The failure of Jason Lisle's ASC paradigm

Reference
Science

(r_speir) #21

You already falsified it when you claimed it was not multiverse. By itself, the ASC universe violates the conventionality thesis.

Your spacetime interval will measure only one-half of total light travel time (LTT). LTT in an ESC universe is 28 billion years – with light propagating isotropically 14 billion years towards earth from the most distant galaxy and 14 billion years away from earth behind the same galaxy. Total LTT in Lisle’s universe is 0 – with 0 time towards earth and 0 time away from earth behind the galaxy. When he converts to ESC, it is 14 billion years towards earth and 14 billion years away.

That is why Lisle’s ASC is really only postulating ‘half’ a universe – if such a physical oddity is even possible. The ‘full’ universe does not even materialize for Lisle until he converts to ESC.

And that is also why you are entirely wrong here:

How can I say it any more clearly:

Lisle’s ASC universe violates the conventionality thesis because it is too young to convert to any other synchrony convention. The ASC universe is not a self-contained, self-sustaining, self-propagating physical system. It requires infinite supplemental universes to bring it into physical conformity .

But here you insist on reasserting your error:

This is an astonishingly insolent, naive, obtuse statement given the fact that, you as you are speaking, you are all the while invoking new universes.

Though true, this is a sleight-of-hand statement made by ASC’ers. Once we agree in principle, they then leverage the statement in an illegitimate manner as here by a popular ASC blogger

He writes, “If there is one lesson relativity theory has taught us, it is that ‘all is relative’. Different inertial observers record different timings of the same events and would measure different ages due to relativistic time dilation effects.”

Notice how the blogger then attempts to time-dilate the entire universe using ASC:

“Depending on which synchrony convention you choose you will determine a different age not only of the universe but also for any object in it.”

And now this favorite of ASC’ers emerges:

This is no surprise since time-dilation is an SR frame of reference experience for a special observer or group of observers.

But never would rational minds have thought we would see the day – especially Einstein – when a naïve idea like ASC would come about and try to assert that if our tiny Earth-bound location was experiencing time dilation, the entire universe was likewise time dilated! Remember, ASC’ers believe the ASC universe is truly one moment old at inception/creation – EVERYWHERE.

That incredible line of reasoning leaves me bewildered, dismayed, astonished. If true, God did not just create a universe, but infinite supplemental universes to help bring his young ASC universe into physical conformity with his newly-established physical laws.

ASC’ers still don’t know it, but they are actually claiming that in the beginning God created a multiverse.


(r_speir) #22

I am submitting a simple graphic to reinforce my points about Lisle’s ASC paradigm. My hope is that this will clear up any residual confusion about my claims and help move us one step closer to the ultimate falsification of his ideas. It there are no further comments, I will consider this discussion closed.

image

A galaxy 14 billion light years from Earth is represented by the star. In Lisle’s ASC universe (left image) no light travel time (LTT) accumulates behind the galaxy away from earth’s line of sight. Neither is any LTT recorded in front of the galaxy because light speed towards earth is infinite.

In Lisle’s seminal paper [Newton 2001], he thinks he has converted his ASC universe to an ESC universe (middle image), but in reality he invokes a completely new and different universe, so his ‘conversion’ receives a blue arrow. Total LTT in the ESC universe is 28 billion years (by), with 14 billion years accumulating isotropically behind as well as in front of the galaxy.

There is no legitimate conversion from ESC back to Lisle’s ASC due to an imbalance of LTT’s, hence the red arrow. This prohibition to convert seamlessly from ASC to ESC and back again strongly infers a falsification of Lisle’s paradigm.

A proper ESC-to-ASC conversion and back again occurs in the middle and right images, where legitimate conversions are represented by the green arrows. LTT’s in both views are balanced at 28 billion years each. Light in a proper ASC view is reckoned to travel anisotropically – at ½ c behind the galaxy and infinitely fast in front of it.

The foregoing illustration should serve as definitive evidence that Jason Lisle’s ASC paradigm is a false construct. It has no real-world underpinning in physical science.

Newton, R. 2001. Distant starlight and Genesis: Conventions of time measurement. TJ 15, no. 1:80–85


(ABC) #23

The paper also says “some characteristics of galaxies do not seem to have changed much over time”, but at least they try to quantify their claim:

“Beyond z = 0.5 (5 Gyr in the past) spiral arms are less well-developed and more chaotic, and barred spiral galaxies may become rarer. By z = 1, around 30% of the galaxy population is sufficiently peculiar that classification on Hubble’s traditional tuning fork system is meaningless.”

