Scientists publish new models in technical peer-reviewed literature so that the claims can be vetted by other Ph.D. scientists who have expertise in the relevant field. The reviewers are able to offer constructive criticism precisely because they are knowledgeable of the field. Furthermore, they are also tasked with rejecting publications that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. This too requires the reviewers to be highly educated in the field.

However, some of the most vocal opposition to biblical creation is scientifically absurd and comes from people who are not remotely educated on the topic they are addressing. Such claims would never be published in technical literature because anyone with knowledge of the topic would recognize their absurdity. But the internet has leveled the playing field, and made it possible for anyone to post any uneducated claim whatsoever.

Of course, the internet can also be used to promote truth. And some websites do insist on peer-reviewed accuracy control. But most don’t. Anyone can post his or her uneducated conjectures on Facebook forums. For this reason, we should not take seriously internet posts unless we have some other reason to trust in the reliability of their source.

Someone recently sent me an internet post of a critic who thinks he has disproved the ASC solution to the distant starlight issue. Peter offered thirteen propositions in an attempt to support his conclusion. Amazingly, not even one of them is correct. We will examine his errors here. Actually, if Peter had posed his claims as questions instead, they would have been good questions. So, hopefully my response here will help people get up to speed on this fascinating area of physics. Peter’s comments are in purple text with my response in black.

Peter: THESIS: Lisle’s yec One-Way-Lightspeed Hypothesis has been Empirically Falsified

Peter: P1. One proposed yec solution to the yec-starlight-problem (i.e., how can the universe be 10,000 years young when it takes light millions of years to get here from a galaxy that is millions of light years away) is the Lisle Hypothesis that light travels at INFINITE speed towards the earth, but at C/2 speed in a direction away from the earth. However, that hypothesis has been FALSIFIED by the empirical evidence. See below.

Dr. Lisle: Peter is off to a bad start, for he has not correctly stated my position; he has committed the straw-man fallacy. He refers to the one-way speed of light being infinite toward an observer as *my hypothesis*. In reality, it is neither mine, nor is it a hypothesis. It is a *synchrony convention*, one that has been used throughout history. A synchrony convention is a defined standard by which we assign coordinates to events in spacetime, just as the metric system allows us to assign quantities to properties such as mass, length, force, and so on. Peter is trying to refute a convention, a bit like arguing that the metric system has been empirically falsified. But since conventions are defined, they cannot be falsified.

Dr. Lisle: I am on record as agreeing with Albert Einstein that 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” (Einstein 1961, p. 23) [emphasis is in the original, underline added]. This was discussed in my original peer-reviewed technical paper on this topic,[1] in my presentations on astronomy,[2] and in detail in my book, The Physics of Einstein. Apparently, Peter felt no need to actually carefully read about my position, nor the rich body of scientific literature that exists on this topic, before posting his claims on the internet. This is why his claims would have never passed peer-review, and would not be published in any scientific journal.

Peter: P2. To show that Lisle’s hypothesis is FALSE, we do NOT need to measure the one-way speed of light. See below.

Dr. Lisle: This repeats Peter’s original straw-man fallacy. I agree with Einstein that the one-way speed of light is not a hypothesis at all, but a stipulation which enables us to define what constitutes synchronized clocks for a given observer. Peter is welcome to disagree with Einstein on this issue, but he needs to be honest and admit that the idea goes back to Einstein and is not something that I invented. Furthermore, in order for Peter to show that the one-way speed of light is non-conventional, he would indeed have to construct some sort of experiment to measure the one-way speed of light, either directly or indirectly, and without tacitly presupposing it. Otherwise, his claim is simply an unsupported assertion.

Peter: P3. Lisle’s hypothesis is that the speed of light is INFINITE towards the earth, but C/2 away from the earth.

