In this article, we continue to expose the errors in Phillip Dennis’s attempt to overthrow the conventionality thesis of the physics of Einstein. We have already refuted Dennis’s antibiblical philosophy of presentism and shown it to be incompatible with relativistic physics and the Bible. Here we refute several more of Dennis’s errors in physics, but we begin with something that Dennis actually got right.
A Rare Point of Agreement? . . . Sort Of
Just prior to his section entitled, “Reichenback Magic Light Rays,” Dennis makes some statements about ASC that are actually correct. Here Dennis states, “The striking point is, that in Minkowski space, light rays are straight lines, yet the Reichenbach convention as portrayed by Lisle would require that light rays are no longer straight lines, but rather bent.” [1] If by “Minkowski Space” Dennis refers to flat spacetime using ESC coordinates, and if by “bent” he means their speed can change, then he is right. If we had a transparent observer, then under ASC the following situation could occur. A light beam aimed directly at the observer would reach him instantly but after passing through would then move away at a speed of ½c. The spatial direction of the light beam would not change. But when plotted on a spacetime diagram, the beam would change direction upon reaching the observer. Dennis is correct here and so is his depiction of the effect in his Figure 8.
Furthermore, he also makes some correct points in his footnote 7 but with some errors as well. Let’s examine these. First, regarding the sudden change in the one-way speed of light at the origin, Dennis states, “This phantom effect might be the reason some believed ASC creates a gravitational field.” Quite right. I have seen critics arguing that such an inflection requires a gravitational field. It doesn’t. However, the effect isn’t a “phantom.” It is real. But it is due to the coordinate system rather than a force.
Then Dennis states, “Perhaps with all the ASC rhetoric, they were misled and were taking seriously Lisle’s claim that ASC creates an actual anisotropy in the speed-of-light. Lisle correctly denies it.” This is wrong. Speeds are not an objective property of something, contrary to what Dennis seems to think. Speed is distance divided by time. But the distance between two events depends on the reference frame of the observer – it is not objective or absolute. Likewise, the time interval between two events is observer-dependent. Therefore, speeds are not objective – with the single exception of the round-trip speed of light in vacuum. Therefore, speeds in ASC are just as legitimate as speeds in ESC. Both are a distance divided by a time for a particular observer. Neither is objective and invariant.[2]
Dennis states, “Minkowski space is flat, and no coordinate system can impose curvature on a spacetime.” Coordinates systems cannot affect objective reality in the sense of changing the measurable result of any experiment. Thus, Dennis’s claims about experiments giving different observational results for ASC than they would for ESC are necessarily false. We demonstrated that in detail in previous articles. But here we see the overarching reason why: coordinate systems are ways of labelling events – they don’t change the events. So again, we see that Dennis’s reasoning is inconsistent. On the one hand, he correctly denies that using ASC rather than ESC would affect the reality of the universe in any way. On the other hand, he has written two papers now arguing the opposite – that observations of light pulses or the timing of radio signals from distant spacecraft would give objectively different results under ASC than under ESC. His claims are fundamentally contradictory.
Next, Dennis states, “The downside for Lisle, is that recognizing there is no gravitational field he [is] left with no physics to explain the impulse at the origin” [sic]. We don’t need one. It necessarily happens due to the way we have defined simultaneous events from the point of view of our observer. It is similar to the fact that there is no genuine singularity at the event horizon of a black hole, yet there appears to be one in the standard Schwarzschild metric. The singularity is an artifact of the coordinate system. But that doesn’t make the Schwarzschild metric false!
Dennis correctly states, “There is no physical impulse at the origin, it is a kinematic artifact.” That’s true. Kinematics refers to the motion of an object without considering the cause of that motion, such as forces. Both ASC and ESC are kinematic coordinate systems. Dennis seems to think that since light can change its speed in the ASC system without an apparent force, that this somehow disqualifies ASC. But a similar phenomenon happens under ESC. Consider the following:
In the ESC system, if Michael is stationary and shines a beam of light in any direction, the light will move away from him at speed c – by definition. If Michael then accelerates in the same direction as the light so that he is now moving at ½c relative to his previous speed, you would think that the light beam would now be moving only ½c faster than Michael, and that is indeed what an observer who remains stationary would see. But not for Michael. The light “knows” that Michael has accelerated, and so it also accelerates by ½c so that it is still exactly c faster than Michael. Furthermore, if Michael slows down, then so will the light so that it is still only c faster than Michael.
