In this article, we review – at a layman level – the original argument that Phil Dennis made against ASC and my refutation of his claims. This is important for two reasons. First, Dennis’s first article contained a great deal of mathematics, and this required me to reply in kind. Therefore, my goal here is to explain the disagreement between us without using any equations so that the layman may understand the essence of the dispute. Second, this will show that Dennis’s claim has already been thoroughly refuted in my first response to him. There is absolutely nothing in Dennis’s second attempt that undoes his errors in his first article. Thus, Dennis’s claim stands refuted. Furthermore, in the next article we will demonstrate that Dennis made exactly the same errors in reasoning in his second article as in his first – errors I have already exposed and refuted.
Background
In 1916, Albert Einstein published a book explaining his Theory of Relativity at a layman level. In this book, Einstein discussed the concept of simultaneity – the idea of two events happening at the exact same time. In particular, he posed the question of how we might judge whether two events (such as two lightning strikes at two different locations) are truly and absolutely simultaneous. He discovered that there is no such method by which all observers in the universe would agree. In other words, if Sarah judges two lightning bolts to be simultaneous, then Michael, who is moving relative to Sarah and using the same method, will not – in general – judge those same two lightning bolts to be simultaneous. This principle is called the relativity of simultaneity. The Andromeda Paradox is an excellent example of this principle.
The reason for the relativity of simultaneity is due to the counterintuitive nature of space, time, and the speed of light. Space and time are not separately objective. That is, the distance between two events will depend on the state of motion of the person doing the measuring. Likewise, the time interval between two events will depend on the state of motion of the person doing the measuring. We don’t notice these effects in our everyday lives because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light. And when two observers have almost the same velocity, each moving slowly relative to the speed of light, their measurements of distances and temporal intervals will be very nearly identical. But the effects become very pronounced when differences in velocity approach the speed of light. Thus, we cannot say that two events X and Y happened at objectively the same time. Rather, we can only say that X and Y happened at the same time relative to observer A using a particular method (a method known as a synchrony convention).
Einstein further pointed out that there is a combination of spatial distances and temporal intervals that is objective and not observer-dependent. This combination is called the spacetime interval. Think of it a bit like a distance but a distance in both space and time. This result is possible because the round-trip speed of light in vacuum is constant – it is the same for all observers regardless of their state of motion. The round-trip speed of light refers to the distance light travels from A to B and back to A in a given time.
The relativity of simultaneity leads inescapably to another principle that Einstein discussed in his book – the conventionality of simultaneity. It is also called the conventionality thesis. This is the principle that what an observer considers to be simultaneous is conventional – it is a matter of how we define our terms, not just how we measure something. Let me explain:
If Sarah considers two lightning bolts to have happened at the same time, then Michael (moving at high speed relative to Sarah) will not in general draw that conclusion using the same method with himself as the reference point. That’s the relativity of simultaneity. But there is no reason why Michael cannot use Sarah as the reference point, adopting her clocks and rulers as the standards of measure. If he did, then he would agree with Sarah that the lightning bolts happened at the same time. Thus, Michael has some degree of choice in deciding whether the two bolts of lighting are simultaneous. They either are simultaneous or are not simultaneous depending on what standard of clocks and rulers he chooses to use. This is the conventionality of simultaneity. The judgment of whether two events happened at the same time is not absolute/objective but is dependent on standards/definitions that the observer chooses.
Simultaneity and One-Way Speeds
One logical result of the conventionality of simultaneity is that there cannot be an objective, convention-independent one-way speed for anything in the universe (the speed from A to B but not back to A). Let’s explore why this must be the case. Two clocks are said to be synchronized if they read the same time at the same time. That is, they read the same time simultaneously. However, we previously found that what one observer considers to be simultaneous will not – in general – be considered simultaneous to another observer using the same methods with himself as the reference point. Thus, two clocks separated by a distance cannot be objectively synchronized in a way that all observers would agree. If one observer judges them to be synchronized, another observer will not.
