The failure of Jason Lisle's ASC paradigm

[MichaelL]

@David_MacMillan

Thus if Lisle’s model for creation (not his convention, but his model) is correct, we should expect to see a spherical wave of complete destruction obliterating everything, receding away from us at a distance of roughly 3,011 light-years. We do not see this. Therefore it is not true.

Great analysis. Did you ever raise this objection to Lisle? What was his response?

[David_MacMillan]

@MichaelL

@David_MacMillan

Thus if Lisle’s model for creation (not his convention, but his model) is correct, we should expect to see a spherical wave of complete destruction obliterating everything, receding away from us at a distance of roughly 3,011 light-years.

Great analysis. Did you ever raise this objection to Lisle? What was his response?

I did. He objected that gravity is “just curvature” and God would have created the universe with “the proper functioning curvature” to begin with, filling that curvature in with mass later. But this is a whopper. “Curvature” is gravitational potential, which takes the form of negative energy. If space is created with negative energy already in place, then it is not “empty” and thus time has already begun. So his model can no longer be said (even in an anisotropic convention) to teach a 6,000 year old universe; the age becomes 43 billion years as calculated in the ASC, obviating the entire basis for using an anisotropic synchrony convention in the first place.

[gene]

I finally had some spare time to respond to another one of ABC’s points.

@ABC

Let’s try to quantify this by revisiting the supernova example. We’ll have a mirror on earth and t2 gives the time that light from the explosion reaches it (we “see the light”, so to speak). For simplicity we’ll set t1 (when the explosion occurs) = 0 and t3 (the time that the reflected light returns to the source) = 2 * 168000 = 336,000 years. As you noted, t3-t1 is the roundtrip time and will be the same in all conventions. Of course, t2 varies depending on which convention is used:

When ε = 0, t2 = 0 + (0 * 336000) = 0 years (ASC)
When ε = 0.5, t2 = 0 + (0.5 * 336000) = 168000 years (ESC)
When ε = 1, t2 = 0 + (1 * 336000) = 336000 years

What you are describing in not a coordinate transform, it is a change of reference frames. Dr. Lisle has carefully chosen the reference frame where the earth is at the origin. Then he uses the conventionality thesis to generate an “apparent” anisotropy in the speed of light. You have moved the origin to the supernova and changed ε’ to 0. Now you are using forward null cone coordinates in a new reference frame with infinite speed of light away from the new origin. This is not valid, because you are no longer in the original reference frame described by Dr. Lisle.

I can’t post subscripts here, so I’ll switch to functional notation for clarity. Note that r is the vector representation of the point (x, y, z) and |r| is the length of r, so |r| = 0 at the origin.

This is the definition of Dr. Lisle’s reference frame and coordinates.

1. When ε = 1/2, t(r) = t(0) … (ESC)

2. When ε’ = 1, t’(r) = t(r) + |r| / c … (ASC)

Remember that at the origin, |r| = 0. Substituting this into equation 2 yields:

3. t’(0) = t(0)

Equations 1 and 3 allow us to make the following substitutions into equation 2, yielding:

t’(r) = t(0) + |r| / c = t’(0) + |r| / c

4. t’(r) = t’(0) + |r| /c … (ASC)

Notice that equation 4 is in terms of primed variables only. Equations 3 and 4 emphasize that when we change a distant clock’s setting, we must change both t(0) and t’(0) as well as t(r).

Dr. Lisles initial conditions, at the moment of creation, are shown for both equation 1 and 3, and for both equations 2 and 4:

t’(0) = t(0) = t(r) = 0 … (1 & 3)
t’(r) = t(r) + |r| / c = t’(0) + |r| / c … (2 & 4)

He does some hand waving that still makes no sense to spread the creation out over time. However, he must end up with a universe where t’(0) = t(0) = 6,000 years. This makes the current times:

t’(0) = t(0) = t(r) = 6,000 years
t’(r) = 6,000 + |r| / c years

The most we can subtract from the t’(r) time is only 6,000 years. Since t’(0) = t(0) = 0 at the moment of creation, if we subtract more than that, both the ASC and ESC clocks at the origin show negative values. Obviously, that means that the universe hasn’t been created yet in either coordinates, which makes no sense.