The authors are careful to point out the limitations of the technology (this was 2001) and they note that “it may be the case that we really are only seeing the very tip of the baryonic mass iceberg”. Is the conclusion that appearance has “continuously changed with cosmic epoch” really justified? It seems they may have overstated their case.

What I believe about the VDF is not really the issue. You presented it as evidence but it showed “less evolution” than expected. And here’s a more recent work by the same authors:

“We show that the number of galaxies with high velocity dispersions appears to be surprisingly stable with time, regardless of their star formation history. Furthermore, the overall VDF for star-forming galaxies is constant with redshift, extending down to the lowest velocity dispersions probed by this study.”

Whether matter that is inferred but not detected constituents good evidence is one thing, but since you mentioned stellar mass functions (one of the observational constraints in this work) just how robust are they?

“A full discussion of the systematic uncertainties affecting stellar mass functions may be found in Behroozi et al. (2010). These include uncertainties from the Initial Mass Function, the stellar population synthesis model, the dust model, the star formation history model, sample variance, Eddington bias, redshift errors, and magnification bias.”

And they go on:

“The current levels of systematic errors in the inference of stellar masses and star formation rates are the dominant systematic uncertainty in this work. As discussed in §3, stellar mass functions at z>3 can disagree by up to 0.5 dex, well beyond any errors expected from sample variance. Star formation rates are equally concerning, both at high redshifts and at low redshifts, especially in terms of specific star formation rates. As a result, systematic errors are the single most important aspect preventing better understanding of the formation histories of massive galaxies.”

It may well be the case that these models are “progressively getting better”, but it seems there’s still a long way to go.

I don’t think we can conclude this from your linked papers, but let’s put them to the test with a simple observation:

According to Wikipedia, this was later revealed to be a grand-design spiral galaxy. That is, a spiral galaxy with “very clearly well-formed and distinct arms that significantly stretch out around the galaxy center”. And it’s at the very edge of what we can observe. Here’s what the lead researcher had to say:

“The fact that this galaxy exists is astounding. Current wisdom holds that such grand-design spiral galaxies simply didn’t exist at such an early time in the history of the Universe.”

If it can’t exist, yet clearly does this is obviously “not compatible” with the model you are defending. But it’s exactly what Lisle’s predicted in 2010.


(ABC) #24

The false construct here is in your graphic under the label “ASC_Lisle”. If this is really what Lisle claimed then he’d have much bigger problems than a violation of conventionality thesis!

As your diagram shows “ASC_proper” makes no claims about age based on the one-way light from the distant galaxy. So although it’s not necessary, Lisle can have a young universe without violating the convention. You can complain that it does not “fit” with the 14 billion year age under ESC, but nor does ESC “fit” within the 28 billion year age when ε = 0 (the inverse of your ASC_proper image). Yet all three are correct.


(r_speir) #25

Then let the “bigger problems” begin, because the left image below is exactly what Lisle is claiming.

Your post is extremely revealing because it indicates what I suspected all along:

People - even PhDs, including Lisle himself - who are subscribing to Lisle’s ASC paradigm do not know the true physics of what they are proposing, and how horribly that physics fails in the real world of science.

But yep, it’s true. When you buy into Lisle’s ASC, you just bought into the image on the left. No way around it. He has based his whole paradigm on the one-way speed of light, which by the way, Lisle himself admits “has no physical meaning.”

image


#26

You really need to stop just quoting single sentences out of context.

Of course some characteristics do not seem to change much, but other characteristics do, as they clearly stated in the next quote you posted

Less evolution is still much more evolution than the no evolution of Jason Lisle’s paradigm.

Please read the entire abstract, or even better, the entire paper. Here’s the entire abstract, emphasis mine.

We measure stellar masses and structural parameters for 5,500 quiescent and 20,000 star-forming galaxies at 0.3<z\leq1.5 in the Newfirm Medium Band Survey COSMOS and UKIDSS UDS fields. We combine these measurements to infer velocity dispersions and determine how the number density of galaxies at fixed inferred dispersion, or the Velocity Dispersion Function (VDF), evolves with time for each population. We show that the number of galaxies with high velocity dispersions appears to be surprisingly stable with time, regardless of their star formation history. Furthermore, the overall VDF for star-forming galaxies is constant with redshift, extending down to the lowest velocity dispersions probed by this study. The only galaxy population showing strong evolution are quiescent galaxies with low inferred dispersions, whose number density increases by a factor of ~4 since z=1.5. This build-up leads to an evolution in the quiescent fraction of galaxies such that the threshold dispersion above which quiescent galaxies dominate the counts moves to lower velocity dispersion with time. We show that our results are qualitatively consistent with a simple model in which star-forming galaxies quench and are added to the quiescent population. In order to compensate for the migration into the quiescent population, the velocity dispersions of star-forming galaxies must increase, with a rate that increases with dispersion.

