In your article ‘Path Across the Stars’ you wrote this:
The math for this one is actually valid (though convoluted), but Lisle admitted to me in 2014 that his explanation “implies the progressive creation of galaxies from the edge of the observable universe toward us over a period of many billions of years.” Not only does this mean he is actually proposing an old universe, but his specific model runs into catastrophic problems when dealing with gravitational potential.
The way this is written suggests that Lisle actually wrote the words in quotes, but as far as I can tell, he didn’t. Instead it seems to be an extract of your own comment on Lisle’s blog:
Here it is in full (my emphasis):
I know this is only tenuously relevant to ongoing research, but I hope it’s close enough to prove useful. I’ve been discussing your anisotropic synchrony model at length for some time now, and I had a question about your understanding of it.
As far as I’ve been able to tell, the model of 4th-day creation using the anisotropic synchrony convention, if mathematically transformed back into a more traditional isotropic synchrony convention a la Einstein, implies the progressive creation of galaxies from the edge of the observable universe toward us over a period of many billions of years in the isotropic convention, such that all light reached Earth near-simultaneously on the 4th day.
Is that an accurate understanding of the overall model you propose?
Now it’s certainly true that Lisle agreed with you, but he addresses this in his 2010 paper (see item 1 in the ‘Potential Objections’ section). Lisle is not proposing an “old-universe” but instead a mature creation (see ‘Mature Creation’, also in the paper). And it looks as though you already knew this, because on your thread ‘Starlight & Time – the old universe’ you wrote:
But something seemed off about that second question. For those interested, see here:
Like @gene you seem to be confusing rectangular and spherical coordinate systems. In his model Lisle employs the latter with light traveling at infinite speed towards the observer (wherever they are). This is not original to Lisle; it’s already established in the peer-reviewed literature.
You put this to Lisle on his blog and he responded:
“I would not expect any discontinuity at 6000 light years because gravity isn’t so much a force as a curvature of spacetime. And presumably God created the universe with the proper and fully functioning curvature at the start, which is today maintained via mass. Changes to distribution of mass do cause changes to the curvature in spacetime, and these changes do propagate at the speed of light.”
And then later, in response to another comment on the same article:
“[Dr. Lisle: That’s a possibility as well (that God created the mass on day 1). But we know the mass was not organized into luminous stars until day 4.]”
In Lisle’s model, time begins on day 1. Earth exists but is described as “formless” and “empty” (creation is not yet complete) so Lisle is saying it’s possible that the “heavens” were in the same state (with the universe in balance). Not that it really matters of course, because this is a model based on supernatural creation. If God is responsible for the physical laws then a wave of complete destruction could surely be avoided.
This is correct. Under ESC there may be distant galaxies we haven’t seen yet because there’s not been enough time for the light to reach us, whereas ASC predicts that what we see now is all we’ll ever see (within the limits of our technology). Such an observation would serve to falsify not only Lisle’s model but also the convention.