Gene

[David_MacMillan]

@gene

What you are describing in not a coordinate transform, it is a change of reference frames. Dr. Lisle has carefully chosen the reference frame where the earth is at the origin. Then he uses the conventionality thesis to generate an “apparent” anisotropy in the speed of light. You have moved the origin to the supernova and changed ε’ to 0. Now you are using forward null cone coordinates in a new reference frame with infinite speed of light away from the new origin. This is not valid, because you are no longer in the original reference frame described by Dr. Lisle.

{{snip}}

The most we can subtract from the t’( r ) time is only 6,000 years. Since t’(0) = t(0) = 0 at the moment of creation, if we subtract more than that, both the ASC and ESC clocks at the origin show negative values. Obviously, that means that the universe hasn’t been created yet in either coordinates, which makes no sense.

Perfect.

For those whose eyes gloss over at the math…basically this means that if you try to localize any other place in the universe, using ASC, you will find that Earth does not yet exist, and will not exist for thousands or millions or billions of years.

[gene]

@David_MacMillan

Perfect.

For those whose eyes gloss over at the math…basically this means that if you try to localize any other place in the universe, using ASC, you will find that Earth does not yet exist, and will not exist for thousands or millions or (up to) 43 billion years.

If anybody is interested, I can show with vector calculus what Dr. Lisle is probably trying to do. The reader needs to be comfortable with conservative vector fields, so I’m hesitant to potentially waste the bandwidth.

Gene

[David_MacMillan]

Don’t do it just on my account!

[gene]

Has anybody asked Dr. Lisle why he ignored General Relativity in his paper? He does mention it in passing while discussing gravitational time dilation, but it’s only a couple of sentences. Since Special Relativity is only used for non-accelerating, gravity free reference frames, it seems bizarre to use it to describe the genesis of the universe. The reason for his approach may well be that the scientific community generally agrees that GR is not conventional. I would love to read his response to this question.

[MichaelL]

@gene

Has anybody asked Dr. Lisle why he ignored General Relativity in his paper?

I wondered the same thing when I read that the CT only applied under Special Relativity, not General, but I don’t know enough about GR yet to raise an intelligent objection on that basis.

I’ve also realized that I think I’ve been holding on to an excessively literal definition of the term “conventional” in this context. I was taking it as strictly a coordinate transform, which is fine for doing math on it (I think), but I’ve done some more reading and if we take ASC as how the Universe really works (which Lisle does in his ASC Model), it would raise some significant issues (as some here have pointed out).

[David_MacMillan]

@MichaelL

I was taking it as strictly a coordinate transform, which is fine for doing math on it (I think), but I’ve done some more reading and if we take ASC as how the Universe really works (which Lisle does in his ASC Model), it would raise some significant issues (as some here have pointed out).

Lisle decidedly does not take ASC as “how the universe really works”. His seminal paper could not be any clearer:

“The anisotropic synchrony convention is just that—a convention. It is not a scientific model; it does not make testable predictions. It is a convention of measurement and cannot be falsified any more than the metric system can be falsified.”

Anyone getting hung up on his claims about the one-way speed of light is missing this point.

The only purpose of the ASC is to convince other creationists that his decidedly old-universe model is actually a young-universe model.

[MichaelL]

@David_MacMillan

@MichaelL

I was taking it as strictly a coordinate transform, which is fine for doing math on it (I think), but I’ve done some more reading and if we take ASC as how the Universe really works (which Lisle does in his ASC Model), it would raise some significant issues (as some here have pointed out).

Lisle decidedly does not take ASC as “how the universe really works”. His seminal paper could not be any clearer:

You’re right. I “misremembered” what he said in his paper.

[gene]

@David_MacMillan

I was taking it as strictly a coordinate transform, which is fine for doing math on it (I think), but I’ve done some more reading and if we take ASC as how the Universe really works (which Lisle does in his ASC Model), it would raise some significant issues (as some here have pointed out).

Lisle decidedly does not take ASC as “how the universe really works”. His seminal paper could not be any clearer:

“The anisotropic synchrony convention is just that—a convention. It is not a scientific model; it does not make testable predictions. It is a convention of measurement and cannot be falsified any more than the metric system can be falsified.”

Anyone getting hung up on his claims about the one-way speed of light is missing this point.

The only purpose of the ASC is to convince other creationists that his decidedly old-universe model is actually a young-universe model.