However, measuring a one-way speed requires two clocks that are synchronized and separated by a distance. Consider the attempt to measure the speed of an object as it travels from A to B. A clock at point A is necessary to measure the time the object begins its journey, and the clock at B measures its arrival time. The total distance between A and B divided by the difference between these two times yields the speed. But it yields the correct speed only if the two clocks are synchronized – and the latter is a matter of convention. Thus, one-way speeds are necessarily somewhat conventional. This includes the one-way speed of light. In fact, one-way speeds are intimately connected with synchrony conventions for this very reason.
The Einstein Synchrony Convention (ESC)
A common convention by which to synchronize two clocks separated by a distance is named after Einstein – namely, the Einstein Synchrony Convention or ESC. In this method, we stipulate/define the one-way speed of light relative to a given observer to be the same (in all directions) as its round-trip speed in vacuum denoted by the lowercase letter c. We send a light pulse from A to B when clock A reads a particular time. We then set clock B to the same time plus r/c where r is the distance between the two clocks. The value r/c represents the amount of time the light pulse took to travel from A to B according to our stipulated one-way speed of light. Thus, the two clocks are synchronized relative to the observer who performed this task. Of course, they will not be synchronized relative to some other observer (because he sets the one-way speed of light as c relative to himself). But that’s okay. Synchronization is not objective but observer-dependent.
We could then test whether the clocks are synchronized by placing an observer halfway between them at point M. When each clock strikes noon, it emits a light pulse in the direction of the observer. Since we have stipulated that the light pulses both travel at the same speed (c), if the observer in between them sees both pulses at the same time, then the clocks are indeed synchronized – relative to that observer using that method.
But we merely assumed/stipulated that the light travels the same speed from A to M as from B to M. How do we really know this? We would need clocks at A and B that are objectively synchronized without first assuming the one-way speed of light. But we used the one-way speed of light to synchronize these clocks! Einstein put the dilemma as follows:
“If only I knew that the light by means of which the observer at M perceives the [light pulses] travels along the length A to M with the same velocity as along the length B to M. But an examination would only be possible if we already had at our disposal the means of measuring time. It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle” (Einstein 1916).
In other words, to measure the one-way speed of light we need two clocks that are synchronized and separated by a distance. But to synchronize two clocks separated by a distance we would need to already know the one-way speed of light! Each criterion requires us to the know the other one first! What is the solution?
Einstein correctly deduced that we cannot objectively (independent of circular assumptions) measure the one-way speed of light because it is not a property of light but a choice in how to define what constitutes synchronized clocks. In other words, the one-way speed of light is conventional. It is merely one choice we might make (of an infinite number of possibilities) to arrive at a definition of simultaneity for a given observer. Here is how Einstein put it:
“That light requires the same time to traverse the Path A to M as for the path B to M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity” [emphasis in original] (Einstein 1916).
Phillip Dennis disagrees with Einstein at this point. Dennis believes that the one-way speed of light must be c – the same as the round-trip speed. But Einstein claims that this is merely one choice that we may stipulate in order to define what constitutes synchronized clocks for a given observer. Thus, the one-way speed of light is not a property of nature at all but a humanly stipulated convention by which we judge whether two events are simultaneous for a given observer.
Because it is a humanly stipulated convention, we are free to stipulate otherwise. The way we choose to synchronize clocks, and thus the one-way speed of light, is conventional. This again is called the conventionality thesis. Phil Dennis disagrees with the conventionality thesis. But his arguments against it were fallacious, as will be demonstrated below. Indeed, we have shown that the conventionality thesis logically follows from the relativity of simultaneity, which is built into the physics of Einstein. And this is perhaps the most well-verified branch of physics.
