetics) we should AGAIN discard Occam's Razor in favor or the more complex explanation offered by Lisle?

David (quoting Lisle):
This conclusion is quite profound. Since we cannot
(even in principle) ever measure the one-way speed
of light, Einstein concludes that the one-way speed of
light is not actually a property of nature, but a choice
of man. Before Einstein, we might have assumed that
the one-way speed of light (and thus, the corresponding
synchrony convention) is a property of the universe—
one that we are not clever enough to measure. But
according to Einstein, the fact that we can never
test a synchrony convention shows us something
fundamental about the universe. Namely, it tells us
that synchrony conventions are not a property of the
universe, but are instead a system of measurement
**invented by man.** According to the conventionality
thesis, no experiment will ever be able to establish
one synchrony convention over another, because
synchronization systems are a human invention
by which we measure other things—much like the
metric system.
######
Pi:
In other words, Lisle is saying: "I have a 'convention' and it's right because I say it's right."

- - - previously - - -
Pi>>It took me only a few seconds to come up with a solution to the synchronization issue. Simply place a third station "C" halfway between stations "A" and "B." Send a pulse from C to A and B. Under either the generally accepted model and Lisle's proposal the pulse would reach both A and B at the same time and their clocks would be synchronized. It would then be a simple matter to send a pulse from either station to the other and test Lisle's proposal. >>
David:
I guess you are smarter than Lisle (a PhD in physics) and all the other scientists who have gnawed on this question...INCLUDING EINSTEIN. Is it that you are SMARTER (and have an answer) or DUMBER (because you cannot grasp that there indeed is a persistent conundrum)?

######
Pi:
I guess you are smarter than David Bowman, PhD physics too. After all, you didn't hesitate to claim he was wrong and, so far as I know, you have never taken a physics class in your life. On the other hand, I have studied physics and done the labs and have the transcripts to prove it.

Maybe it would be better if you were to show why my proposal wouldn't work. Since the pulse from the center station is travelling outward toward the other two statiions, it should reach each of them instantly and their clocks should be synchronized (in either model). (Something Lisle says can't be done.) We can then send a pulse at a predetermined time from either end station to the other. One of those pulses should arrive instantly.
#####

David:
Maybe if you had taken more than a few seconds you might have grasped what you failed to...and avoided the embarrassment brought on by your arrogant ignorance...or ignorant arrogance, if you prefer.
#####
Pi:
Coming from you, that's hilarious.

David:
Although the two "conventions" for measuring lightspeed are "stipulated" and therefore neither is right or wrong due to that stipulation, near the end of the article Lisle cites POSITIVE evidence in support of instant incoming lightspeed, because objects in the farthest parts of the universe show the same signs of age/youth as those nearby...including blue stars (which last only about 1 million years...with no good explanations for how they form continuously) and spiral galaxies. Why should very early spiral galaxies at the edge of the U look the same as nearby ones? Do you have an answer for that Pi?...or would that be another one of those "uninteresting" questions for you?
#######
Pi:
No. I have another question. Since we know about many of those "very early spiral galaxies" as the result of 3 or 4 photons from the entire galaxy reaching the Hubble in a time exposure of a million seconds, how could they tell what the population of blue stars in those galaxies was at the time the light left them?

Oh yeah.... it is my hypothesis that spiral galaxies are comparitively new and over time will be disrupted in collisions with other galaxies and become irregular or eliptical galaxies. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the stars in eliptical galaxies tend to be much older and the galaxies much redder than the spiral galaxies.

#####

Pi continues:
From Lisle:
If we select ASC, then we have declared that light is essentially infinitely fast when moving directly toward the observer, and ½c when moving directly away.

Since the signal from ground control is sent DIRECTLY TOWARD the astronaut on the moon, why will that signal not reach him instantly? Since the signal from the astronaut on the moon is sent DIRECTLY TOWARD ground control on Earth, and it is completely independent of the incoming signal, why will it not reach ground control instantly?

From Lisle:
If we were to repeat the experiment, this time synchronizing our clocks by ASC, then we would find that the speed of light is different in different directions—confirming (but not proving) our starting presupposition.

