Welcome to Real Science Radio: Co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams talk about science to debunk evolution and to show the evidence for the creator God including from biology, genetics, geology, history, paleontology, archaeology, astronomy, philosophy, cosmology, math, and physics. (For example, mutations will give you bad legs long before you'd get good wings.) We get to debate Darwinists and atheists like Lawrence Krauss, AronRa, and Eugenie Scott. We easily take potshots from popular evolutionists like PZ Myers, Phil Plait, and Jerry Coyne. The RSR Archive contains our popular List Shows! And we interview the outstanding scientists who dare to challenge today's accepted creed that nothing created everything.
* Did the whole world once use a 360-day calendar? If so, why? From our archives, RSR hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams look at the Mayans, Egyptians, Aztecs, Indians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and the Hebrew Bible to answer the first question: Yes, ancient civilizations used a 360-day calendar. To answer the question why, one must keep in mind the sophistication of ancient astronomers. Nasa reports that in 650 B.C., "Mayan astronomers [made] detailed observations of Venus, leading to a highly accurate calendar." And the Encyclopedia of Time says of the Aztecs that, "they carried on and further developed calendrical traditions that had their roots some 2,000 years before their own time." Real Science Radio investigates the reason why the ancient world used a 360-day calendar and discusses a mechanism for speeding up the rotation of the Earth that in historical times could add 5.24 days to the year. See more at 360dayyear.com.
* RSR on YouTube: You're invited to check out RSR's 360-day year program turned into this important YouTube video:
For Real Science Radio's List of Scholars Doubting Darwin and the Big Bang
please see rsr.org/doubters and click to hear Bob discuss this on the radio.
In an online discussion over at Prometheus Unbound, Santi, an agnostic who's had millions of visits to his blog, asked Bob Enyart about his doubts. You can read that discussion over at santitafarella.wordpress.com. This List of Doubts Christians Have (below) and first, the List of Doubts I Never Have is based on Bob's answer.
Santi: Bob, I’d like to ask you a personal question. When you doubt, what is it exactly that you doubt?"
Bob: Well Santi, I doubt that the rising mountain of evidence utterly refuting Darwinism will bring a majority of evolutionists to acknowledge our Creator God. I doubt that the failed predictions of the Big Bang Theory will lead atheists to…
But wait. I’m sure those are not the kinds of doubts you’re asking me about. You’re asking me to indicate, of the beliefs that I hold, which ones do I sometimes doubt. To help myself think this through Santi, I’ll first list the things I never ever doubt.
- I never doubt that I exist.
- I never doubt that truth exists, because for example, it is true that I exist.
- I never doubt that reason exists, because I can reason to the truth of the previous sentence.
- I never doubt that there is a reality, because truth and reason exist.
- I never doubt that the universe exists, because I exist as part of it, and I can reason to the truth of its existence.
- I never doubt that the universe must have had a beginning, because stars still burn available energy.
- Since truth and reason exist, I never doubt that logic exists.
- Since I exist and logic exists, I never doubt that existence itself must be rational.
- Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that whatever has a beginning must have a cause.
- Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that the effect cannot be greater than the cause.
- I never doubt that whatever caused the universe must be powerful and even greater than the universe itself.
- And since logic exists, I realize that nothing that has a beginning can have existed forever.
- And since the Cause of the universe must exist, I realize that it has no beginning, and has existed forever.
- And since this uncaused Cause created the universe, i.e., its ingredients, I don't doubt that it also created me.
- And since I'm a person and the effect can't be greater than the cause I don't doubt that the Creator is personal.
- And because we persons are creative like He is, I never doubt that we are made to some extent in His likeness.
- And because the Creator is a person, I never doubt that He must be alive.
- So I never doubt that the attributes of our eternal Creator are that He is living and personal.
- And I never doubt that human beings refer to the living and personal eternal Creator as "God".
- And I never doubt that to be a person, one must have a will, so that it is by God's will that I exist.
- And because we creatures have the ability to know our Creator, I never doubt that He is relational. - And because He made us with the ability to love, I never doubt that the Creator Himself can love.
- And because God can love, and He made us to know good and evil, I therefore never doubt that He is good.