The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention
According to Einstein, the one-way speed of light is a humanly stipulated convention by which to judge whether any two given clocks are synchronized. Einstein preferred to stipulate the one-way speed to be the same as the round-trip speed (c), as this makes the math easier and makes reference frames independent of position. But he recognized that this was a preference, not something that could be objectively measured. As a matter of historical fact, this was not the preference used by any ancient society.
All ancient cultures used a Visual Synchrony Convention (VSC), as is well documented in Jammer’s excellent book on the topic (Jammer 2006). That is, they judged two events to be simultaneous if and only if the light arrives at our eyes at the same time from each event, regardless of the distance to the objects. In other words, if you see a distant star explode, then that event is happening now – not many years ago. Effectively, they stipulated that all incoming light was instantaneous. Indeed, they could not have used ESC because they did not know the distance to the stars nor the round-trip speed. Such knowledge was unavailable until modern times.
Since the round-trip speed of light in vacuum is always exactly c, it follows that the Visual Synchrony Convention (VSC) requires that outgoing light travel at a speed of c/2, whereas incoming light is essentially infinite in speed. Thus, the time-averaged round-trip speed of light remains c. In this convention, the one-way speed of light is different in different directions – anisotropic. So I have named this convention the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC). The Visual Synchrony Convention is the same as the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (VSC = ASC).
Conversely, the Einstein Synchrony Convention (ESC) is a very modern convention that was unused in the ancient world. No one would have or could have subtracted light travel time from a distant supernova because they knew neither the distance to the event nor the round-trip speed of light. All ancient cultures used the ASC system whether they realized it or not.
Therefore, I have argued that the Bible also uses the ASC system when describing celestial events. Stars were created on day four, and their light reached Earth instantly on day four since the light is incoming. Thus, there is no distant starlight problem, and there never was. The perceived problem stems from attempting to impose a modern convention (ESC) upon ancient Scripture. This is an exegetic fallacy called the semantic anachronism. It falsely supposes that God created the stars on day four by the ESC definition and, therefore, that their light would take billions of years to reach Earth. But such an assumption denies the perspicuity of Scripture. God would not use a modern convention in ancient Scripture because it would be misunderstood for thousands of years. The ASC model is the claim that the Bible uses the ASC system when describing celestial events. Thus, stars are made on day four, and their light reaches Earth on day four.
Note that since ASC is a synchrony convention, it is not falsifiable. It is a way of labeling the time of any event that transpires. However, the ASC model is falsifiable. It is the claim that the Bible uses ASC when describing celestial events. This is not an analytic truth and is therefore subject to falsification – if someone can show evidence that the Bible uses ESC rather than ASC. Neither Dennis’s first article nor his second make any attempt to show that the Bible uses ESC rather than ASC. Thus, both articles are utterly irrelevant to the ASC model. They do not even address it. Rather, Dennis has confused the ASC model with the synchrony convention and has confused the synchrony convention with the conventionality thesis. That is, both of Dennis’s articles were irrelevant to the ASC model but were instead failed attempts to refute the conventionality thesis – a critical aspect of the physics of Einstein.
Dennis’s Main Errors in His First Article
I had published a technical paper in 2010 explaining the basics of what was covered above (Lisle 2010). In 2024, Phil Dennis attempted to refute the ASC model in an article here. I replied here. Dennis claimed that there is an “internal contradiction” in the ASC model. However, his paper was apparently an attempt to disprove the conventionality thesis, which is not the same thing as the ASC model. Dennis seemed to think that since I embrace ESC as a legitimate convention, that this somehow disproves ASC. It doesn’t. Just because I embrace the metric system (meters, centimeters) does not make the imperial system (feet, inches) false! Both ESC and ASC are legitimate conventions. But only one can be used at a time. My contention is that Scripture uses ASC, and I have given logical reasons why.
