There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Anisotropic synchrony convention
How would this work if you are observing from the Moon or Mars?[edit]
Would you not be able to see the stars that the earth can see then? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Gravitational waves and ASC[edit]
if the anisotropic synchrony convention is true, then it either does or does not also apply to gravitational waves.
If it does, then the recent discovery of gravitational waves could not have happened, because the "creation event" (whether 6k years or 13.85 bn years ago) would have created such powerful gravitational waves as to swamp the detectors.
If it does not, then the recent discovery of gravitational waves detected an event 1.3 billion years old.
Therefore, either ASC is void - or confirms an old universe.
Thoughts? FimusTauri (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, first off, it should be established that gravity waves are not yet accepted fact. (Let's at least wait until one or two repeats of the experiment before assuming that they exist, rather than some other random error, hey?)
- This is a really interesting rebuttal, but it doesn't quite work. If the creation event happened 6k years ago, and gravity waves travel instantaneously, then all of the gravity waves would have immediately reached the Earth, much like the light waves. As such, we would have been swamped -- 6k years ago. Nowadays, we would only feel events that are happening right now -- so perhaps, according to the creationist, the event which we evilutionists say was 1.3 billion years old, actually happened just this year. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- An interesting, possibly related issue: that one experiment (whatever it was) that found that neutrinos "travelled" slightly faster than the speed of light, but only because the light had to push its way through the entirety of a star, while the neutrinos passed right through. If light always travels instantaneously, did the neutrinos travel faster than instantaneously? Or can light -- which is supposedly instantaneous -- be absorbed and emitted, which would slow it down? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- This does raise another possibility. Is there a "cosmic graviton background" (like the CMB or the hypothesised neutrino background? I suspect a detector sensitive enough would have to be built in space. FimusTauri (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there is predicted to be a Gravitational Wave Background that may be the target of future detectors. A Cosmic Graviton Background is unlikely to be observable at any time in the foreseeable future, given the impracticalities of merely directly detecting any gravitons at all, from any source.ChrisB (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- The superluminal neutrino paper from 2011 was the result of an electrical fault. The neutrinos that arrived prior to light due to traveling through a star were a result of SN1987A, though that is an interesting question. If Lisle had published prior to the 90s, then he could simply say that since neutrinos are massless particles, they travel at c and therefore they would also be covered by the convention (which deals with c itself; that light travels at that speed turns out to not be fundamental). Now that they're known to have nonzero mass, that poses a difficulty I hadn't considered before.ChrisB (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- This does raise another possibility. Is there a "cosmic graviton background" (like the CMB or the hypothesised neutrino background? I suspect a detector sensitive enough would have to be built in space. FimusTauri (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The Impact of Gravitational Waves[edit]
I cannot (yet) find a scientific article to back the following up, so am reluctant to add it as an edit. However, I offer the following in the hope that someone can follow it up and maybe add it to the page...
Is ASC Moot anyway?
As is made clear from the main article, the reason ASC fails to be (thoroughly) debunked is that the observation of light cannot be conclusively demonstrated to be a one-way phenomenon and the relativistic effects of the motion of the observer cannot be ignored. This is an issue because the observation of light is a one-way process. That is to say, the light is emitted at source and observed at target. The actions of the target have no effect on the physical processes of emission. However, the same is not true of gravity. The recent discovery of gravitational waves affirms the notion that gravity cannot travel faster than light. However, gravitational effects are very much a two-way process. The gravitational pull of the Andromeda Galaxy on the Milky Way, for example, is wholly dependent upon the mass of both bodies. For the transmission of gravity to be asynchronous, the gravitational effect felt by the Milky Way Galaxy would only the mass-component of Andromeda, because the effect of Milky Way on Andromeda is currently only part of the way back. We have numerous observations of bodies that are more than 6,000 light years apart who have a mutual gravitational effect. Not one of these suggests that only one half of the gravitational influence is currently in operation. FimusTauri (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Might be interesting to ask Dr Lisle that one ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- He was asked in 2014, and he replied "presumably God created the universe with the proper and fully functioning curvature at the start, which is today maintained via mass." In other words, God created the complete gravitational potential field of the universe roughly 87 billion years ago, holding it in place supernaturally, then filled it in slowly with mass so as to have all light appear at Earth simultaneously yet without any gravitational wave generation. Thus Andromeda is not falling toward the Milky Way itself, but is rather falling into the gravity well God created 87 billion years ago and thereafter dumped the Milky Way into. Total omphalos. 216.59.105.3 (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you guys really not get it, or are you setting up and tearing down straw men in order to try to trick less educated or intellectual people into believing in evolution? The ASC is not earth centered. Using the ASC, light travels instantaneously towards any observer anywhere and at c/2 away from the observer, in his, her, or its frame of reference. This can happen simultaneously for two observers looking towards each other, because relativity describes really weird things that happen at the edge cases, where the familiar model of Classical mechanics is not sufficiently accurate. The difference between ESC and ASC is in the placement of some of the weirdness. --JoeYec
GPS, Gravitational waves and Feynman[edit]
I'm having a hard time understanding what the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention is all about, especially when there are a number of arguments that can be made against it.
GPS. As you all know, GPS satellites emit radiowaves with timestamps. The receiver tries to find four satellites to calculate the position on the planet. This would be impossible if the one-way speed of light were not C.
Isn't that a counterexample to the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention?
Gravitational waves.
LIGO and Virgo make first detection of gravitational waves produced by colliding neutron stars. Discovery marks first cosmic event observed in both gravitational waves and light.
From the LIGO website: "Though the LIGO detectors first picked up the gravitational wave in the United States, Virgo, in Italy, played a key role in the story. Due to its orientation with respect to the source at the time of detection, Virgo recovered a small signal; combined with the signal sizes and timing in the LIGO detectors, this allowed scientists to precisely triangulate the position in the sky. After performing a thorough vetting to make sure the signals were not an artifact of instrumentation, scientists concluded that a gravitational wave came from a relatively small patch in the southern sky."
This would be impossible if the one-way speed of light were not C.
Isn't that a counterexample to the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention?
Feynman
This video is self-explanatory, I think. This would be impossible if the one-way speed of light were not C.
Isn't that a counterexample to the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention?
84.78.242.162 (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Hans
FYI: Jason (FimusTauri) sadly died last year from COVID19.
Entanglement at great distance / faster than speed of light behavior[edit]
I’m outside the field, but doesn’t ASC help explain how information from entangled particles separated by great distance travels faster than the speed of light? I thought the article was fairly written, thanks for that. — Unsigned, by: 100.7.43.109 / talk / contribs