- So I never doubt our all-powerful, eternal Creator God who is living, personal, relational, good, and loving.
- And I never doubt that all these things could be intuitively understood by everyone who's ever lived.
- And because God is good and loving and made us, I never doubt that He cares about us and wants to save us.
- And I never doubt that if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead as prophesied, that Christianity is false.
- Nor have I ever doubted that if Jesus did rise from the dead, then all other religions are false and as He claimed, He is the only way to eternal life.
Santi, these are some of the things I never doubt.
Now, what do I sometimes doubt? There are many particulars regarding the universe, the world, mankind, doctrines of Scripture, points of history, economics, science, etc., that I’m eager to learn more of and to be corrected where in error. The more significant errors I’ve made over the years are listed on our Errata page which we link to from our KGOV.com home page and from the footer section of every one of the 10,000 pages on our site. (This article is one of those pages, at kgov.com/on-doubt, so you can see the Errata link just below.) And when I make a lesser error in a radio program, etc., we correct that error on that show’s summary page.
Was this a sufficient answer, or would you like some particular detail?
* Secretly Recorded: Hear Bob Enyart talk to Jehovah's Witnesses in the home of a BEL listener through a secretly recorded audio record of what transpired. Bob takes two approaches. First, the Jehovah's Witnesses have officially issued false prophecies, including in 1921, that "Millions now living will never die." And secondly, Bob presents a surprising alternative method of demonstrating from the Scriptures the deity of Jesus Christ. (If you're interested, you can hear the continuation of Bob's conversation with these two Jehovah's Witnesses at kgov.com/JWs-2 and kgov.com/JWs-3 and check out his kgov.com/cults page that presents his secret recording talking to Mormons.)
* Jehovah's Witnesses Are False Prophets: In a classic example of a false prophet, in 1921 the leader of the Jehovah's Witnesses, "Judge Rutherford" published "The Harp of God" with the claim emblazoned on the cover, that "millions now living will never die"...
* Confirmations of RSR Predictions Roll In: We're broadcasting the news, RSR style. Bob Enyart airs the audio from last week's program when we made a prediction that Asteroid Florence may have one or two moons. Science headlines this week: Asteroid Florence has two moons! Ha! See more at rsr.org/predictions. There are about 1.5 million asteroids, and over 150 are known to have moons, or about 0.0001%. And they're believed, wrongly, to be not thousands but billions of years old. Further, the laws of physics make it enormously difficult for a body in space to capture as a moon another body (even if smaller by orders of magnitude). Thus even the most massive planets, with their relatively enormous gravitational pull, have captured only the tiniest percentage of asteroids as moons. Imagine then, with the relatively negligible gravity of asteroids, have phenomenally difficult it would be for one to capture a moon, even given billions of years. Then calculate the multiplied unlikelihood of one such asteroid capturing two moons! Yet (like in the Grand Canyon's Red Wall Limestone where one of eight nautiloid fossils are standing on end) known so far, about one of every 15 or so asteroids with moons have two moons! To understand why, you can either Google origin of asteroids and click on Walt Brown's chapter at creationscience.com, or just begin right here at rsr.org/asteroids.
Fred Williams: Bob, we've made a past prediction related to this, right?
Bob Enyart: Yes, because of Walt Brown's model that the debris from the fountains of the great deep. Much of it reached escape velocity, broke out of Earth’s gravity, and that debris became those errant bullets in the solar system - those dangerous things like meteoroids, asteroids, comets. And much of that debris, when it was out in space, it began to attract itself by its mutual gravity, forming asteroids and comets. And so Florence is really coming back home... But, almost four and one half million miles away, it’s about 20 times the distance of the moon. So, since NASA has been tracking these near asteroids, this is the largest asteroid at this near distance.
FW: It’s pretty big.
BE: Yeah. And it might have - because of our understanding of how asteroids and comets formed - it may have a moon in tow. Now we know that asteroids have moons. But we have been predicting that a higher percentage of asteroids will have moons than is generally assumed or has been identified so far. In fact, it might have a couple moons or even a debris field around it.