Why does my described method not synchronize the clocks by ASC? The signal from the center station is travelling DIRECTLY TOWARD each of the other stations and, according to Lisle, should reach them instantly. That should synchronize their clocks.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Since the signal from ground control is sent DIRECTLY TOWARD the astronaut on the moon, why will that signal not reach him instantly? Since the signal from
Message 3 of 10 , Apr 11, 2011
• 0 Attachment
"Since the signal from ground control is sent DIRECTLY TOWARD the astronaut on the moon, why will that signal not reach him instantly? Since the signal from the astronaut on the moon is sent DIRECTLY TOWARD ground control on Earth, and it is completely independent of the incoming signal, why will it not reach ground control instantly?"

Same thing with, say, the rovers on Mars (well, one rover now, since apparently the Spirit has died), where the discrepancy would be on the order of SEVERAL MINUTES. (The rovers have their own internal clocks, and maintain timestamped information, which is reported back to operators on earth.) NASA, of course, has never observed any such discrepancy.

Imagine a NASA operator reading a rover's log and going, "Oh, that's very strange, the rover is receiving our signal at the very same time that we sent it", or "Hmmm... This is very odd, we are receiving the rover's communication at the very same time that it sends the information."

Such an obvious observation of the speed of light being instant in a direction would have been noticed A LONG TIME AGO. Yet again, we have a young earth creationist proposing some lamebrained scheme (trying to prop up his belief in his religious doctrine) based on totally ignoring what we already know.

Typical.