For example, suppose I taught my students how to compute average velocity by taking a distance in meters and dividing by time in seconds. This would yield the velocity of some object in metric units of meters per second. Suppose later I described the area of a house as being 2000 square feet. Is that inconsistent? Suppose Dennis responded, “Ah ha! Lisle claims to believe in square feet – an imperial unit – but he used the metric system to describe certain velocities. This is inconsistent! It shows that Lisle’s claim that the house is 2000 square feet is false!” Wouldn’t that be absurd? Both imperial units, like feet, and metric units, like meters, are legitimate ways of describing lengths. They are different. But that doesn’t make one false.
Likewise, Dennis essentially tried to show that my ASC model is wrong on the basis that I sometimes use ESC coordinates. But how is that an internal inconsistency? Just as I can use feet or meters to describe a length, so I can use either ASC or ESC to describe the coordinates of an event in spacetime.
The specific nature of Dennis’s errors and misunderstandings begin in his abstract where he states, “The ASC model explicitly assumes the mathematical structure of Minkowski space and the foundations of special relativity (SR).” That is false. In reality, the ASC model doesn’t assume any particular metric (structure of spacetime) but merely differs from the more commonly used coordinates of ESC by the time coordinate. In order to perform specific computations in ASC, we would need to know the metric of the cosmos, which until recently has always been assumed to be the FLRW metric – not the Minkowski metric. The Minkowski metric defines distances/intervals in “flat” space in which there is essentially no mass. Of course, for small cosmic distances, both ESC and ASC can use the Minkowski metric as a good approximation.
Dennis then stated, “The assumption of Minkowski space, as correctly embraced by Lisle, is incompatible with the conclusions of ASC which purports that the incoming speed of light can be made arbitrarily large.” This too is false. “Flat” Minkowski space does not make assumptions or stipulations about the one-way speed of light. Remember, according to Einstein, the one-way speed of light “is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity” [emphasis in original] (Einstein 1916).
Why did Dennis make this mistake? Most textbooks on relativity use the ESC system without much discussion of other synchrony conventions. Therefore, the equations they use are generally derived in ESC coordinates. In his first article, Dennis used the ESC formulation of the Minkowski metric as his first equation. He then derived the one-way speed of light from this equation and showed that it was isotropic (the same in all directions). But the ESC formulation stipulates that the one-way speed of light is isotropic! It is built into the equation. Thus, without realizing it, Dennis used an equation that arbitrarily presupposes that the one-way speed of light is isotropic in order to prove that the one-way speed of light is isotropic! That is, he had committed the logical fallacy known as begging the question. This is the fallacy of assuming at the outset the very thing you are attempting to prove.
So all Dennis really proved is this: “If we assume that the one-way speed of light is isotropic, then the one-way speed of light is isotropic.” But that doesn’t prove anything beyond what it assumes. It certainly does not show any inconsistency in the ASC model.
In my response, I started by using the correct equation – one that does not assume ESC, and showed that the correct equation allows for the one-way speed of light to be non-isotropic. The full equation that does not assume ESC is shown as equation 1 in my response. The range of possible one-way speeds of light is denoted by the parameter ε. In the ESC model, this parameter ε is set to ½, which sets the one-way speed of light to be the same in opposite directions. In ASC, the parameter is set to 1. I showed that Dennis’s first equation assumes that ε = ½, and that substituting this value into my equation 1 reduces it to Dennis’s first equation. Thus, Dennis assumed that the one-way speed of light is isotropic at his first step – thereby begging the question. I then showed that when ε is set to 1, it results in the one-way speed of light being infinite in one direction, and ½ c in the other. In other words, it confirms ASC! This was shown in my equation 7.
I also showed in equations 17 and 18 that the incoming and outgoing one-way speed of light must be different for all values of ε except ½. In other words, only by assuming/stipulating at the start that the one-way speed of light is isotropic (ε = ½) can we prove that the one-way speed of light is isotropic. It is therefore impossible to prove that the one-way speed of light is isotropic without begging the questions – just as Einstein claimed over a century ago! These equations also show that when ε is set to 1 (as in ASC), the speed of light will be infinite in one direction, and ½ c in the other – just as ASC requires. Thus, Dennis’s main argument has been thoroughly refuted.