* UPDATE: Two weeks after today's program, from our all-scientists-work-for-Walt-Brown file, the journal Nature published the discovery of 288P, a binary asteroid/comet hybrid. Wow! "Rapid rotation" is one of the (unworkable) explanations claimed by secular astronomers for binary asteroids. Secular astronomers, though mostly ignorant of the Hydroplate Theory formation of comets and asteroids, nonetheless make frequent discoveries consistent with and in confirmation of HPT creation science predictions!
* Audio from Eclipse Call to KHOW Radio: We also aired again our phone call to Denver's Ross Kaminski about the eclipse, and then Bob reads his email to Ross urging a follow-up program on the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, solar system, and Earth!
For the first time in science history the iconic double-slit experiment's startling results are explained. We posit. Real Science Radio hosts Bob and Fred Williams in their second program on this apparent breakthrough begin by laying out their outline for this and the next broadcast.
- That beautiful equations could describe physics Einstein thought incomprehensible
- Comprehending how such equations can describe physics is a key to the 2-slit results
- Describe again and explain further the "Day-4 Double-Slit Explanation"
- Further elucidate the How and Why of the 2-slit experiment
- Propose experiments to test the day-4 double-slit explanation
- Address any early challenges
- Make D4DS predictions about photosynthesis and space cameras
RSR's observations in their rsr.org/physical and rsr.org/triality series also explain:
- how quantum tunneling can occur
- how the instantaneous decoherence of vastly separated entangled particles can occur
- how to resolve what Einstein said was incomprehensible, about how our equations can describe physics
- how a massive waveform can instantaneously collapse
- how two specks of dust a universe apart can attract one another.
With the How address by RSR's previous series, the Day-4 Double-Slit (D4DS) Explanation combines:
- the size of a single photon's wave form
- the distance of the closest and furthest visible stars, and
- the purpose of God's work on Day Four of creation.
* Astounding and Unexpectedly Beautiful Equations: E = mc2. Exploring unexpected and even startling symmetry and patterns from the microscopic to the galactic scale, mathematicians often describe their work as an aesthetic pursuit of beauty, as Lacayo quotes Einstein that relativity was his "most beautiful discovery."
- Symmetry: E = mc2
- Electrons: (i∂ - m)ψ = 0
- Entropy: S = k log W
- Propagation: I = P/(4π r2)
- Fields: ∇∙B = 0
- Uncertainty: ∇ P ∇x ≥ ħ/2
- Thermodynamics: dS ≥ 0
- Radiation: E = hf
- Waves: ψ(x, y, z, t) = a + ib a
- Force: F=ma
- And then there's even complex numbers, and the square root of negative one, which itself is a beautiful conundrum, which govern electric circuits and other areas of quantum mechanics!
Notice: Live on YouTube, see Bob and Fred speak tomorrow, Sat., Aug. 14, at 1:30 p.m. Central Time from San Antonio, Texas about creationism at, of all places, an ex-Jehovah's Witnesses event. Just go to YouTube and search for: Witnesses Now for Christ, Southwest Conference.
What forces obey the inverse square law? Light, gravity, electric fields, sound, radiation. Why say, "obey"?
Real Science Radio hosts Bob and Fred Williams make science history by explaining why scientists get the results they do from the startling two slit experiment. Consider the WHY and the HOW. With the double-slit experiment results seeming to be physically impossible, last year the guys aired two broadcast series that go to the question of HOW the double-slit results could possibly occur. The first series was our List of Things that are Not Physical, and the second series, on quantum mechanics, was The Wave-Particle Duality is a Triality. The observations made in these groundbreaking series remove the seeming impossibilities and contradictions and address HOW it is that the double-slit experimental results can occur! (They also address how quantum tunneling can occur, how the instantaneous decoherence of vastly separated entangled particles can occur, etc.) On today's program, the guys combine the following:
- the size of a single photon's wave form
- the distance of the closest and furthest visible stars, and
- the purpose of God's work on Day Four of creation.
Then with the HOW of the double-slit experiment already addressed, by adding these three factors, the guys can now explain the WHY!
* Prerequisites: RSR suggests the following prerequisites to best understand today's program.
* RSR's Light Speed Experiment Proposal: A 2019 article posted here at Real Science Radio (at rsr.org/stretch) proposed an experiment, Einstein, Lisle, and Hartnett notwithstanding, that just might enable the measurement of the one-way speed of light. Let's think through the following.