We must ask Dennis, “What force caused the light to speed up when Michael did?” Unfortunately for Dennis there is no such force. It just happens. To be consistent, Dennis might call it a “phantom effect,” a “kinematic artifact,” or a “non-dynamic coordinate artifact” imposed by the ESC system. It is a real effect, but it is due to Michael insisting on the ESC system for both his initial stationary state of motion and his post-acceleration state of motion.
Insisting on ESC causes the light beam to accelerate or decelerate exactly as the observer does! It is strange, but true. Dennis seems to suggest that ASC cannot be correct if it causes light to behave so strangely; however, he fails to recognize that light also acts “strangely” under ESC. And so he has committed the logical fallacy of special pleading – applying different standards for his own position than the one he is attempting to critique.
He continues, “Newton’s first law still applies in Minkowski space: Objects in uniform motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.” And yet, under ESC, a one-way light beam will accelerate so that it remains exactly c faster than any observer without any external force. It accelerates due to the coordinate system without any force which would seem to violate Newton’s first law. So again, we have the fallacy of special pleading.
Dennis continues, “There is no force at the origin. All we have are non-dynamic coordinate artifacts.” This is correct. But of course, similar effects happen under the ESC system – such as the spontaneous acceleration of a photon when any observer changes his state of motion. It is a purely non-dynamic coordinate artifact. If such an artifact disqualifies ASC, then it disqualifies ESC as well. The counterintuitive behavior of light is inherent to God’s universe. Different coordinate systems can push the weirdness from one area to another, but they cannot eliminate it.
In reality, different coordinate systems will produce different artifacts. As a classic example, there is an apparent singularity at the event horizon in the Schwarzschild metric (which describes the geometry of a non-rotating, uncharged black hole).[3] Does this mean there is some kind of force at the event horizon? No. It is a purely kinematic, non-dynamical coordinate artifact – the same kind that Dennis complains about in ASC. However, this artifact at the event horizon can be eliminated by using a different coordinate system, such as Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates. Interestingly, Dennis seems to approve of the Schwarzschild metric as he expounds upon it in his second attempt to criticize ASC / conventionality. Yet he seems unbothered by its kinematic artifact at the event horizon, while seemingly complaining that ASC has an artifact as well.
Comparing Artifacts
Again, the strangeness of the speed of light and its relation to time cannot be eliminated. Thus, both ASC and ESC will have counterintuitive artifacts in different areas. For example, consider the Andromeda paradox as was discussed in a previous article. This artifact occurs in the ESC system but not in ASC. Suppose at the exact moment (by the ESC system) a person sits down on a bench, a star explodes in the Andromeda galaxy. The person gets up and begins walking in a direction that happens to be toward the Andromeda galaxy. Now, according to that person using ESC, that star exploded several days ago! If the person turns around and starts walking the other way, then according to that person using ESC, the star has yet to explode.
Apparently, the person can change whether the event happens in the past, present, or future, merely by how he chooses to move! How does the distant star know how the person is moving so as to adjust when it explodes? Of course, it doesn’t. The person’s ESC coordinate system changes when the person changes his state of motion. The change of time of the distant event is a purely non-dynamic, kinematic artifact of the ESC system. And indeed, this effect must happen if the one-way speed of light is always c. You can verify this effect yourself using the Lorentz transformations.
Under ASC, there is no Andromeda paradox. Under ASC, if the star explodes the moment the person sits on the bench, then nothing can change that. If the person gets up and walks in any direction, the timing of the exploding star remains unchanged. But in ESC you can change whether an event is in the past or future merely by turning around. Does this weirdness disprove ESC? I don’t believe it does. ESC and ASC are merely labels we use to quantify events in spacetime. Space, time, and the speed of light are counterintuitive. Different coordinate systems can “push” the weirdness from one area to another, but they cannot eliminate it.