Corrections of Misrepresentations and Presentism
The next section of my reply is entitled “Corrections of Misrepresentations.” In this section, I explained several of Dennis’s misrepresentations of my position. Since there is nothing mathematical in this section and since it is already readable at a layman level, I will not repeat it here. I will simply point out that Dennis made a very bad argument using a faulty analogy involving an airplane that crosses time zones. But his numbers made no sense, and he drew conclusions from areas of the analogy that are not analogous! This error is known as the fallacy of the false analogy. I mention this because Dennis actually attempted to defend this in his second article – and we will examine this later.
The third section of my response to Dennis is entitled “Presentism.” In this section, I pointed out that Dennis admits to having a philosophy of time known as presentism – the belief that only the present exists. As I explained, “I reject such a philosophy as mere rhetoric at best and inconsistent with physics and the Bible at worst. But I wish to be fair to Dennis, and so I will not offer a full refutation of presentism here since this was not his main focus. Rather, in this section I will simply point out some misrepresentations that may stem from that belief, and I will also show that his position is not consistent with the physics of Einstein.” Since this section is already written at a layman level, there is no need to revisit it here. I would suggest that readers review what I wrote there however.
Although presentism is incompatible with the physics of Einstein and is horribly anti-biblical (it is the philosophy embraced by heretics such as open theists), I was willing to leave the issue alone. Namely, Dennis’s disagreements with me and with the physics of Einstein stem from a philosophy that I reject. However, in his second article, Dennis attempted to defend presentism and disparage me for rejecting his unbiblical philosophy. I will therefore show that his reasoning in this area is fundamentally illogical, incompatible with the physics of Einstein (since there is no “one” present due to the relativity of simultaneity), and is anti-biblical. I will do this in an upcoming article.
The Conventionality Thesis and Relativity
In the final section of my paper before the conclusion and appendices, I showed that the conventionality thesis is a necessary part of the physics of Einstein. In other words, if the physics of Einstein is correct, then the one-way speed of light is conventional. It is not something that can be measured objectively without tacitly assuming it. It is a choice we make in order to define what constitutes synchronized clocks. Einstein was very clear and explicit about this point.
I showed in this section that any given observer can choose to stipulate the one-way speed of light as being isotropic relative to himself or herself. But then it will necessarily be non-isotropic relative to other observers if we use the same clocks and rulers. For example, suppose Sarah chooses to make the one-way speed of light c in all directions and synchronizes her clocks accordingly. Then suppose that Michael moves relative to Sarah at one-half the (round-trip) speed of light in the positive x direction. This was shown in Figure 1 of my response. Naturally, Sarah would say that light moves 0.5 c faster than Michael in the positive x direction and 1.5 c faster than Michael in the negative x direction. So if light is isotropic relative to Sarah, then it cannot be isotropic relative to Michael who is in motion relative to Sarah – using Sarah’s clocks and rulers.
But since the one-way speed of light is conventional, Michael is free to choose it to be isotropic relative to himself – and therefore not to Sarah. He can set up his own system of synchronized clocks. His clocks will not agree with Sarah’s. That is, Sarah will say that Michael’s clocks are not synchronized to each other, and Michael will say that Sarah’s clocks are not synchronized to each other. And since we need synchronized clocks to correctly measure a one-way speed, Sarah will say that Michael only thinks that the one-way speed of light is isotropic relative to him because his clocks are not properly synchronized. And Michael will say the exact same thing about Sarah.
But if each observer can say that the one-way speed of light is isotropic relative to himself/herself, why can’t they say it is isotropic only for some other observer? In other words, if Michael can say that the one-way speed of light is isotropic relative to Michael, why can’t Sarah agree that it is isotropic relative to Michael, and therefore not isotropic relative to her?
An ESC convention for one observer is a non-ESC convention for another.