Again, reading the entire paper - just look at some of their plots! It is clear that the authors’ result points at evolving VDF. Don’t just quote single sentences out of context!

None of these say that the conclusion that there is some evolution of galaxy properties is wrong, just that there are uncertainties in their numerical value.

Again, these are just cataloging the uncertainties of the measurements - typical stuff that scientists do. None of these falsifies the conclusion of their measurements. Indeed, this paper is exemplary in its treatment of uncertainties. Most of their conclusions are robust, i.e. detected beyond their level of uncertainty.

That paper is old. Numerical simulations now show that we can indeed form spiral galaxies with much less time through smaller galaxies orbiting and perturbing the shape of a larger galaxy.

Regardless, even if mainstream astronomy cannot produce BX442, there are many more other things (such as the evolution of galaxies in the paper I posted) that Lisle’s model cannot produce. Another example, how does Lisle’s model produce the Lyman-alpha forest?


(r_speir) #27

Your second paragraph is confusing and your conclusions are incorrect, but maybe I can help your understanding.

The ASC_proper image on the right is of an old universe. Both the middle image, ESC, and the right image are of the same 14 billion-year-old universe. If Lisle were to claim the right image, he would concede an old universe.

  1. ESC and ASC_proper are merely different conventional views of the same universe. That part is extremely important.
  2. Light from the galaxy reaches earth simultaneously in both the ESC and ASC_proper views.
  3. That happens 14 billion years after the creation of the galaxy – in both views, no exceptions.
  4. The ASC_proper view says that the moment galactic light reaches earth, it has already traveled for 28 billion years behind the galaxy directly away from earth’s line-of-sight.
  5. Though you see LTT = 0 in front of the galaxy in the ASC_proper view, the universe is not and cannot be construed as young.

If you don’t get anything else, please get this and don’t let ASC’ers talk it away from you:

TO CHANGE CONVENTIONAL VIEWS OF THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT CHANGE THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE

And with that statement you have departed sound physics. Even if ASC_Lisle on the left could physically exist, it would exist as an entirely different universe than the middle and right images.

Maybe this will help.

Conventional views of simultaneity exist to help us synchronize clocks in the single universe in which we reside. To leverage them in a manner that materially and physically changes the age of that universe is an illegitimate use of those conventional views.

They are views. They don’t make us masters of the universe.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #28

That’s a good point, thanks for summarizing @r_speir.


(r_speir) #29

Thanks for the comment pevaquark - and thanks also for directing me to this site where I could air my thoughts in a public manner. I hope some have benefited.

One last post to cement the age of the universe. Up to this point in cosmology, we have not needed to address more than the radius of the universe and light travel time across that distance to determine the age of the system because the one-way isotropic propagation of light was a given. But since Lisle’s ASC has arrived on the scene, we must now be careful to ascertain the age of the cosmos using an averaged light travel time (LTT). Please, one more time, refer to the picture shown as you read these statements.

Remember, a proper universe is constructed on the two-way speed of light, as opposed to Lisle’s false one-way construction. So total LTT in both the ESC and ASC_proper views must be averaged to calculate the proper age of the universe: 28 billion averaged equals 14 billion years.

Because light propagation in the ESC view is isotropic, either leg of its travel away from the galaxy will identify the age of the universe. Resulting age = 14 billion years.

However, the ASC_proper view requires a little more effort since it is a location-based convention.

If you ignore the travel of light away from the galaxy directly opposite earth’s line-sight, as Lisle’s ASC paradigm would have you do, you might be fooled into thinking that the universe is young based on an infinite speed of light in your direction.

But now you know the whole story, not just the half that ASC’ers want you to hear. Come back to properly applied physics and be sure to average in the 28 billion years of LTT away from the galaxy directly opposite you. Resulting age = 14 billion years.

image

All conventional views of our universe, when physics is properly applied, return a cosmos that is very old indeed. Again, all of this signals that Lisle’s ASC is a false paradigm.