…
Actually, he is trying to say ASC is how the universe really works. I believe this is the crux of Dr. Lisle’s misunderstanding.
…
[quote=“Jason Lisle
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention — A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem”
Page 204]
Since the ASC model has the stars being made on the fourth day of the Creation Week, and since light travel-time is zero under the selected synchrony convention, and since we have supposed that gravitational time dilation is negligible, it follows that the universe appears
at all distances as it is now, having aged an equal amount everywhere.
[/quote]
…
The emphasis are mine. This claim itself is falsifiable, so it’s time to work up a post that’s not too mathematical, but illustrates his fallacy. Hopefully I can put it together in a couple of days.

Gene

[David_MacMillan]

@gene

“since light travel-time is zero under the selected synchrony convention”

This claim itself is falsifiable.

I believe he means inbound light-travel time, not light-travel-time in general.

I don’t believe that this is falsifiable given that it is a convention, not a claim about the nature of reality. You can select a convention to fit pretty much anything you want. It’s more tautological than anything else: “This is a convention where inbound light-travel time is zero, therefore inbound light-travel time is zero in this convention.”

[gene]

@David_MacMillan

I believe he means inbound light-travel time, not light-travel-time in general.

I don’t believe that this is falsifiable given that it is a convention, not a claim about the nature of reality. You can select a convention to fit pretty much anything you want. It’s more tautological than anything else: “This is a convention where inbound light-travel time is zero, therefore inbound light-travel time is zero in this convention.”

Actually, he can’t mean that. I’m still working on the math post, but here’s a thought experiment that should clarify things without it. The round trip travel time for a laser pulse from the earth to the moon and back varies from 2.42 to 2.71 seconds since it’s orbit isn’t circular. Assume that at the time of this thought experiment, the round trip travel time is 2.5 seconds. Let’s synchronize two clocks, one on the earth, C_E, and one on the moon, C_M, as follows:

1. C_E sends a message with t₁ = 0, t₃ = undefined.
2. C_M immediately returns a message with t₂ = t’₂ = undefined.
3. C_E immediately sends a message with t₁ = 0, t₃ = 2.5, the round trip time freezes it’s display.
4. C_M uses ε = 1/2 and ε’ = 1 and (t₃ - t₁) to set t₂ = 1.25 and t’₂ = 2.5 and immediately returns a message with t₂ = 1.25 and t’₂ = 2.5.
5. C_E starts updating it’s displays again.

Two undergraduate students who know what the phrase “isotropic speed of light” means, but haven’t heard of the conventionality thesis get to interpret the results. One only sees t₁ = 0, t₂ = 1.25 and t₃ = 2.5. The other sees only sees t₁ = 0, t’₂ = 2.5, and t₃ = 2.5. The first one in a bored tone mutters, “Isn’t that what we expected?” The other one exclaims, “OMG, the speed of light is infinite towards the earth.” What’s going on here… conventionality.

But something else is going on under the hood, so to speak. In isotropic coordinates, all the clocks read the same time, t_r = t₀. From my earlier post, t’_r = t_r + |r| / c = t’₀ + |r| / c. This is where I should do some math, and I will in another post, but the important thing to notice is that the difference between these two equations is the term |r| / c.

This term introduces a radial unit vector field pointing at the origin, earth. But this field is not a physical field, it’s an artifact of the coordinate transform. When we analyze the very different reactions of the two undergrads, we must take this into account. So here’s what actually happened.

[Edit}
Notice that while the light is travelling back to the earth, all the clocks keep running. When the light gets there, C_M = 2.5s and C’_M = 3.75s, so the physical travel time is 1.25s in both synchrony conventions.
[/Edit]

Since the field is an artifact, not physical, the isotropic coordinates prevail. We can only say that the physical light travel time is 1.25 seconds in both directions, under both synchrony conventions. The best we can claim physically for the choice of ε’ = 1 is that the travel time towards the earth appears to be zero. If Dr. Lisle wants to claim it is physically zero,

@gene

…and since light travel-time is zero under the selected synchrony convention
…

then he is replacing the coordinate artifact field with a real, physical field. This is completely outside the scope of the conventionality thesis.