* Billions of Frames Per Second Cameras: The field of physics almost with one voice has maintained for over a century that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured and therefore that it cannot be shown to be equal to its roundtrip speed. Do high speed cameras require a reassessment of that long-standing claim?
* A Fast Camera Proposal for a One-Way Measurement: RSR's asks whether 10-trillion FPS cameras (and Caltech's planned faster versions) might be used in a round-trip configuration to challenge the conventionality thesis and measure the one-way speed of light. Here's the concept for neutralizing that pesky 2-way speed of light problem...
* Light Speed in a Vacuum: To state the problem more fully, it's the one-way speed of light in a vacuum that can't be measured. Scientists at Cambridge and Harvard have slowed light down to 38 mph by shooting a laser through extremely cold sodium atoms, so it's relatively easy to measure that one-way speed. But this RSR experiment, especially its second iteration, through water vapor, will measure a speed so very close to the speed through a vacuum that the difference cannot falsify the primary results, that is, that it is possible to measure light's one-way speed! After all, there is no known perfect vacuum, not at CERN and not even in space. So if anyone wants to quibble they might as well argue that physicists have never measured even the roundtrip speed of light. For interestingly, even interstellar space is estimated to contain anywhere from a million molecules per cubic centimeter down to a thousand atoms per cubic meter.
* Vacuum Rabbit Trail: The European Organization for Nuclear Research has bragging rights for their massive super-rarified ultra high vacuum that they compare to the vacuum in space as far away from Earth as the moon. One RSR caveat on that though. It just so happens that the Earth's atmosphere extends beyond the Moon. So that environment isn't as void of particles as many may expect. And that atmospher extension is another young-earth argument because it is one of scores of transient conditions and events in the solar system that could not long persist. And while we're on this rabbit trail, the more than 100 annual meteor showers caused by Earth flying through known streams of cosmic debris is evidence, directly observed by millions of people, that Earth orbits in a dusty region of space, whereas evidence only known to those who study the solar system tells us that as the asteroid belt is approached the estimated number of micrometeroites per cubic kilometer decreases significantly. So something, recently, dirtied up Earth's environment.)
* Light Speed in Milk and Stuff: RSR's proposed light speed experiment is performed first with the bottle filled with water and a splash of milk. The milk sufficiently increases the refractivity of the medium so that the laser's progress can be captured on video. The experiment is then repeated with the bottle empty except for some water vapor. The speed of light in a vacuum is:
- 50% faster than in glass
- 25% faster than in water, but only negligibly faster
- three hundredths of 1% than in air.
Of course the introduction of milk in the water, and even the water vapor alone, will reduce the speed of light through these mediums. But that reduction should be quantifiable and sufficiently minimal as to not prevent the one-way measurement of the speed of light (unless, as pointed out above, it is argued that the 2-way speed can never be measured).
* Photons Bouncing Off Photons: A laser pulse in a pure vacuum would only be detectable, it is believed, by a camera situated directly in the path of the beam. A camera aimed at the beam from off to its side would not detect the laser directly because there would be no matter to scatter the laser's photons such that some could be detected by that camera. If photons normally interacted with one another, a second beam of light could be emitted from a camera and bounce off the target beam to be videotaped, with the camera then recording the returning light signal. If that were possible, RSR argues that its light speed experiment configuration could still resolve the one-way speed question because the round trip of that second much shorter beam would be a negligible factor compared to the lengthier main axis of the laser beam's path. However, visible light photons rarely collide. There are known ways to cause them to collide and high energy photon-photon collisions do occur. Regardless of these particulars though, if this proposal gets to the attention of the scientists at CIT or CERN, perhaps they could arrange for this experiment to be conducted in an optimal configuration.
