This article series will be very important for those interested in the distant starlight issue. Secular astronomers claim that the light from the most distant galaxies has taken billions of years to reach Earth. We can see these galaxies in our most powerful telescopes. Many people conclude from this that the universe must be billions of years old, and therefore that the biblical description of creation is false. But the notion that light takes billions of years to get from distant galaxies to Earth is predicated upon a particular modern convention of how we choose to define the timing of distant events. This modern convention is called the Einstein Synchrony Convention (ESC). Although this convention is not “wrong,” it was never used in the ancient world. I have shown in other articles and technical papers that the Bible used the ancient synchrony convention that I have dubbed the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC). Under this convention, the light from the most distant galaxies reaches Earth immediately, as suggested in passages such as Genesis 1:14-15. Therefore, there is no distant starlight problem in a “young” universe. The young-universe model I have proposed based on this is called the ASC model. The ASC model is currently the only young-universe biblical model of cosmology that (1) is consistent with established physics and (2) has made successful predictions regarding astronomical observations.
Background
Last year, a physicist named Phillip Dennis wrote a technical paper in which he criticized the ASC model – my creation-based alternative to the big bang that shows how starlight can reach Earth immediately.[1] It was clear in his paper that Dennis did not have a good understanding of synchrony conventions nor the model that he was attempting to criticize. Indeed, he conflated the model with the convention and with the conventionality thesis. I wrote a refutation of his paper here, showing that Dennis had begged the question by arbitrarily assuming at the outset the very thing he was intending to demonstrate. Namely, he unwittingly assumed an equation that stipulates that the one-way speed of light is the same in all directions and showed that this equation leads to the conclusion that the one-way speed of light is the same in all directions. I demonstrated that he had assumed at the outset the very thing he was attempting to prove. Furthermore, I showed that when the correct equation is used, it indicates that the one-way speed of light can be different depending on the direction the light travels. Dennis also made numerous mistakes in logical reasoning, some of which seem to stem from his anti-biblical philosophy known as presentism: the belief that only the present exists.
It was clear from Dennis’s paper that he had not bothered to read the rich body of literature on the conventionality of distant simultaneity because he would not have made most of the rather obvious errors. Erroneous arguments very similar to Dennis’s have been attempted before and were already refuted in the technical literature decades ago. Indeed, John Winnie demonstrated in two technical papers that the choice of synchrony convention is ultimately arbitrary and produces no observational differences.[2] [3] Winnie published his papers back in 1970! So Dennis’s arguments are over fifty years out of date. This is why I always recommend that people read at least ten technical papers on synchrony conventions before attempting to engage with the topic. Why were such obvious errors not identified by the peer reviewers of Dennis’s paper? Certainly his paper would never have passed peer review in a professional physics journal. Could this be why he published it in the Anwers Research Journal?[4] After all, the conventionality thesis is not a creation/origins issue per se. It has been widely discussed in secular technical literature. Dennis is apparently unfamiliar with such literature.
In my refutation of Dennis’s paper, I not only pointed out that he had arbitrarily assumed (at his first step) an equation that is based on the Einstein Synchrony Convention (ESC) in his attempt to prove ESC, thereby begging the question, but I also showed what happens when the ASC-based equation is used. Namely, the correct mathematical formula allows the one-way speed of light to be very different in different directions. The generic formula I used in equation 31 in my refutation shows the one-way speed of light is a free parameter that can be stipulated and therefore cannot be measured without circular reasoning. In other words, the one-way speed of light has no effect on any observable phenomena as long as the round-trip speed is constant in vacuum. This is necessarily the case because synchrony conventions are coordinate systems. And the physics of relativity is coordinate independent.
In other words, changing coordinate systems cannot possibly affect any observational result. Coordinate systems are merely a way of marking the four-dimensional position of an event in spacetime. They are numerical labels. And how we choose to label something cannot affect its observable properties. (If we decided to relabel a cat using some other term, it would not change the animal.) This is why it is ultimately impossible to disprove a coordinate system such as ASC or ESC. They are merely different ways of labeling an event in spacetime. I have previously provided compelling evidence that the Bible uses the ancient ASC system rather than ESC, which is a very modern convention.