“Magic Light Rays”
In the section, “Reichenback Magic Light Rays,” Dennis considers a thought experiment that he thinks disproves ASC. He first provides some background statements: “Lisle elaborates on the details of ASC by presenting the derivation of the general anisotropic (pseudo) ‘speed’ formula.” Here Dennis errs by referring to the ASC speed of light as a “(pseudo) ‘speed.’” But I already refuted that claim in my previous paper on the topic.[4] Namely, I demonstrated using Dennis’s own definition of speed that speeds in ASC are necessarily speeds indeed, not “pseudo-speeds.” Note that the speed of an object is (in general) observer-dependent.[5] Dennis’s error may stem from his unbiblical philosophy of presentism (refuted in this series), which implies a universal “now” that is the same for all observers (and thus contrary to the physics of Einstein).
Next, Dennis correctly describes the velocity of a light beam relative to an observer in ASC coordinates. He points out that the one-way speed of light is isotropic in directions orthogonal to the line of sight. This is also true and follows logically from the angle-dependent formula for the speed of light in ASC. Dennis then imagines Reichenbach measuring the round-trip speed of light using a clock and a light source.
Here is a statement Dennis makes that is important to address: “According to the equations of the ASC convention, light knows how to respond to Reichenbach’s experimental clock and light source; he must have had an attractive personality!” Presumably, Dennis refers to the fact that under ASC, the speed of light depends on its direction relative to the observer. If that’s all he means, then he is right. Dennis states this as if light “knows” how to respond to the observer. If he means this literally, then it is a reification fallacy. Light doesn’t know anything, of course. But perhaps Dennis is merely being playful in his description, which is fine.
The problem for Dennis is that a similar situation occurs under ESC. In other words, Dennis seems bothered by the fact that light seems to adjust its speed depending on the observer, as if this is a possible objection to ASC. If so, then this is the fallacy of special pleading since a similar phenomenon happens in ESC – the coordinate system Dennis has been advocating! Namely, as explained in the previous section, light will spontaneously change its speed (in ESC) in response to an acceleration of the observer. If Michael sends out a light pulse at speed c, and then accelerates to ½c in the same direction, that light beam will also accelerate so that it is still exactly c faster than Michael. Michael must have an attractive personality! Right? Well, no. He is measuring the speed of light using his clocks, his rulers, and his stipulated synchrony convention. Whether he uses ASC or ESC, light will behave as if it “knows” what Michael is doing and will adjust accordingly.
So this kind of phenomenon happens both in ASC and in ESC. But the real reason for it is because the observer must use a synchrony convention in order to define or measure a one-way speed for anything. And this convention changes when the observer changes his position or state of motion. It’s not really “magic” at all as Dennis seems to think. Everything seems like magic when you don’t understand how the universe works.
Next, Dennis presents yet another embarrassingly fallacious thought experiment that he thinks proves that the one-way speed of light must be c in any direction. He imagines an observer northwest of a mirror, measuring the round-trip speed of light which is necessarily c. He correctly points out that, for this observer at this position, light beams at perpendicular angles (traveling southwest or northeast near the mirror) must travel at a one-way speed of c. That’s true because it is stipulated in the formula. He then imagines the observer moving so that he is now southwest of the mirror, and performs the same experiment. Now the observer would say that the one-way speed of light along perpendicular beams must be c, and this direction is now the northwest and southeast direction at the mirror. Thus, the one-way speed of light must be c in all directions. Correct?
Obviously not. The observer has moved! His new coordinate system is based on his new position. Thus, what was formerly a perpendicular direction to his line of sight (e.g., northeast) is now along his line of sight. Remember, in ASC the one-way speed of light depends on the angle of the light propagation relative to the line-of-sight of the observer. That has changed between the two measurements. Isn’t that obvious?
In ASC the one-way speed of light of a given beam is dependent upon its direction of travel relative to the line-of-sight of the observer. Thus, different observers will potentially judge different speeds even for the same light beam. Perhaps the most obvious example is when observer A emits a light beam at observer B. If both observers use ASC, then observer A sees the beam as outgoing and therefore traveling at speed ½c. Observer B sees the beam as incoming and therefore as traveling instantly. They get two different speeds for the same object.
The same type of effect happens in ESC, although the details differ. If Michael is moving at ½c relative to Sarah and sends out a light beam in the same direction he is moving, Sarah will judge the light to be moving ½c faster than Michael and c faster than herself (using ESC). However, Michael will judge the light beam to be moving c faster than himself and 1½c faster than Sarah. Does this disprove ESC? Of course not. It simply shows that speeds are inherently observer-dependent.
