The failure of Jason Lisle's ASC paradigm

[David_MacMillan]

@MichaelL

I do have a question about your “negative dates” complaint against Lisle’s ASC. I’m probably not doing the math right, but I picture Lisle’s “creation” timeline as something like this:

Most distant planetary object orbiting most distant star is created (we’ll call it “Planet A”) → ~43b years → Earth is created → ~43b years → Planet A observes the Sun if they have sufficient telescopes (I’d hope so after 86b years!). Let Earth timestamp t = 6000 years, the “synchronized” Planet A timestamp t’ would then = ~43b years. They exist and we exist, but they just have no idea we exist. Am I looking at it wrong?

For clarity, let’s start in an Einstein synchrony convention comoving with the CMB, because that’s the easy way of doing it, with no weird anomalous effects. In a CMB-comoving ESC of Lisle’s cosmogenic model, God begins by creating galaxies at 43bly, then works His divinely creative way in, at c, for 43 billion years until finally reaching the Milky Way, and then the Orion Arm, and then finally the Sol system. In this interpretation, Earth can indeed be said to be 6,000 years old, but only if the edge of the universe if -43 billion years old (plus 6,000 years). So you have a negative age, which is pretty damn weird.

Of course Lisle has specified (to me of all people) that the curvature of the universe was pre-created, so in this interpretation the gravipotential around Earth is 43byo but Earth and Sol are both only 6,000 years old. So it’s not negative age; it’s just that space is much older than any of the mass in space.

But now let’s switch to an anisotropic synchrony convention, like Lisle wants. Of course an anisotropic synchrony convention is coordinate-dependent, so instead of defining a reference frame (as with ESC) we need to define an origin. Let’s follow Lisle’s preference and define the origin at the core of Earth. This is the convenient place where all Lisle’s math works so conveniently. Earth, and the space around Earth, and the whole universe, is 6,000 years years old, and light moving toward Earth is infinitely fast. So nice!

But now, just as a gedanken, let’s pick an origin to construct the ASC that Lisle would rather we didn’t pick…like, for example, the black hole at the core of Andromeda. When you recenter the origin of the ASC at Andromeda, you have to now redefine photons moving toward Andromeda as infinitely fast. This means your hypothetical observer at the core of Andromeda sees everything, instantly, as it is created. Has Earth been created yet? If so, and if our friendly Andromedian can see it, and if the Earth is 6,000 years old, then Andromeda was created at -5.074 million years. This is nonsense. So Earth has not yet been created.

Repeat ad infinitum for any chosen origin. The worst of it is at the the edge of the universe, where the universe needed to begin at -86 by in order for Earth to exist.

@MichaelL

It occurs to me that in Lisle’s Universe, regardless of whether he thinks ASC or ESC is how the Universe actually works, it must be a flat 3D sphere with Earth at the geometric center. If there is even one star beyond the “observable” range 6000 years ago, it invalidates his entire model.

Yes. I am sure Lisle thinks the CMB is the actual edge of the universe. Lisle would say that if Adam had been able to launch Hubble on the 8th day, that Hubble would see the exact same collection of stars and galaxies we can see, just 6,000 years younger.

@MichaelL

For that matter, in what way were the millions (billions?) of stars that have been within the “observable Universe” for the last six thousand years, but were not actually observed until the last century “fulling their God-ordained purpose”?

A delightful question. Perhaps Lisle will opt to resurrect the ridiculous preflood canopy and claim it acted like a ginormous lens.

@r_speir

a measure of the one-way speed of light, or a very close indirect measure would also silence him.

I would hypothesize (though I do not know for sure) that physics does not allow measurements of the one-way speed of light. Rabbit trail.

@r_speir

if even one distant galaxy beyond our visible horizon blips into view, his paradigm declares that at the very instant it becomes visible, God thereat - at that very moment - created it. Since in the Bible view we are 6000 years removed from Creation Week, his paradigm would be immediately falsified.

Yep. Will the James Webb telescope have good enough resolution for that?

@gene

In Lisle’s ASC, light travels away from the earth towards distant objects at c / 2. So I don’t see how he can claim that light has traveled further than 3,000 light years from the earth. Any object further away than that has no clue the earth exists.

Yes, this is the major flaw with his model.

[MichaelL]

@David_MacMillan

For clarity, let’s start in an Einstein synchrony convention comoving with the CMB, because that’s the easy way of doing it, with no weird anomalous effects. In a CMB-comoving ESC of Lisle’s cosmogenic model, God begins by creating galaxies at 43bly, then works His divinely creative way in, at c, for 43 billion years until finally reaching the Milky Way, and then the Orion Arm, and then finally the Sol system. In this interpretation, Earth can indeed be said to be 6,000 years old, but only if the edge of the universe if -43 billion years old (plus 6,000 years). So you have a negative age, which is pretty damn weird.