Therefore, if ESC is a legitimate convention for more than one observer, then ASC is also a legitimate convention. This is because ESC is ASC in a different reference frame. This is why attempts like Dennis’s to prove ESC and disprove ASC must fail since ASC is simply ESC as measured by someone else.
I believe this argument (used in my previous article) constitutes proof of the conventionality thesis. Thus, it shows that ASC is a legitimate convention. What is very telling is that Dennis, in his second reply, did not attempt to refute this argument. In fact, he didn’t even address it. Thus, the conventionality thesis stands, and Dennis is refuted. There is really no academic need to address his second article since it (1) did not rebut my refutation of his original arguments and (2) did not refute or even address my proof of the conventionality thesis. Nonetheless, I write this response so that laymen may clearly see the issue at hand.
Of Physical Speeds
In his first article, Dennis attached two appendices. I replied with two appendices – each to refute his. In his Appendix A, Dennis attempted to argue that ASC speeds are not “physical speeds.” In my Appendix A, I replied by showing that by Dennis’s own definition of “physical speed,” ASC speeds are indeed physical. Again, Dennis had arbitrarily assumed that ESC is somehow “true” and ASC is merely “apparent.” But this again begs the question. No coordinate system is truer than any other one.
Furthermore, Dennis had made a very embarrassing mistake in his Appendix A. He had confused a distance with the spacetime interval. These are very different things. Under this false equivocation, he went on to conclude that all distances in ASC shrink to zero. I showed in my Appendix A the errors in his equations (in red) and that the correct equations leave distances unaltered. That is, the distance between two events is identical (for a given observer) whether they use ESC or ASC. This should be obvious because the spatial coordinates between these two systems are identical – and spatial distances do not involve time.
Amazingly, in his second article, Dennis doubled-down and attempted to defend his error. But according to his equation, using ASC would cause the distance between source and receiver to reduce to zero! I have already shown the errors in his math in my previous refutation. Here I will prove that Dennis is wrong empirically by an experiment you can do at home.
I have a clock that receives radio transmissions from a radio station connected to the atomic clock in Boulder, Colorado. Every night, this clock uses radio transmissions to synchronize itself to the atomic clock. But it does so using the ASC system. That is, it does not attempt to subtract off the light-travel time (radio waves travel at the speed of light) it took the radio pulses to cover this distance. So, by the ESC system, it is actually slightly behind the atomic clock in Boulder due to the fraction of a second it took the radio waves to traverse the intervening distance. But by ASC, it is exactly synchronized with the atomic clock in Boulder.[1]
Now, according to Dennis’s Appendix A equation 5, the distance between the source and destination of light for a one-way beam depends on the chosen synchrony convention. When we use the ASC system, ε is set to 1. So, according to his equation, the distance reduces to zero! Thus, if Dennis is right, then the distance between my clock and the radio transmitter must be zero. But I can assure you it isn’t. I live quite a distance from Boulder.
You can verify this for yourself if you have a similar clock. Watch as it synchronizes itself to the atomic clock, and see if you are now at the location of the radio transmitter in Colorado. Indeed, if Dennis’s reasoning were correct, this would be a great way to travel! Simply set your clock to synchronize itself to the atomic clock in Boulder by ASC, and hold on tight! Poof! You are now standing at the radio transmitter at a distance of zero! But in reality, that will not happen because Dennis’s equation is wrong; it is based on confusing distance with the spacetime interval. Obviously, changing the way we synchronize clocks does not result in changing distances, contrary to Dennis’s claim.
Polar Coordinates and Geometries
In his Appendix B, Dennis attempted to go through some of the mathematics of ASC using polar coordinates. His first four numbered equations in this section are correct. But then his faulty reasoning kicks in. He concludes that the ASC formulation of these coordinates involves a different geometry than the ESC formulation. This implies that reality is somehow affected by our choice of coordinates. But this again shows that Dennis doesn’t understand that ESC and ASC are merely different coordinate systems for describing the same underlying reality.