The Time Zones Mistake (Again)
Amazingly, Dennis again tries to use a jet passing through time zones to somehow argue that ASC is absurd. But I had already refuted this argument in my first refutation of Dennis. Namely, Dennis had tried to apply reasoning by analogy in areas where the analogy is not analogous! This is called the fallacy of false analogy.
Dennis states, “It is always a danger when using an analogy that an opponent will seize on aspects that are not part of the analogy to dismiss it.” The problem is that Dennis – the person advocating the argument – seized upon aspects that are not part of the analogy. Recall that he had argued that a plane traveling west that crosses time zones and lands at the same local time it departed is like claiming that the one-way speed of light can be infinitely fast. But I had already pointed out that the analogy fails for three reasons.
One of the fundamental differences between a plane and light is that a passenger on the plane would experience the passage of time and conclude that the trip is not instantaneous. But this is not so for light as light does not experience the passage of time. Dennis replies, “The presence of a sentient being on the plane is not relevant.” But, of course, it is very relevant! It is one of the ways in which we can prove that the plane does not travel instantly. Sentience is not required. A mechanical clock would also prove that the trip is not instantaneous. But this is not the case with light. So Dennis has committed the fallacy of false analogy.
Dennis states, “The analogy lies in the kinematical (algebraic) correspondence between the jet and ASC, which is exact” (emphasis in original). First, I must note that Dennis’s algebra is mistaken. He incorrectly uses the one-way speed of light in the ASC computation. In reality, the difference between ESC and ASC for an event is the distance divided by the round-trip speed of light: c. This is a very basic mistake. So Dennis is mistaken to say, “Both cases require knowledge of the one-way speed to achieve infinite speed by eliminating the one-way speed time.” In fact, they don’t. ASC requires knowing only the round-trip speed of light; it then stipulates the one-way speed. And time zones are not set based on the speed of an aircraft. So Dennis is mistaken about this.
Second, it is not the algebra that makes the analogy false. Rather, there are three fundamental differences between time zones and ASC that make the former unsuitable as a physics coordinate system which do not apply to the latter. As I already explained in my previous refutation of Dennis, time zones do not respect causality, but ASC does. It is this difference (among others) that makes the analogy false – not the algebra.
A Revealing Admission and the Fundamental Mistake
Dennis states, “Thus, a different diagram is needed to represent the ASC convention which is just a relabeling of the spacetime” (underline added). The latter part of this sentence is actually correct. ASC is a relabeling of spacetime from ESC. Or, if you prefer, ESC is a relabeling of spacetime from ASC. They are two different methods of assigning values of x, y, z, and t to any event in spacetime. In fact, their x, y, and z values are identical, differing only in the value of t. Why is this important? It is because labels do not affect underlying objective reality! And this is one fact that Dennis fundamentally does not understand. The reason all his arguments have failed so drastically is because he is trying to refute a system of labels.
Consider the label “cat.” It is a useful label for representing the animal. But people from different parts of the world choose to use a different label to represent the same animal. People from Spain or Mexico would use the label “gato.” Now suppose Dennis came along and suggested, “The animal in question is clearly a ‘cat,’ not a ‘gato.’ The English speakers are objectively correct. The Spanish speakers are wrong. They are using a ‘pseudo-label,’ not the true label.” He then proceeds to attempt to prove his claim. But how could he possibly accomplish this?
Suppose Dennis attempts to prove the claim by some empirical experiment. He picks up an English dictionary and points out that the word “cat” clearly describes the animal under discussion. But would that prove that “gato” is not also an appropriate label? Moreover, in selecting an English dictionary, Dennis would have begged the question. This situation is analogous to Dennis’s first paper in his attempt to refute the ASC labeling system.
Alternatively, Dennis might try to construct some mathematical or logical proof that the animal must be labeled as “cat” and not as “gato.” But any such proof would have to assign a label to the animal in order to get started, thereby begging the question. This is because there is no necessary logical or mathematical connection between a label and its referent. Labels are assigned – not derived.
Suppose Dennis argued that if we called a cat a “gato,” it would change the characteristics of the animal itself. The animals would no longer have eyes or retractable claws and would instead grow scales. Wouldn’t that be an absurd argument? And yet, this is precisely analogous to Dennis’s argument that distances would shrink to zero if we used the ASC system instead of ESC. (We refuted this mathematically in the previous article.) The fact that Dennis thinks that ASC would change the result in different observations demonstrates that he does not understand how coordinate systems work. His thinking on this topic is fundamentally contradictory and irrational.