Maybe I’m trying too hard to make some kind of sense of his model, but I would think we would say that the Earth is 6000 years old, but the edge of the Universe is 43 byo (no negative). It’s just that the edge of the Universe won’t see us for another 43 billion years.

@David_MacMillan

Of course Lisle has specified (to me of all people) that the curvature of the universe was pre-created, so in this interpretation the gravipotential around Earth is 43byo but Earth and Sol are both only 6,000 years old. So it’s not negative age; it’s just that space is much older than any of the mass in space.

But now let’s switch to an anisotropic synchrony convention, like Lisle wants. Of course an anisotropic synchrony convention is coordinate-dependent, so instead of defining a reference frame (as with ESC) we need to define an origin. Let’s follow Lisle’s preference and define the origin at the core of Earth.

I’ve also wondered how exactly defining a reference frame at the Earth’s core works when it needs to remain the reference for a long period. Do we constantly re-calibrate ASC as the Earth orbits the Sun? Defining the Sun as the reference frame would seem a lot more logical and would accomplish nearly the same thing (what’s 16 minutes +/- among friends?) Granted, the Sun is also in motion, but at least it’s motion is inertial, so it could be defined as the origin of an inertial frame in which it is at rest.

I also can’t quite shake the sneaking suspicion that Copernicus would want to punch Lisle in the nose for re-introducing the Earth as the center of the universe.

[ABC]

@David_MacMillan

Which, by conversion from ASC to ISC, is the equivalent of claiming the edge of the universe was created 45 billion years ago, that nearer portions of the universe were created more recently, and that light moves at c . He admitted this to me outright. It is old-universe young-earth creationism.

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:

jasonlisle.com - This website is for sale! - jasonlisle...

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:

@David_MacMillan

To quote the perenially-unconcerned Jason Lisle:

“How do you know that God didn’t create galaxies already in the process of collision? Adam was created as an adult. How could you possibly know that laws of physics are even the same in distant galaxies as they are on Earth?”

But something seemed off about that second question. For those interested, see here:

jasonlisle.com - This website is for sale! - jasonlisle...

@David_MacMillan

Remember that under Lisle’s model, light traveling toward Earth moves infinitely fast, while light traveling away from earth travels at C/2. Suppose, therefore, that you could teleport (maintaining simultaneity with Earth) to a distance just over 3,011 light-years from Earth, facing Earth. You would not be able to see Earth or anything behind it, but you would be able to see all the light coming from behind yourself (since such light is traveling toward Earth and is thus infinitely fast).

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.

@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.

You put this to Lisle on his blog and he responded:

jasonlisle.com - This website is for sale! - jasonlisle...

“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.

@r_speir

if even one distant galaxy beyond our visible horizon blips into view, his paradigm declares that at the very instant it becomes visible, God thereat - at that very moment - created it. Since in the Bible view we are 6000 years removed from Creation Week, his paradigm would be immediately falsified

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.

[gene]

@ABC

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.

Please, I used r, not <x,y,z>. Where did you come up with this claim?

If you really believe this, then you must admit that for each observer, the ESC and ASC clocks read the same at their location, that is their own origin. And the distant clocks at the other observer read ESC_r = ESC_O and ASC_r = ESC_r + |r| / c. Please note that this is done in spherical coordinates.

[Edit]
I just realized that you may be confused by the fact that I use |r|. But since the r of spherical coordinates equals the |r| of Cartesian coordinates, we can just rewrite those statements as ESC_r = ESC_O and ASC_r = ESC_r + r / c.
{/Edit]

Gene

[r_speir]

@ABC

Such an observation would serve to falsify not only Lisle’s model but also the convention.

I did not write this because I believe it could happen, as if secretly hoping to falsify Lisle’s ASC. I wrote it tongue-in- cheek because first, I do not believe in the conventionality thesis (i.e., I am confident that light moves isotropically just as Einstein proposed, and that that fact will be borne out experimentally within mere years), and second, it is my strong opinion (and I know I would have overwhelming support here) that conventions of simultaneity belong in the realm of philosophical science and not real-world science. They are for back-room fantasy and speculative ventures, not the laboratory of our Universe.

But you have never answered my challenge from months back have you! I asked you to convert Lisle’s young ASC Universe to ESC. Why don’t you go ahead and do that for us here on this forum? That would be entertaining.

[r_speir]

@r_speir

I asked you to convert Lisle’s young ASC Universe to ESC.

@ABC
You are wise to remain silent. By now it should be well-known that Lisle’s ASC Universe does not convert.

For that reason, neither does it exist.

[gene]

@r_speir

I asked you to convert Lisle’s young ASC Universe to ESC.

@ABC
You are wise to remain silent. By now it should be well-known that Lisle’s ASC Universe does not convert.