Gene

[MichaelL]

@gene

Let’s synchronize two clocks, one on the earth, C_E, and one on the moon, C_M, as follows:

1. C_E sends a message with t₁ = 0, t₃ = undefined.
2. C_M immediately returns a message with t₂ = t’₂ = undefined.
3. C_E immediately sends a message with t₁ = 0, t₃ = 2.5, the round trip time.
4. C_M uses ε = 1/2 and ε’ = 1 and (t₃ - t₁) to set t₂ = 1.25 and t’₂ = 2.5 and immediately returns a message with t₂ = 1.25 and t’₂ = 2.5.

Makes sense.

@Gene

But something else is going on under the hood, so to speak. In isotropic coordinates, all the clocks read the same time, t_r = t₀. From my earlier post, t’_r = t_r + |r| / c = t’₀ + |r| / c. This is where I should do some math, and I will in another post, but the important thing to notice is that the difference between these two equations is the term |r| / c.

This term introduces a radial unit vector field pointing at the origin, earth. But this field is not a physical field, it’s an artifact of the coordinate transform. When we analyze the very different reactions of the two undergrads, we must take this into account. So here’s what actually happened.

I think you’re describing the fact that, under Lisle’s ASC, the one-way speed of light is defined as anywhere from 1/2C to practically infinite depending on it’s angle relative to the coordinate for the synchronized reference point. If that’s what you’re describing, I’m not sure how that relates to the thought experiment (which may be why I’m not following you in this next bit).

@Gene

[Edit}
Notice that while the light is travelling back to the earth, all the clocks keep running. When the light gets there, C_M = 2.5s and C’_M = 3.75s, so the physical travel time is 1.25s in both synchrony conventions.
[/Edit]

Since the field is an artifact, not physical, the isotropic coordinates prevail. We can only say that the physical light travel time is 1.25 seconds in both directions, under both synchrony conventions.

I’ll take your word on the vector math, but I’m pretty comfortable with thought experiments and you’ve lost me here. It sounds like you’ve added one leg’s worth of standard synchrony (1.25s) into both t₂ and t’₂. Remember, the Earthlings can only determine the timestamps for the Moonbeams by applying the appropriate synchrony convention. You’ve already provided the first three timestamps for each synchrony convention as follows:

1. t₁ = t’₁ = 0
2. t₂ = 1.25,1’₂ = 2.5 (first message reaches moon, calculated by applying synchrony conventions to the round trip time)
3. t₃ = t’₃ = 2.5 (first return to earth)

By definition of being sychronized, these timestamps are the same for both C_E and C_M.

We can proceed to calculate the two additional timestamps for the second round trip, where both parties are informed of the results:

4. t₄ = 3.75, t’₄ = 5 (second message with t₁ and t₃ reaches moon)
5. t₅ = t’₅ = 5 (calculations reach earth)

You could only have a C_M timestamp of 3.75 for ASC when the second message is (by definition, not reality) half way to the moon.

P.S. I’m starting to feel your pain for entering all that math into Markdown!

[David_MacMillan]

Having trouble with the maths. Can you chronologize what happens (in terms of signals being sent) from the earthbound clock’s perspective only, then repeat from the moonbound clock’s perspective only?

[gene]

I updated the synchronizing process by freezing the C_E displays after sending the defined t₁ and t₃ times message until it gets back the first valid C_M t₂ and t’₂ times readings.

So at the moment the the undergrads make their comments, the clocks read:
C_E reads, t₁ = 0s
C_M reads, t₂ = 2.5s
C_M reads ,t’₂ = 3.75s
C_E reads, t₃ = 2.5s and C_E starts “running” again.

Notice that t₂ = t₃ as a result of t_r = t₀. Obviously, t₂ and t’₂ on C_M changed on the return trip. Look at this snapshot until you clearly understand it, as long as the field I mentioned is an artifact and not physical, this is the starting point for tracing the next round trip.

At the start of it, C_E copies t₃ = 2.5s into t₁,and sends t₁ = 2.5s and t₃ = undefined even though the t₃ display shows 2.5s. This tells C_M not to synchronize, just return it’s readings. Hopefully I can format these messages so it makes sense.

C_E t₁ t₃ readings _______ C_E t₁ t₃ message _______ C_M t₂ t’₂ readings _______ C_M t₂ t’₂ message
2.50s, 2.50s ___________ 2.50s, undefined ________ 2.50s, 3.75s
3.75s, 3.75s _________________________________ 3.75, 5.00s ____________ 3.75s, 5.00s
5.00s, 5.00s ___________ 5.00s, undefined ________ 5.00s, 6.25s (round trip complete)

Each line of “simultaneity” is tied together by the fact that t₂ = t₁. Notice that t’₂ = t₂ + 1.25s, and the 1.25s comes from the |r| / c term where |r| is the distance between the earth and moon.