* No Sneakin' Around: The experiment above, first proposed on Sept. 3, 2019, avoids the kind of systematic error that evolutionists make when they "sneak" intelligence into their "natural selection" computer simulations. For example, we would discredit the results if we snuck the round-trip speed of light into the synchronization of the cameras themselves and used that very synchronization in the experiment. To avoid this, the experiment design does not rely on the cameras being synchronized. (And in any configuration, other than perhaps in a photon-to-photon collision mode, the results do not depend upon roundtrip optics to and from any individual camera.) Instead, we position the three cameras close enough to the laser beam so that any roundtrip optics in any configuration is insignificant compared to the lengthier transit of the laser through the bottle. That is, evaluate the results through a range of values for the speed of light to the camera as though it were half c up to infinite. If none of those values changes the overall result of the experiment, we did not sneak in c (as Röemer reportedly did in 1676 when he first measured lightspeed). As a beam transits the bottle, it will produce photographable scatter from the refraction off of the various materials filling the bottle. If the beam's transit to the bottom of the bottle is instantaneous, and it's return trip is at half of today's assumed speed of light, then the cameras' registering of the scatter will show a different number of frames between the outgoing and returning beam as they would if the outgoing and returning beams travel at the same speed on both legs of their round trip. The differences are quantified below. However, if the beam's transit to the bottom of the bottle is not instantaneous (and of course the cameras' frame rates are fast enough to capture this), it seems that the leading edge of the beam (or pulse) would come into view of each camera from the right boundary of its field of vision and, frame-by-frame, pass to left boundary (with perhaps ten frames showing its progress across a single camera's field of view). If this happens, a single camera could accomplish the goal of the experiment, as it alone could demonstrate that the light did not travel instantaneously on its outgoing journey. In this case, we could calculate light's one-way speed based on the width of the single camera's field of vision, the cameras frame rate, and the number of frames it takes to record the beam's journey across that field.
The three-camera configuration enables a different kind of measurement. The two additional cameras (above, numbered 2 and 3) along with a reflector at the bottom of the bottle might enable separate video recordings of both the outgoing and the return trips of the same beam. (If the single camera configuration provided any one-way speed measurement, this could also corroborate that result.) Regardless of whether the beam's one-way speeds are identical, camera #3 will be the first camera to record the beam's return trip. That last camera would then record fewer frames between the beam leaving its field of view and when it again reentered its field of view on its return trip. If sufficient frame rates enable this experiment to work, then the first camera, #1, will register the most frames separating it's initial recording and it's final recording of the laser's scatter. For example, consider if the camera operated at quadrillions of frames per second. Next, consider what could be learned if each camera captured on ten frames the refraction produced by the passing laser. Only to simplify this explanation of the experiment, assume that the cameras were positioned next to each other such that the beams entire journey would be captured on one or another camera. So when Camera 1 first registers the beam, we count 10 frames until the beam disappears. If the one-way speed of light is the same as its roundtrip speed, the camera will then have 40 empty frames until it begins to register the beam on it's return trip, and the data from that camera will end with its frames 51 to 60 showing the end of the laser's journey. In this circumstance, Camera #2 will not show 40 empty frames between its first and last registering of the scatter, but only 20 empty frames. Camera #3 will show no empty frames and the reflector, in this simplified explanation, would be positioned at the edge of that camera's field of view.
If the one-way speed of light is not the same as its roundtrip speed, and its speed on its initial leg is instantaneous, it is presumed that all three cameras would still register the scatter produced, although they would all be registering that refraction at the same time. (This would be an indirect way to synchronize the cameras, after the fact in the analysis of the data they record. A difference this would make as compared to the above discussion is that the light scatter registered by each camera's field of view would not show it moving from right to left, but that scatter would appear instantaneously horizontally across the camera's display and disappear instantaneously, and not from right to left.) Also in this case of an instantaneous outgoing one-way trip, the number of frames results from Camera #3 will be identical to what it would be if the one-way speed of light were the same as its roundtrip speed. Camera 3 will show ten frames of the outgoing leg immediately followed by ten frames of the return leg (although, there very well may be a difference in how the instantaneous leg registers the refraction as compared to the non-instantaneous leg, as just described). So Camera #3 in this experiment would not be able to distinguish, based on numbers of frames, between varying one-way and roundtrip speeds of light. Consider though Camera #2. Camera #2 would have only ten empty frames between its registering the beam on its outgoing and return trips. That is because Camera #2 would register the laser instantaneously with Camera #1, and would only have to "wait" the equivalent of the ten frames it takes for the light reflected to cross Camera #3's field of view. So the data from Camera #2 will end with its frames 21 to 30 showing the end of the laser's journey from its perspective. Consider then Camera #1. In this circumstance, Camera 1 will show 20 empty frames between its first and last registering of the scatter.