- Todd Greene

--- In Maury_and_Baty, PIASAN@... wrote (post #22972):
> OK.... got a little time, so maybe I can finish this one and get it out.
>
> DW here,
>
> >>>Pi (previous):
> Lisle's whole point is that all of our measurements of light rely on a "mirror" method. Because of that we can't tell the difference between the standard approach and his.
>
> He then goes on to discuss why his method can't be tested using a pulse transmitted from one station to another. Lisle spends a lot of time discussing why he can't synchronize clocks to test his method. For example moving clocks changes their time. Forget that you can move a station 30 km at 30 km/hr and the time shift is less than 1e-13 second or so. Light would need 1e-5 seconds to travel that distance. The impact of moving the clock would be something like a hundredth of a millionth of the time period we're looking at. In other words, his excuses for not testing his model are trivial..... and Lisle should know it.>>
> - - - - end previous - - -
>
>
> David:
> Apparently Einstein didn't know it...and didn't see it as a trivial point. Nor did others (Sarker and
> Stachel 1999; W.C. Salmon; J. A. Winnie...cited in L's article) who also considered this question. And apparently you neglected to read (or comprehend) the reasoning Lisle gave for why slowly transporting clocks won't solve the problem. Your "slow clock transport" idea was tossed aside by others more qualified than you to evaluate it.
> ########
> Pi:
> I both read it and understood it. They are speaking of an exact synchronization. I'm pointing out we can get "close enough" to find out if Lisle or the standard model more accurately represents reality. Notice, I said the time variation by moving the clocks is a hundredth of a millionth of the interval we expect to see if the standard model is correct. You may think that's a big deal, but it's really insignificant for purposes of comparing Lisle's claims to the standard model.
>
>
>
> David quotes:
>
> Slow Clock Transport
> - - - snip - - -
> If we repeated this experiment but moved clock B much
> more slowly, we would find that it would be much
> closer to synchronization with clock A, though still
> not exactly.
> #####
> Key words: "not EXACTLY." We don't need exact snychronization. Just close enough that we can tell if Lisle's explanation that light travels instantly toward an observer is more accuate than the standard model. I think synchronization within 99.9999% is close enough for a practical test. Apparently you (and Lisle) do not.
>
>
>
>
> David quotes:
> - - - snip - - -
> The amount
> by which clock B becomes desynchronized as it gains
> distance from A can be computed, **but only if the oneway
> speed of light is known in advance.**
>
> In all cases, the one-way speed of light **must first
> be stipulated**
> #######
> Pi:
> Fine. Lets stipulate the speed of light and evaluate the situation with Lisle's model and the standard model. There are three possibilities to consider: the standard model; infinite "c"; and "c" equal to half the accepted value. The equation is t= 1/sqrt(1- (v^2/c^2))
>
> Setting c = infinity (as in Lisle's model) then we get 1/sqrt (1) which equals 1. There would be no time variation in a clock toward an observer. (It is worth note this is NOT what we observe.)
>
> Setting c = 300,000,000 m/sec (the standard value), and v = 8.33 m/sec (30 km/hr) as I did above, we get t= 1 (to at least 20 decimal places). Since the best atomic clocks are only capable of keeping time to +/- 2 or 3 parts to 14 decimal places, the error is insignificant. (It's less than a millionth of the smallest time interval we can measure.)
>
> Finally, setting c = 150,000,000 m/sec (half the standard value as in Lisle's model) and v= 8.33 m/sec we get t = 0.999999999999998. A variation of only 2 in the 15th decimal place. This is still about 10x smaller than our best atomic clocks can measure..
>
> In other words, for all PRACTICAL purposes, the time distortion resulting from moving the clock is not meaningful and we CAN perform a valid test of Lisle's claims.... even if we move one of the clocks. This is especially true since the travel time of a pulse from one clock to another 30 km distant is 0.00001 sec. Since the worst case error induced by moving the clock is less than a millionth of a percent of the time intervel, it is insignificant.
>
> As I said, Lisle's excuses for not testing his model are trivial.
>
>
>
>
> David quotes:
> - - - snip - - -
> **Einstein himself noted that attempts to measure
> the one-way speed of light are inherently circular.** In
> discussing the simultaneity of two bolts of lightning
> at A and B, as perceived by a person standing exactly
> in between them at M, he says,
> . . . if only I knew that the light by means of which the
> observer at M perceives the lightning flashes travels
> along the length A â' M with the same velocity as along
> the length B â' M. But an examination would only be
> of measuring time. It would thus appear as though we
> were moving here in a logical circle. (Einstein 1961,
> pp. 22â"23).
> ######
> Pi:
> We have, "at our disposal the means of measuring time." that was not available in Einstein's time. Oh yeah.... a 1961 quote from Einstein? He died in 1955.
>
>
>
>
> David quotes:
> Einstein rightly concludes that the one-way speed
> of light is not an empirical quantity of nature, but a
> choice of man. He states,
> That light requires the same time to traverse the
> path A â' M as for the path B â' M is in reality neither
> a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical
> nature of light, but a **stipulation** which I can make
> of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of
> simultaneity (Einstein 1961, p. 23)
> ######
> Pi:
> That it is a "stipulation" only means it's true by definition. It doesn't mean the "stipulation" reflects reality. Why not give a reason (besides Biblical apologetics) we should AGAIN discard Occam's Razor in favor or the more complex explanation offered by Lisle?
>
>
>
>
> David (quoting Lisle):
> This conclusion is quite profound. Since we cannot
> (even in principle) ever measure the one-way speed
> of light, Einstein concludes that the one-way speed of
> light is not actually a property of nature, but a choice
> of man. Before Einstein, we might have assumed that
> the one-way speed of light (and thus, the corresponding
> synchrony convention) is a property of the universeâ"
> one that we are not clever enough to measure. But
> according to Einstein, the fact that we can never
> test a synchrony convention shows us something
> fundamental about the universe. Namely, it tells us
> that synchrony conventions are not a property of the
> universe, but are instead a system of measurement
> **invented by man.** According to the conventionality
> thesis, no experiment will ever be able to establish
> one synchrony convention over another, because
> synchronization systems are a human invention
> by which we measure other thingsâ"much like the
> metric system.
> ######
> Pi:
> In other words, Lisle is saying: "I have a 'convention' and it's right because I say it's right."
>
>
>
> - - - previously - - -
> Pi>>It took me only a few seconds to come up with a solution to the synchronization issue. Simply place a third station "C" halfway between stations "A" and "B." Send a pulse from C to A and B. Under either the generally accepted model and Lisle's proposal the pulse would reach both A and B at the same time and their clocks would be synchronized. It would then be a simple matter to send a pulse from either station to the other and test Lisle's proposal. >>
> David:
> I guess you are smarter than Lisle (a PhD in physics) and all the other scientists who have gnawed on this question...INCLUDING EINSTEIN. Is it that you are SMARTER (and have an answer) or DUMBER (because you cannot grasp that there indeed is a persistent conundrum)?
>
> ######
> Pi:
> I guess you are smarter than David Bowman, PhD physics too. After all, you didn't hesitate to claim he was wrong and, so far as I know, you have never taken a physics class in your life. On the other hand, I have studied physics and done the labs and have the transcripts to prove it.
>
> Maybe it would be better if you were to show why my proposal wouldn't work. Since the pulse from the center station is travelling outward toward the other two statiions, it should reach each of them instantly and their clocks should be synchronized (in either model). (Something Lisle says can't be done.) We can then send a pulse at a predetermined time from either end station to the other. One of those pulses should arrive instantly.
> #####
>
>
>
> David:
> Maybe if you had taken more than a few seconds you might have grasped what you failed to...and avoided the embarrassment brought on by your arrogant ignorance...or ignorant arrogance, if you prefer.
> #####
> Pi:
> Coming from you, that's hilarious.
>
>
>
> David:
> Although the two "conventions" for measuring lightspeed are "stipulated" and therefore neither is right or wrong due to that stipulation, near the end of the article Lisle cites POSITIVE evidence in support of instant incoming lightspeed, because objects in the farthest parts of the universe show the same signs of age/youth as those nearby...including blue stars (which last only about 1 million years...with no good explanations for how they form continuously) and spiral galaxies. Why should very early spiral galaxies at the edge of the U look the same as nearby ones? Do you have an answer for that Pi?...or would that be another one of those "uninteresting" questions for you?
> #######
> Pi:
> No. I have another question. Since we know about many of those "very early spiral galaxies" as the result of 3 or 4 photons from the entire galaxy reaching the Hubble in a time exposure of a million seconds, how could they tell what the population of blue stars in those galaxies was at the time the light left them?
>
> Oh yeah.... it is my hypothesis that spiral galaxies are comparitively new and over time will be disrupted in collisions with other galaxies and become irregular or eliptical galaxies. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the stars in eliptical galaxies tend to be much older and the galaxies much redder than the spiral galaxies.
>
>
> #####
>
>
>
> Pi continues:
> From Lisle:
> If we select ASC, then we have declared that light is essentially infinitely fast when moving directly toward the observer, and Â½c when moving directly away.
>
> Since the signal from ground control is sent DIRECTLY TOWARD the astronaut on the moon, why will that signal not reach him instantly? Since the signal from the astronaut on the moon is sent DIRECTLY TOWARD ground control on Earth, and it is completely independent of the incoming signal, why will it not reach ground control instantly?
>
>
>
> From Lisle:
> If we were to repeat the experiment, this time synchronizing our clocks by ASC, then we would find that the speed of light is different in different directionsâ"confirming (but not proving) our starting presupposition.
>
> Why does my described method not synchronize the clocks by ASC? The signal from the center station is travelling DIRECTLY TOWARD each of the other stations and, according to Lisle, should reach them instantly. That should synchronize their clocks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
• ... That kinda sounds like it s analogous to that idea you often put forth regarding how long the road is, and it sounds kinda like what Pi was talking about.
Message 4 of 10 , Apr 11, 2011
• 0 Attachment
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:

> Such an obvious observation of the
> speed of light being instant in a
> direction would have been noticed
> A LONG TIME AGO.
>
> Yet again, we have a young earth
> creationist proposing some lamebrained
> scheme (trying to prop up his belief
> in his religious doctrine) based on
> totally ignoring what we already know.

That kinda sounds like it's analogous to that idea you often put forth regarding how long the road is, and it sounds kinda like what Pi was talking about.

That is, it is not necessary to measure with ungetoverable accuracy the one-way speed of light in order to figure out that it is NOT instantaneous and, given the stipulated distances to the stars and their origin as to the light we observe coming from those specks in the night sky, such light has been traveling for more than a few thousand years.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
• David: Then you just gave away the store and agreed that Lisle could be right. You might say that Lisle COULD be wrong, but you cannot say he IS wrong, based
Message 5 of 10 , Apr 15, 2011
• 0 Attachment
David:
Then you just gave away the store and agreed that Lisle could be right. You might say that Lisle COULD be wrong, but you cannot say he IS wrong, based on any observational data. For all you know he is right.
######
Pi:
No. I CAN say Lisle IS wrong based on the fact that GPS works. Go ahead and explain how GPS works using Lisle's model in which the signal coming FROM the GPS satellite TO the ground is instant. Keep in mind GPS relies on a time delay in that signal to make its position calculation.

David:
Tell me...how can you know that the reason a slow-moved clock (being synchronized) has very little change in time FOR ITS ROUND TRIP is NOT due to it having 100% of that change (however little it may be) happening on the way OUT and 0% of the change happening on the way BACK? YOU CAN'T. Moving the clock slowly and having a tiny amount of change solves NOTHING for you.
#####
Pi:
It does when the change is a millionth of a percent of the predicted transit time. Keep in mind, I don't need to know the EXACT one way travel time if I can show it isn't zero.

Borrowing from an expression you seem to like lately..... I guess you're just too dense to understand that.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.