This is the key, 1.25s pass on all four displays on each leg of a round trip. When the undergrads see the results of this round trip, they see:

t₁ = 2.50s, t₂ = 3.75s, t₃ = 5.00s, (student 1)
t₁ = 2.50s, t’₂ = 5.00s, and t₃ = 5.00s, (student 2) confirming their previous determinations.

As I wrote earlier, the travel time from the moon to the earth is 1.25s, under both synchrony conventions. To make it zero, Dr. Lisle must replace the coordinate artifact field with a physical field.

[Edit]
Now suppose there is a physical field that makes the physical speed of light infinite towards the earth and c / 2 away from the earth. This means that all clocks tick off 2.50s while the light travels to the moon, and 0.00s on the return trip. So after the clocks are synchronised, they show the readings in the first line of the table, and the second trip looks different.

C_E t₁ t₃ readings _______ C_E t₁ t₃ message _______ C_M t₂ t’₂ readings _______ C_M t₂ t’₂ message
2.50s, 2.50s ___________ 2.50s, undefined ________ 1.25s, 2.50s
5.00s, 5.00s _________________________________ 3.75s, 5.00s ____________ 3.75s, 5.00s
5.00s, 5.00s ___________ 5.00s, undefined ________ 5.00s, 5.00s (round trip complete)

Now, each line of “simultaneity” is tied together by the fact that t’₂ = t₃. When the undergrads see the results of this round trip, they still see:

t₁ = 2.50s, t₂ = 3.75s, t₃ = 5.00s, (student 1)
t₁ = 2.50s, t’₂ = 5.00s, and t₃ = 5.00s, (student 2), again confirming their previous determinations.

The students reach the same conclusion as before. However, now the second student is correct. This is because the travel time from the earth to the moon is physically 2.50s and physically zero from the moon to the earth is because of the physical field. The conventionality thesis moves the coordinate artifact field to the isotropic equation, resulting in:

t₂ = t’₂ - |r|

At this point it is hopefully apparent that Dr. Lisle’s claim that the travel time is zero towards the earth requires a physical field.

[quote=“Jason Lisle
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention — A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem”
Page 204]
Since the ASC model has the stars being made on the fourth day of the Creation Week, and since light travel-time is zero under the selected synchrony convention , and since we have supposed that gravitational time dilation is negligible, it follows that the universe appears
at all distances as it is now, having aged an equal amount everywhere.
[/quote]
[/Edit]

Gene

[MichaelL]

@gene

I updated the synchronizing process by freezing the C_E displays after sending the defined t₁ and t₃ times message until it gets back the first valid C_M t₂ and t’₂ times readings.

So at the moment the the undergrads make their comments, the clocks read:
C_E reads, t₁ = 0s
C_M reads, t₂ = 2.5s
C_M reads ,t’₂ = 3.75s
C_E reads, t₃ = 2.5s and C_E starts “running” again.

I have to admit, I’m not following this at all. You kept the “clock running” for t₂ and t’₂? How do you keep clocks “running” for a fixed timestamp?

@gene

This is the key, 1.25s pass on all four displays on each leg of a round trip. When the undergrads see the results of this round trip, they see:

snip

As I wrote earlier, the travel time from the moon to the earth is 1.25s, under both synchrony conventions.

It’s very possible that I’ve completely misunderstood the Conventionality Thesis, but I’m fairly certain that, while each leg may be 1.25s in reality, Lisle is correct in defining the time as 2.5s towards the Moon and instantly on return.

@gene

To make it zero, Dr. Lisle must replace the coordinate artifact field with a physical field.

Nope, just move the time on C_M “forward” 1.25s from standard synchrony. If an observer on the Moon beams a timestamp back to Earth and an Earth observer seems the same timestamp for C_M (which they just received) as for C_E, they’re “synchronized” for ASC.

Or to put it super-simply, this is how I understand the conventionality of simultaneity:
Stick a giant clock on the moon that can be read from Earth.
Earthling Readings for Standard Synchrony:
C_E = C_M + 1.25s

Earthling Readings for Lisle’s ASC:
C_E = C_M

If I’m way off base, I really do want correct my understanding.