There are a number of other rather serious physics errors that we could address and refute. But many of these stem from Dennis’s mistaken impression that the spatial coordinates of an event are somehow affected by the choice of synchrony convention. This includes, for example, his attempt to show that distances would reduce to zero in the ASC system, which we mathematically refuted in the previous article in this series. So it is not necessary to address the fallacious conclusions Dennis draws from his false premise. In my first refutation of Dennis, I showed that he had mistaken a distance for an invariant spacetime interval; I then showed the correct mathematical derivation of various formulae that Dennis has incorrectly derived from his false starting equation.
Missing the Entire Point
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Dennis’s two attempts to refute ASC is that they really have nothing to do with ASC! Rather, Dennis is attempting to refute the conventionality thesis of relativity. Dennis’s argument is not with me; it is with Einstein. It was Albert Einstein (and many other physicists who followed after him) who claimed that the one-way speed of light is not a property of nature but a humanly stipulated convention by which we arrive at a definition of simultaneity.
Moreover, I demonstrated in my first refutation of Dennis’s first paper that Einstein was right – that the conventionality of simultaneity follows logically from the relativity of simultaneity. Notice that not only did Dennis fail to refute my argument, he didn’t even address it. Perhaps he knows he cannot refute it. In any case, I have interacted with all of Dennis’s main points and shown that not one of them stands up to rational scrutiny. Dennis has fundamentally failed to refute the conventionality thesis of relativity.
But the conventionality thesis is not ASC. The ASC model does indeed use the conventionality thesis but is not itself the conventionality thesis. If Dennis wishes to refute this fundamental aspect of relativistic physics, then why did he not submit his arguments to a professional physics journal where they could be vetted by experts in relativity? Is it because he knows they are fallacious? The technical literature is full of examples of people attempting and failing to overthrow the conventionality thesis. This is where the conversation should be taking place if Dennis really thinks he is on to something.
More importantly, suppose that Dennis had actually succeeded in showing that ASC time labels are incompatible with the mathematical machinery of relativity. He didn’t do this, of course. But if he had, how would that be even remotely relevant to the Bible’s (potential) use of such a system? After all, “local time” is not a good coordinate system to use in physics because it does not respect causality. For example, a supersonic plane can land at an earlier local time than it took off. But it didn’t really travel back in time. Therefore, local time is not a good choice for a coordinate system when doing physics. Can we therefore conclude, “Thus, the Bible does not use local time because local time is wrong”? Of course not! The Bible does use local time to describe events, not Greenwich Mean Time. Whether such use is compatible with physics is utterly irrelevant.
Likewise, if someone were to eventually prove that ASC coordinates are not compatible with the mathematical machinery of relativity, would that prevent the Bible from using such a system? Of course not. All ancient cultures used a visual synchrony convention (the same as ASC) whether or not they realized this is what they were doing. ASC is the only system that doesn’t require knowing the distance to the source in order to mark the time of a cosmic event. Thus, no other option was available to the ancient world. This is the heart of the ASC model – that God used the ancient system to mark time, not the modern Einstein Synchrony Convention. And therefore, this is what Dennis must try to refute if he is genuinely going to refute the ASC model.
However, at no point did Dennis even attempt to argue that the Bible uses the modern ESC system. He just arbitrarily assumed it at the outset. But this is simply the fallacy of begging the question. It is also a semantic anachronism fallacy. Thus, none of Dennis’s fallacious arguments against the conventionality thesis are even remotely relevant to the ASC model.
In the next article, we will examine some of the most critical mistakes that Dennis has made in his latest arguments. And these have nothing to do with physics or philosophy. Rather, they are fundamental errors in reasoning: logical fallacies.
[1] All quotations of Dennis are from the following reference:
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/.
[2] Again, the round-trip speed of light in vacuum is an exception due to the remarkable way that God has constructed spacetime.
[3] The coefficient of the radial spatial term goes to infinity at the event horizon, and the coefficient of the temporal term goes to zero.
[4] https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/refuting-the-critics/a-refutation-of-phillip-denniss-claims-regarding-alleged-inconsistencies-in-asc/
[5] The round-trip speed of light in vacuum is the one exception.