I responded in my Appendix B pointing out this error, and that Dennis had contradicted himself in admitting that converting from ESC to ASC “has not altered the intrinsic geometry of Minkowski space.” But then he complains that “ASC commits an abuse of coordinates when one performs the transformation in equation [29] and then only analyzes equations algebraically (coordinate symbols) while ignoring the geometry as embodied in equation.” But he just said the conversion “has not altered the intrinsic geometry of Minkowski space.” Which is it?
I showed that Dennis again confused a distance with the spacetime interval – the same mistake he made in his previous Appendix. Thus, the rest of his equations are erroneous due to his confusion between r (distance) and s (spacetime interval) shown in my equation 35. I then showed Dennis’s incorrect calculation (lefthand column) along with the correct calculation (righthand column) for equations 36-40. Dennis incorrectly concluded that volumes and surfaces areas would be different if we used ASC coordinates, but this was due to his confusing distances with spacetime intervals.
Dennis then tried to argue that ASC coordinates are not orthogonal, but his argument was specious. I pointed out that the ASC surface of simultaneity will not appear orthogonal when plotted using ESC coordinates. But the same is true of the reverse. That is, the ESC surface of simultaneity will not appear orthogonal when plotted using ASC coordinates. So, again, Dennis begged the question. Amazingly, in his second article, Dennis made exactly the same mistake in reasoning. But this involves some mathematics, so we will address it in an upcoming article.
Conclusion
The bottom line is that Dennis did not make a single sound or cogent argument against the ASC model, the ASC convention, or the conventionality thesis. The most common fallacy in his argumentation was the error of begging the question – assuming the very thing one is attempting to prove. Indeed, this was his main argument. He assumed an equation that tacitly assumes ESC and then showed that this leads to ESC. But that does nothing to disprove ASC. Furthermore, I made a powerful argument in my closing sections for the conventionality thesis, showing that it follows logically and inescapably from the physics of Einstein.
Now, regarding his follow-up article, you might think that Dennis would attempt to show some error in my mathematical analysis, or that I had made a mistake in reasoning in my refutation of his main arguments. But that did not occur. You might think he would attempt to refute my argument in favor of the conventionality thesis. But this was simply ignored. So from an academic perspective, Dennis’s second article is utterly irrelevant to this exchange. It is not a refutation of anything; rather, it is mere rhetoric. It may obfuscate, but it will not enlighten. Therefore, my original refutation of Dennis’s errors stands. My original argument showing that the conventionality thesis follows logically from the relativity of simultaneity also stands.
In fact, Dennis’s second article consists mainly of the following:
(1) An additional argument against the conventionality thesis that makes exactly the same mistakes as his original article – namely, it begs the question. It assumes the ESC system and solves for consistency rather than showing that the ASC system would be inconsistent. Thus, Dennis is again attempting to refute a coordinate system – a bit like trying to use feet and inches to refute the metric system.
(2) A faulty attempt to defend the anti-biblical philosophy of “presentism.” This is the view of time held by open theists who believe that God doesn’t exhaustively know the future because He is bound by time and moving through time like we are. We will show in upcoming articles that this philosophy is internally contradictory, contrary to the physics of Einstein, and anti-biblical.
(3) Abundant errors in reasoning, especially begging the question, question-begging epithets, strawman misrepresentations of my position (and Einstein’s), and ad hominem fallacies.
In the next article, we will deal with the first of these issues.
References
Einstein, A. 1916. Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R.W. Lawson. New York: Crown Publishers Inc.
Jammer, M. 2006. Concepts of Simultaneity: From Antiquity to Einstein and Beyond. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lisle, J. 2010. Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A solution to the distant starlight problem. Answers Research Journal 3 (September 22): 191–207. https://answersresearchjournal.org/anisotropic-synchrony-distant-starlight/.
[1] For simplicity, I am not including the time it took the electrical signal to travel from the clock to the radio transmitter.