So compare the differences in the empty frames between registering the light's outgoing and return trips. If the outgoing trip is instantaneous, Camera #2 will have 10 empty frames and Camera #3 will have 20 empty frames. If the one-way speed of light is the same as its roundtrip speed, Camera #1 will have 40 empty frames and camera #2 will have 20 empty frames. The ratios in this configuration are the same. But by using differing configurations and by determing the actual number of frames it takes for the laser to traverse a single camera's field of view, the results could become definitive.
While a seemingly wild idea, quantum physicists can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. So, many would not be shocked if light behaved in the extraordinary way that Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. John Hartnett propose. Regardless though, RSR makes the following prediction (which is merely what most physicists would expect). If the beam leaves a record of its travels on each of the camers, then considering the time that would pass between the beam leaving and then reentering each camera's field of view. RSR predicts that we could calculate the increasing number of camera frames (time) that pass, as we move from the last, to the middle, to the first camera, between the leading edge of the beam leaving the field of the camera's view (as it heads toward the bottom of the bottle) and reappearing on its return trip. And of course, if the camera frame rates are not fast enough to distinguish between the outgoing and return trips of the beam, then just get a faster camera or a much taller bottle.
* On the One-Way Speed of Light Claim from Einstein and Creationist PhDs Jason Lisle & John Hartnett: The world of physics insists that the speed of light is known only from round-trip measurements. The context of this observation speaks generally of light in a theoretical vacuum or in space (which is a near vacuum). Hundreds of laser beam flashes aimed at the Moon demonstrate one example of this kind of measurement. These lasers strike the Apollo 15 retro-reflector base plate and then bounce back as researchers measure the time of the round trip, about 2.51 seconds. (These experiments, by the way, indicate that the moon is recessing from the Earth at more than one inch per year.) Long before these actual experiments, in Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity he presented a thought experiment in space. "Let a ray of light depart from A... let it be reflected at B... and reach A again..." A page earlier he had described not the measurement of light's one-way speed but about, "establishing by definition that the 'time' needed for the light to travel from A to B is equal to the 'time' it needs to travel from B to A." Establishing this by definition instead of by measurement is referred to as doing this by convention. Regarding this Einstein continued, "We assume that this definition of synchrony is free from contradiction..." And we "assume the quantity... c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." This Einstein synchronisation is sometimes abbreviated as ESC for the Einstein Synchrony Convention.
* Starlight & Time, the Conventionality Thesis, and Anisotropic Synchrony Convention: Agreeing with Einstein, the consensus view in physics is that no one has ever measured the one-way c but presents that speed as a convention, that is, an assumption, or, as Einstein wrote, even just a definition, also called the conventional unidrectional speed. By this widespread reckoning, it would not violate any actual measurement to propose that the one-way speed of light toward an observer (say, on Earth) can be infinite as long as the light reflected back travels at half c for the other leg of its roundtrip, producing an average speed of 186,000 miles per second. Creationist astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle, as supported by RSR friend and cosmologist Dr. John Hartnett, has used this to address the starlight and time challenge by claiming that light instantly arrives at Earth after being emitted from even the most distant galaxies. If so, of course that great distance would thereby be irrelevant to light's travel time to Earth and also to the age of the creation. Photons are both relativistic and elementary quantum particles. Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics both make so many counterintuitive observations that many who study these fields, we submit, would not be shocked if light behaved in this way. Drs. Lisle and Hartnett, with many others, argue that such anisotropy cannot be experimentally disproved, that is, that light cannot be shown to not have this different property when measured in different directions. Effectively agreeing with this, Grünbaum in his second enlarged edition of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time points out that "a choice... which renders the transit times (velocities) of light in opposite directions unequal cannot possibly conflict with... our descriptive conventions" (p. 366, emphasis in the original). With this Karlov agrees, regarding "the constancy of the speed of light... but other choices... are physically just as permissible" (Australian Journal of Physics, 1970 Vol. 23, p. 244, emphasis added). Various philosophers of physics though, and others, have proposed theoretical ways to test the one-way speed of light. Routinely then, the physics community responds by claiming these proposals include faulty assumptions that "sneak in" the roundtrip speed of light (in much the same way that computational evolution simulators "sneak" intelligence into their algorithms). For example, reasoning can be shown to be circular if an experiment assumes the constancy of the speed of light which is the very thing that it is designed to demonstrate. So this conventional unidirectional speed means that the 300,000 kilometers per second claimed universal speed limit has never actually been experimentally verified and is only an industry-wide assumption made to simplify the math (and to please our sensibilities). Some creation physicists have begun to argue therefore that, as believed by mankind's early scientists (from Aristotle to Descartes and beyond), and compatible with Einstein's theory of special relativity, and arguably, with all measurements made to date, the one-way speed of light from even the furthest galaxies to the Earth could be infinite.