For that reason, neither does it exist.

Would you clarify this post, please? It reads like ABC is saying that Lisle’s ASC doesn’t convert. That would be an amazing confession.

Gene

[r_speir]

ABC did not reply. My @ABC is a summons. However, his silence speaks volumes.

The result is that he is checkmated: 1. if he attempts a conversion to ESC, it will be turned back, 2. if he remains silent, he gives his assent that Lisle’s paradigm is false.

It never should have come to this. Actually, the blame lies squarely with CMI. True, they were remiss for even publishing his seminal paper, but they never took action to retract it and apologize. In this failure, they became party to its propagation and current-day error.

[gene]

@r_speir

I do not believe in the conventionality thesis (i.e., I am confident that light moves isotropically just as Einstein proposed, and that that fact will be borne out experimentally within mere years), and second, it is my strong opinion (and I know I would have overwhelming support here) that conventions of simultaneity belong in the realm of philosophical science and not real-world science. They are for back-room fantasy and speculative ventures, not the laboratory of our Universe.

The conventionality thesis is interesting, but something of an illusion. This gif may help explain my moon post. Notice that the ASC clocks never stop ticking. Every time the message reaches a new clock on the return trip, that clock agrees with the message. However, that’s only because of our choice of coordinates, not a physical change in spacetime.

@MichaelL

And in that, at least, he’s right. By choosing a synchrony convention, we are defining which readings are simultaneous for observers in the same reference frame (and at the same location or relative motion, depending on the convention).

Hopefully you can see why I disagree with you here by studying my gif. The only thing in ASC that is simultaneous is the time stamp on the return message and the clocks as the message reaches them. As long as spacetime is isotropic, the ASC clocks are not showing simultaneous readings at the beginning and end of the return trip.

Gene

[MichaelL]

@gene

Hopefully you can see why I disagree with you here by studying my gif. The only thing in ASC that is simultaneous is the time stamp on the return message and the clocks as the message reaches them. As long as spacetime is isotropic, the ASC clocks are not showing simultaneous readings at the beginning and end of the return trip.

Gene

I believe I understand what you’re proposing; however, we seem disagree on what the conventionality of simultaneity is. Rather, you seem to be arguing against it - again, which is fine, there are many physicists who disagree that simultaneity is conventional. You seem propose that simultaneity within a single inertial frame is an absolute fact, which would mean that it is not conventional.

The article on the Conventionality of Simultaneity from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it as I understand it (emphasis mine - sorry for the long quote):

@Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The thesis that the choice of standard synchrony is a convention, rather than one necessitated by facts about the physical universe (within the framework of the special theory of relativity), has been argued particularly by Reichenbach (see, for example, Reichenbach 1958, 123–135) and Grünbaum (see, for example, Grünbaum 1973, 342–368). They argue that the only nonconventional basis for claiming that two distinct events are not simultaneous would be the possibility of a causal influence connecting the events…so from the point of view of Reichenbach and Grünbaum, any event at A whose time of occurrence is in the open interval between t₁ and t₂ could be defined to be simultaneous with E . In terms of the ε-notation introduced by Reichenbach, any event at A occurring at a time t₁ + ε( t₂ − t₁), where 0 < ε < 1, could be simultaneous with E . That is, the conventionality thesis asserts that any particular choice of ε within its stated range is a matter of convention, including the choice ε=1/2 (which corresponds to standard synchrony). If ε differs from 1/2, the one-way speeds of a light ray would differ (in an ε-dependent fashion) on the two segments of its round-trip journey between A and B . If, more generally, we consider light traveling on an arbitrary closed path in three-dimensional space, then (as shown by Minguzzi 2002, 155–156) the freedom of choice in the one-way speeds of light amounts to the choice of an arbitrary scalar field (although two scalar fields that differ only by an additive constant would give the same assignment of one-way speeds).

[gene]

@MichaelL

I believe I understand what you’re proposing; however, we seem disagree on what the conventionality of simultaneity is . Rather, you seem to be arguing against it - again, which is fine, there are many physicists who disagree that simultaneity is conventional. You seem propose that simultaneity within a single inertial frame is an absolute fact, which would mean that it is not conventional.

Is spacetime isotropic? This question involves many things outside the scope of the conventionality thesis. I’m studying cosmology, general relativity and quantum mechanics to answer that question. At the moment I’m leaning towards yes, spacetime is isotropic. If it is, then my gif does a good job of minimizing the importance of the conventionality thesis. I will post another gif showing what the round trip looks like if spacetime itself is anisotropic.

Gene

[MichaelL]

@gene

Is spacetime isotropic?