[David_MacMillan]

@MichaelL

Nope, just move the time on CM “forward” 1.25s from standard synchrony. If an observer on the Moon beams a timestamp back to Earth and an Earth observer seems the same timestamp for CM (which they just received) as for CE, they’re “synchronized” for ASC.

Or to put it super-simply, this is how I understand the conventionality of simultaneity:
Stick a giant clock on the moon that can be read from Earth.
Earthling Readings for Standard Synchrony:
CE = CM + 1.25s

Earthling Readings for Lisle’s ASC:
CE = CM

If I’m way off base, I really do want correct my understanding.

Right, that’s my understanding as well. Lisle avoids a physical field by defining simultaneity based on position rather than inertial reference frame. In his convention, traveling the 240,000 miles to the moon moves you 1.25 seconds off-synchrony in Earth-defined time; traveling back moves you back to synchrony with Earth-defined time. This runs in sharp contrast to an Einsteinian synchrony convention, in which simultaneity for both Earth and moon are defined by their common inertial reference frame, not by spatial coordinates.

[David_MacMillan]

@gene

I updated the synchronizing process by freezing the CE displays after sending the defined t1 and t3 times message until it gets back the first valid CM t2 and t’2 times readings.

Here’s a simpler conception.

Suppose you design two identical thermonuclear devices with a yield sufficient to produce a blast visible across 280,000 miles of space. Suppose you further attach an atomic clock to each device such that they will be timed to go off at the exact same moment. You place one of the bombs on a rocket and send it to the moon (let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the relativistic effects of accelerating the bomb and moving it through gravitational fields are negligible).

In an isotropic, Einsteinian synchrony convention, both bombs go off simultaneously with respect to the comoving inertial reference frame of the Earth-moon barycentric system. The light from the Earth bomb takes 1.25 seconds to reach a detector on the moon and thus the detector on the moon sees the flash from Earth 1.25 seconds after the moon explosion; the light from the moon bomb takes 1.25 seconds to reach a detector on Earth and thus the detector on Earth sees the flash from the moon 1.25 seconds after the Earth explosion. This all makes sense.

In Lisle’s anisotropic synchrony convention, things get hairy. By moving a bomb 280,000 miles away from Earth, you have actually moved it 1.25 seconds into the future. Therefore, the bombs do not go off simultaneously; the bomb on the moon now goes off 1.25 seconds after the bomb on Earth. That is the whole underlying concept behind the anisotropic synchrony; anisotropic synchrony literally means “not the same time everywhere”.

So in ASC, the bomb on Earth goes off first, and the flash begins moving toward the moon at c/2. 1.25 seconds later, when the flash is halfway from the Earth to the moon, the bomb on the moon goes off. Its light reaches Earth instantly, and so the detector on Earth detects the lunar flash 1.25 seconds after the bomb on Earth. 1.25 seconds later, the light from Earth finally reaches the moon, and so the detector on the moon detects the flash 2.5 seconds after it happened, which is 1.25 seconds after the bomb on the moon detonated, because the moon-bomb detonated 1.25 seconds after the earth-bomb.

You can make things even more messy by redefining this ASC around the moon, rather than around Earth. In a selenocentric ASC, the Earth is already 1.25 seconds into the future, and so the bomb which comes to them on the rocket has actually traveled 1.25 seconds into its own past by arriving at the moon. The rest of the calculations proceed as above.

Note that while in an isotropic synchrony convention, both bombs explode simultaneously (ignoring relativistic effects), the anistropic synchrony defines simultaneity based on location, which is where the term “anisotropic synchrony” comes from. In a geocentric ASC, the Earth-bomb explodes 1.25 seconds before the moon-bomb; in a selenocentric ASC, the Earth-bomb explodes after the moon-bomb.

It is this anisotropic synchrony that allows Lisle to work his Omphalic magic. He is claiming that Genesis 1:16’s “[God] made the stars also” is a statement made in a geocentric anisotropic synchrony convention, and thus we can say that God made GN-z11 (32 billion light-years away) at the same moment that God made Alpha Centauri, and light from both reached Earth instantly.

In an isotropic synchrony convention, Lisle’s interpretation of “[God] made the stars also” has GN-z11 being created 32 billion years before Alpha Centauri.