If so, human beings would be seeing astronomical events unfold as they happen in a "real-time" universe and Adam would have seen the light from the stars made only two days before He was created, without any other supernatural or natural explanation needed. In 2010 Dr. Lisle proposed this Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) to answer the young-earth creationist's starlight and time question. This argument includes the claim, as boldly stated by Dr. Hartnett in 2019, that "there can be no experiment that can refute the conventionality thesis", such that no one can even theoretically devise a way to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light equals the roundtrip speed. What follows are four proposed methods to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light approximately equals the roundtrip speed, the first three having already been performed, which we use to address the Einstein's Synchrony Convention. And the fourth experiment, not yet performed but here proposed, which addresses Lisle's ASC.
* Did this 2019 Laboratory Video Measure the One-Way Speed of Light? Through water, light travels 25% slower than through a vacuum, at 225,000 kilometers per second rather than 300,000. At rsr.org/asc#camera (and just below) see a 2019 video made at CIT using a 100 billion frames per second (FPS) camera. At 4:33 (see the screenshots, just above) a laser beam is shot through a bottle of water with a bit of milk in it. The milk increases the amount of photon scatter produced by refraction to make the beam's progress easier to capture on video. (The milk of course would also further slow down the light.) Amazingly Caltech's two cameras, the fastest in the world, one with a maximum rate of 10 trillion frames per second, are able to capture light in progress in its one-way transit. The clip referenced was filmed using the slower of the two cameras and yet it captures the laser beam's one-way journey through the bottle!
Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss excerpts from the Veritasium/Derek Muller YouTube video, "Why no one has measured the speed of light". Einstein stipulated that the speed of light in one direction is the same as light's roundtrip speed, decreeing this by definition, rather than measuring it, because measuring the one-way speed of light has been technically impossible and many argue that it is even theoretically impossible. Einstein then observed (as discussed on Veritasium) that the one-way speed of light might be infinite in one direction and half its agreed-upon speed in the reverse direction, averaging to what we refer to as c, or about 300,000 kilometers per second.
When good and evil compromise, evil always wins. In this special edition of Real Science Radio, Bob Enyart thanks the founder of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, for rebuking Bethany Christian Services and Holt International for placing children into homosexual households.
With Real Science Radio co-host Fred Williams on assignment out of state, Bob Enyart interviews Brian Lauer, the creation activist making a difference (here at RSR and) on the campus of Saint Cloud State University in Minnesota. When Fred returns, the guys will do as promised, Lord-willing, and discuss their rsr.org/one-way-speed-of-light measurement proposal. And... why not, in a separate program regarding the iconic quantum mechanics two-slit experiment getting the results it does (wave/particle duality and the waveform collapsing upon observation/recording/measurement), the guys will present RSR's own understanding of WHY the two-slit experiment gets its startling results! And they'll also discuss HOW it is that the waveform can collapse upon observation and how it is that duality can occur. (Nothing big to see here. Just move along. Move along. :) So in the meantime our ally Brian Lauer debriefs the recent RSR talk on the scientific predictions of the fountains-of-the-great-deep flood model called the Hydroplate Theory. And while praising the big creation organizations, Brian also laments that they've wasted 40 years during which they could have been making stunning HPT predictions with the likelihood that really big predictions would be confirmed every five years or so, which would have provided greatly increased opportunity to reach the lost.