I’m inclined to believe that space time and the one-way speed of light are isotropic, but the one-way speed of light cannot be measured, even in principle, unless we can define a means of synchronizing clocks not dependent on light speed (and free of relativistic forces). If we ever determine that the one-way speed of light is isotropic, I’m guessing it will be by inference or deduction. It seems to me that we could eventually establish that the speed of light is at least “roughly” isotropic by virtue of the fact that the “speed” of gravity is the same as the speed of light and we can measure the effects of gravity on distant objects. Intuitively, I’d think that we could detect if gravity were anisotropic, or at least, extremely so.

@gene

This question involves many things outside the scope of the conventionality thesis. I’m studying cosmology, general relativity and quantum mechanics to answer that question. At the moment I’m leaning towards yes, spacetime is isotropic. If it is, then my gif does a good job of minimizing the importance of the conventionality thesis.

If we can prove it’s isotropic, that doesn’t minimize the CT, it disproves it. Which is something I’d be glad for. The idea that such things as fundamental as the speed of light and forces of gravity could be arbitrary seems extremely untidy to me - not that the laws of physics are concerned with my sensibilities about how things ought to work.

[gene]

@MichaelL

If we can prove it’s isotropic, that doesn’t minimize the CT, it disproves it. Which is something I’d be glad for. The idea that such things as fundamental as the speed of light and forces of gravity could be arbitrary seems extremely untidy to me - not that the laws of physics are concerned with my sensibilities about how things ought to work.

Here are two interesting links. The first one is an easy to read summary, the second one is the paper itself.

Summary
Paper

Gene

[gene]

This animation assumes spacetime contains the anisotropy required by Dr. Lisle’s paper. If he wants to use it and ignore the ESC case, he needs to prove that the anisotropy exists physically. The conventionality thesis only allows for the possibility of either one being true. To choose one over the other falsifies the conventionality thesis, and thereby his own paper!

Notice that the ASC times are the same everywhere.

Gene

[MichaelL]

@gene

Here are two interesting links. The first one is an easy to read summary, the second one is the paper itself.

Summary
Paper

Thanks, I’ll check them out!

[MichaelL]

@gene

Here are two interesting links. The first one is an easy to read summary, the second one is the paper itself.

I read the summary and I skimmed the paper. I think I’m going to have to do some more digging. They make sense, but it would seem that their findings would make simultaneity non-conventional. I’ve been doing a study of special relativity, but haven’t really gotten to general relativity yet, but those papers did remind me of something I read that the CT holds under special relativity, but not general and I’d made a mental note to dig into why and what that meant. I think I now see why. The question of what it means remains.

Is it a similar statement to “Newtonian Physics allows for absolute rest but Special Relativity does not”? In that case we mean that while Newtonian Physics does a good job of describing how things work within a single reference frame with relatively low gravitational forces (e.g. within the Solar System and not too close to the Sun), but Special Relativity is more accurate where Newtonian Physics breaks down. We may be able to use Newtonian Physics for many applications where relativistic forces are nominal, but I don’t think we can say that absolute rest or absolute motion are conventional.

Is the CT just a bunch of academic ado over the fact that we can’t measure the one-way speed of light with no practical content? Is it just to allow for tiny deviations in isotropy of the one-way speed of light, just as there are tiny deviations in the isotropy of the CMB?

[MichaelL]

@gene

After more consideration, it seems that the isotropy of space would require isotropy in the two-way speed of light, which is not in dispute. I’m not at all certain it would apply to the isotropy of the one-way speed of light. I’m am inclined to think it would invalidate the idea of a preferred frame for the one-way speed of light (e.g. Earth), but I’m not certain.

[gene]

@MichaelL

After more consideration, it seems that the isotropy of space would require isotropy in the two-way speed of light, which is not in dispute. I’m not at all certain it would apply to the isotropy of the one-way speed of light. I’m am inclined to think it would invalidate the idea of a preferred frame for the one-way speed of light (e.g. Earth), but I’m not certain.

When ε = 1/2, the one-way speed of light is isotropic, according to everything I’ve read. IE, when ε = 1/2, both legs of a round trip experiment take the same time.

Gene

[MichaelL]

@gene

When ε = 1/2, the one-way speed of light is isotropic, according to everything I’ve read. IE, when ε = 1/2, both legs of a round trip experiment take the same time.

I agree, that’s correct. But I don’t think the isotropy of space requires isotropy in the one-way speed of light. I think this is where I’m stuck, and I’m not certain I’m looking at it right:

1. If the cosmological principle applied to the isotropy of the one way speed of light, then it would be “settled science” (if there is such a thing), only waiting for somebody to come up with a sufficiently clever scheme to measure the one-way speed of light and put the issue to rest once and for all.
2. If it were “settled science”, the Conventionality Thesis would have been tossed in the dustbin of disproved physics ideas
3. It hasn’t been (that I can tell)
4. Therefore, it must not apply or, at minimum, there must be some reasonable disagreement over whether it applies.