Thus, although Dennis didn’t seem to realize it, he was attempting to refute a coordinate system. But coordinate systems are neither true nor false and, therefore, cannot be refuted. They are merely useful or not. ASC is not only useful, but it was the only coordinate system used until very modern times. Thus, it is undoubtedly the coordinate system used by the Bible. The starlight problem only exists if people impose the modern ESC system upon sacred Scripture – this is a hermeneutical fallacy known as the semantic anachronism fallacy. It is one of many errors in reasoning that Dennis exhibited in his articles.
The fact that coordinate systems like ESC and ASC are humanly stipulated ways of defining “now” for a given observer is called the conventionality thesis. Although the conventionality thesis is not universally agreed upon, it is the majority position among relativity experts because it is built into the physics of relativity. In my refutation of Dennis’s paper, I showed that the conventionality thesis is logically provable from a basic principle of the physics of Einstein: the relativity of simultaneity. Indeed, if the physics of Einstein is basically correct (and we have every reason to think it is), then Dennis’s position is refuted. I closed my paper by encouraging Dennis to actually read the rich body of technical literature regarding the conventionality thesis.
Unfortunately, this did not occur. Instead, Dennis responded by publishing yet another error-filled paper in the ARJ. Not only did Dennis fail to refute my proof of the conventionality thesis, but he did not even address it in his response! Of course, he cannot refute it. The conventionality thesis follows logically from the relativity of simultaneity, as I proved, and the relativity of simultaneity is foundational to the physics of Einstein. Thus, although Dennis labeled his response as “a refutation,” he did not even address my proof, let alone refute it. Therefore, my proof and refutation of Dennis’s original claims stand as is.
Furthermore, Dennis committed exactly the same mistakes in his second paper that he made in the first paper.[5] Namely: (1) He arbitrarily assumed the ESC convention in a thought experiment intended to prove the ESC convention. (2) He did not bother to run through the same thought experiment using the ASC system, or he would have discovered that it yields the same observational results (as it must since it is merely another coordinate system). (3) Dennis still does not realize that a coordinate system (like ASC or ESC) cannot be refuted because coordinates are systems of labels. (4) He committed numerous errors in reasoning, such as the strawman fallacy, begging the question, and question-begging epithets. And (5) he spent a great deal of space in a failed attempt to defend the anti-biblical philosophy of presentism.
Most importantly, he did not even attempt to refute any of the proofs I used in my refutation of his original paper. I demonstrated that Dennis had begged the question numerous times in his original paper, and so my refutation of his previous errors stands. Indeed, Dennis’s follow-up paper reads as a desperate attempt to “save face” and does not present any sound argument from physics. (I invite physics experts who have studied the conventionality thesis to confirm this.) But there is no reason for such vacuous rhetoric. We all make mistakes at times, and there is grace to cover this.
For this reason, I was not initially going to respond to Dennis’s second paper. It is ridiculous and would never have been published in a scholarly physics journal. Certainly, no one knowledgeable of the physics of relativity would take it seriously. However, upon reflection it occurred to me that non-physicists might think Dennis is on to something. Therefore, I write this response primarily for non-physicists so that they (1) can understand Dennis’s errors, (2) will not commit those same errors, (3) may recognize that not everything in the published literature is good science, and (4) will be encouraged that the ASC model stands strong. I take no joy whatsoever in exposing Phillip Dennis’s ignorance on this important topic. But he is misleading people publicly, and therefore his errors must be refuted publicly. His numerous misrepresentations of my position and of relativity in general must be exposed. Moreover, the ASC model is the only biblical model of distant starlight that is based on well-established, known physics and has made successful testable predictions about future observational discoveries.
More to come.
[1] Dennis, P. 2024. An internal contradiction of Lisle’s Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) model. Answers Research Journal 17 (May): 427–433. https://answersresearchjournal.org/astrophysics/asc-model-contradiction/.
[2] Winnie, J. 1970. Special relativity without one-way velocity assumptions: part I. Philosophy of Science 37 (March): 81-99.
[3] Winnie, J. 1970. Special relativity without one-way velocity assumptions: part II. Philosophy of Science 37 (June): 223-238.
[4] By this I do not mean to disparage the ARJ. It is of necessity a generalist journal covering many different aspects of science and theology rather than specializing in one particular field such as relativistic physics. The Answers in Genesis ministry apparently has no access to experts in relativistic physics, which may partly explain why Dennis’s erroneous claims were published.
[5] Dennis, P. 2024. A refutation of Lisle’s “refutation” of Dennis (2024). Answers Research Journal 17 (November): 709–738. https://answersresearchjournal.org/astrophysics/refutation-of-lisles-refutation-of-dennis-2024/.