I have decided to go public with this information because I belief creationists to be seekers of truth, even when it seems momentarily unpleasant. Cosmology models will come and go, but we should always take heart in the original and pure cosmology delivered personally from God in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Comments on topic are welcome.

Lisle’s ASC paradigm is multiverse

Jason Lisle presented his Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) and ASC model nine years ago. [Lisle 2010] In it, he rightly declares that under the conventionality thesis “both ASC and Einstein synchronization [ESC] are legitimate synchrony conventions”. Special relativity demands it. This means that the universe he constructs must accommodate both conventional views.

Except, it does not.

The problem becomes abundantly clear when Lisle moves the discussion from ASC synchrony to what he calls his ASC model. He writes,

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 …the universe appears at all distances as it is now, having aged an equal amount everywhere. Therefore, when we look at any region of the universe, we are seeing it at an age of roughly 6,000 years.

By this statement and the ensuing discussion, Lisle makes it clear that he actually believes light’s one-way speed to Earth from distant galaxies is infinite. Of course, that is his prerogative, but what he fails to recognize is that in so stipulating, his young universe now violates the conventionality thesis because it preempts a conversion to Einstein synchrony. The only way he can convert to ESC is to invoke a completely new and different universe - one that predates his ASC universe by billions of years. This he does in his seminal paper. [Newton 2001]

In fact, Lisle cannot convert his young ASC universe to any synchrony convention without invoking a new universe each time in the process. This can only mean that in order for Lisle to appear literate in relativity and to uphold the conventionality thesis he must invoke infinite universes – a multiverse – each specifically designed for conversion to the infinite range of synchrony conventions available.

Lisle’s conversion from ASC to ESC evokes points of interest. First, one notes that ASC and ESC are two extremes in an infinite range of synchrony conventions, and that by validating both extremes, Lisle has necessarily validated infinite universes. Second, since he sees indication of youth in his ASC universe and, apparently, great age in the ESC universe, the important question becomes, how much in common can we assume from both systems – and, by extension, from all infinite universes? Third, since both his ASC and ESC universes seem to be centered on Earth, does that make the earth some kind of ‘portal’ to the multiverse? Fourth, for some evolutionists and Bible-illiterates, could that idea provide impetus to their view that Earth is being visited by alien life?

Indeed, Lisle’s young-universe spin on the conventionality of simultaneity may have rewarded him with unexpected surprises. A distinction between common practice in physics and Lisle’s approach to physics serves to illustrate how this may have happened. For example, it is instructive to note that ESC’ers who must accommodate ASC do not experience the trouble visited upon ASC’ers trying to accommodate ESC. Physics properly applied, the common approach, is that equal accommodation is made for all conversions to all synchrony conventions only in an old universe that is single.

Specifically, Lisle has ignored the two-way speed of light in his construct. The actual uni-verse we observe and reside in is based on the constancy of a two-way light speed that always returns a single value c. Hence, it is also necessarily quite old. By constructing his young universe solely on the one-way speed of light – which by convention can hold infinite values – Lisle has fragmented the universe into infinite universes, hoping to find evidence that we are in the youngest one.

Here, two critical observations are in order. First, if Lisle denies that his paradigm is multiverse, then it is falsified. Since, on its own, his young ASC universe violates the conventionality thesis, infinite supplemental universes are required to bring it into physical conformity. Hence, no multiverse, no model. Second, if Lisle subsumes his multiverse under the universe proper, he concedes an ancient universe. In subsumption, the unique ‘sum’ of Lisle’s infinite universes would render a single physical system the age of its oldest member universe, ESC – around 13 billion years. As such, he could still claim – that is, in a purely phenomenological sense – that the Creation clock did not start until 13 billion years after God created the galaxies. However, his claim would not change the actual physical age of the universe.

Have creationists finally found their long-sought-after young universe? To ask Lisle, one would think so. But at what cost? If Lisle has stumbled onto a multiverse, it would arguably be the biggest self-own in the 60-year history of creation science. Evolutionists and skeptics would doubtless celebrate our careless oversight. Elusive and dubious at its start 18 years ago, Lisle’s ASC paradigm still receives mixed reviews from creationists today and may simply not be worth the risk in the forward progress of creationist thought.

 

Lisle, J.P. 2010. Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A solution to the distant starlight problem. Answers Research Journal 2:191–207.

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

Views: 72

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I believe any discovery that has supporting evidence or assertions to its validity is worth keeping in our 'forward progress of thought' until it is wholly disproved with facts, rather than skepticism.

That said, we should abandon any 'discovery' that was conceptualized because all other possibilities don't fit with a presupposed model we are not willing to compromise. Especially those that have no supporting factors within the confines of the very basic applications of the scientific method: one such discovery would be the 'Big Bang' in which no actual evidence of such an entity exists, rather conceived based on present day observation and current conditions of space and matter as some 'models' point to the origin of the universe beginning at a set point.

Model worship has become the scientific equivalent of idle worship, IMO; after all, many models are compiled using estimates and presuppositions, rather than facts and actual discoveries, conceived by someone's belief in a construct that consists of no prior data, rather the imagination of a researcher mired in science fiction and a hodge podge of so-called 'evidence', none of which derived from any scientific methodology.

Is Lisle's 'ASC' belief a bit on the shaky side? Yes, just as the majority of most scientific discussions and discoveries of a stellar nature (we are just too finite in our present technology and ability to know much more than we do, space is just TOO large).... This doesn't mean we abandon a premise. We continue to test, and hold to our theory until it is proven wrong, or there can be no proof found to warrant its validity. Then we let it go, and start from scratch.

What else do you believe Dr. Lisle should do going forward?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service