In an anisotropic synchrony convention focused on GN-z11 rather than Earth, however, Lisle’s model has Earth being created 64 billion years after GN-z11. And therein lies the nonsense. From GN-z11’s perspective, God has not yet created Earth and will not do so for another 64 billion (minus 6,000) years.

[David_MacMillan]

@David_MacMillan

It is this anisotropic synchrony that allows Lisle to work his Omphalic magic. He is claiming that Genesis 1:16’s “[God] made the stars also” is a statement made in a geocentric anisotropic synchrony convention, and thus we can say that God made GN-z11 (32 billion light-years away) at the same moment that God made Alpha Centauri, and light from both reached Earth instantly.

In an isotropic synchrony convention, Lisle’s interpretation of “[God] made the stars also” has GN-z11 being created 32 billion years before Alpha Centauri.

In an anisotropic synchrony convention focused on GN-z11 rather than Earth, however, Lisle’s model has Earth being created 64 billion years after GN-z11. And therein lies the nonsense. From GN-z11’s perspective, God has not yet created Earth and will not do so for another 64 billion (minus 6,000) years.

It just occurred to me that, playing by Lisle’s rules, this offers a nice little chance to throw a wrench into Lisle’s approach.

In his seminal paper, Lisle writes:

"Scripture itself seems to suggest that the creation of the stars was nearly simultaneous with their light reaching earth. Genesis 1:14–15 describes the creation of the celestial lights, and gives their purpose: to be for signs, seasons, days, and years, and to give light upon the earth (Genesis 1:15). Verse 15 also states, ‘and it was so’ indicating that the stars immediately functioned in their God-ordained role: to give light upon the earth. This strongly implies that the Bible is using the anisotropic synchrony convention—the only convention in which all events are effectively simultaneous with their light reaching the observer."

He later goes on to say:

"To be clear, the ASC convention does not make testable predictions and cannot be falsified. However, the ASC model goes beyond the mere convention and does make testable claims and is therefore falsifiable. The essential claim of the ASC model is that the Bible uses the ASC convention.

“The critic must still show that the Bible is not using ASC, but is using Einstein or some other synchrony convention in which light-travel-time is not instantaneous.”

This is a terrific punt, because it really moves the entire dialogue into an interpretive, subjective space in which Lisle can appeal to his own authority without restriction in the interpretation of the Bible. It is of course nonsense to try and argue that the Bible is or is not using a precise mathematical framework; the Bible speaks of nature phenomenologically rather than using any rigorous scientific framework. Besides, were I (or any other critic) to argue that a particular passage is NOT using the ASC, it would just be my interpretation of the passage vs Lisle’s interpretation, and he would of course handwave and substitute his own alternate interpretation.

But it can be done, just for the sake of amusement.

Remember that an anisotropic synchrony convention implies that events which would be considered to happen simultaneously in an isotropic convention actually happen at different points in time depending on where the anisotropy is centered. In the example I gave above, two bombs which explode simultaneously in an isotropic convention explode in a different order depending on whether you choose a geocentric or selenocentric anisotropic convention.

So let us turn to Scripture. In Romans 8, Paul writes:

“The earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.”

Now, an evolutionary creationist such as myself would interpret “groans and labors with birth pangs” in a relatively plain and ordinary sense, which is to say that the whole creation was brought forth out of chaos and disorder and that God has been making the universe reflect Himself more and more ever since, with the “hope” of making all creation “very good” as prophesied in Genesis 1.

But that is not what Lisle believes. Lisle believes that the whole creation was already 'very good" and thus would not be affected by any “bondage of corruption” until the fall. Distant galaxies, when they were created, were “perfect” in some undefined way and were certainly not corrupted by sin. When Adam sinned, of course (though wasn’t it Eve, technically, first?), all of creation was instantly “subjected to futility” and placed in “the bondage of corruption” to “groan and labor” until the consummation.

Why is this a problem? Well, look at it from the perspective of a distant galaxy. A distant galaxy, 32 billion light-years from Earth, cannot be in the “bondage of corruption” because the Fall has not yet happened. The Fall cannot happen until Earth is created, and Earth will not be created for another 64 billion years. Therefore a distant galaxy cannot “groan and labor” in any sense whatsoever because it is still “very good” as it was on the 6th day. Therefore Romans 8 is not using the anisotropic synchrony convention, and therefore the “ASC model” is falsified.