Dr. Lisle: Again, this is not a hypothesis, but a synchrony convention – a coordinate system for time-stamping all events in the universe for a given observer. I refer to this as the ASC system. The most popular alternative is the ESC system, in which the one-way speed of light in vacuum is defined to be the same in all directions for any inertial observer. But in the ASC convention, the one-way speed of light is defined to be infinite when directed toward an observer (*not *the earth necessarily), and c/2 when away from the observer. Furthermore, I posted the equation for intermediate directions in my 2010 technical paper, and also in my book on the topic. Namely, the one-way speed of light (c_{θ}) is stipulated to be c_{θ} = c/(1-cos(θ)), where θ = 0 indicates the direction directly toward the observer, and c is the round-trip speed of light. Basically, the equation shows that the closer the angle is to zero, the faster the one-way speed of light. Only light moving *directly* toward an observer has infinite speed. This is vitally important, yet Peter seems ignorant of all this as will be shown below.

Peter: P4. This hypothesis has been FALSIFIED in several different ways. See below.

Dr. Lisle: Since it is a synchrony convention and not a hypothesis, it cannot be falsified any more than the metric system. Peter is unwittingly attempting to refute a coordinate system.

Peter: P5. FIRST. Gravitational lensing of light from a single supernova (Refsdel [sic] supernova in 2014-2015) split the light from the supernova into FIVE different beams of light that all headed towards the earth, however by different paths based on gravitional [sic] lensing. Those paths had different lengths based on the specific directions of the gravitational lensing.

Dr. Lisle: Allow me to explain this with the illustration below. A star exploded in a distant galaxy, briefly becoming very bright – a supernova. That supernova is point A on the diagram. As the light from this supernova (the red line) passed by another galaxy at point B, it was deflected slightly by the gravity of all the stars and mass in this other galaxy (gravitational lensing), and some of that light was then directed toward observers on earth at point C. We observed the event in 2014. The image of the supernova (point D) as seen from earth appeared slightly different from its true location (A), due to the bending of the light by the gravity of the intermediate galaxy. In fact, we observed four separate images of the supernova because the light had taken four different paths of roughly equal length.

Dr. Lisle: However, some of the light from the supernova took a different and *longer* path – shown in blue. This light was bent by the gravity of the galaxy at point E, and then redirected to observers on earth at point C. We observed this light in 2015 – a year after the light beam(s) shown in red. So, we saw the image of the supernova at point F a year after the image(s) at point D.

Peter: IF the speed of light towards earth is infinite, then ALL FIVE of the images of the Supernova should have arrived at Earth at the SAME instant in time.

Dr. Lisle: That is wrong. *Not all* of the light in the diagram is moving *directly* toward the observers on earth. Peter’s claim here reveals that he has not carefully thought through the scenario. We’ll see why below.

Peter: BUT if the speed of light towards earth is NOT infinite, but is rather a FINITE number (like C), then the FIVE images of the supernova should arrive at Earth at DIFFERENT instants in time. [1] EMPIRICALLY, we see that the images (the first four vs the fifth) of the supernova arrived at earth at DIFFERENT instants in time. So, this is EMPIRICAL confirmation that Lisle’s one-way-infinite light-speed hypothesis is FALSE.

Dr. Lisle: Peter’s error here is called the confirmation bias. This is when evidence is taken to support a particular position when the same evidence is equally consistent with the alternative. In other words, contrary to Peter’s claim, *both* ESC and ASC predict that the light from the supernova that takes the longer path will arrive later than the light that takes the shorter path. Here’s why:

Dr. Lisle: Look again at the figure above. Of the four line segments that represent the paths of the light, namely, AB, BC, AE, and EC, which of these paths represent light moving *directly* toward the observers on Earth? *Only* segments BC, and EC. In segments AB and AE, the light is *not* moving directly toward the observers on earth, but is traveling at an angle. Since it is not directly toward the observer, the light along these paths will *not* have infinite speed. Rather, its speed will be determined by the angle, according to the equation I gave above.

Dr. Lisle: The equation shows that the closer the light is to being directly aimed at the observer, the faster it will be. So, of the two initial light beams, AB and AE, which one is aimed closer to the observer? In other words, which angle is smaller, angle BAC or angle EAC? Clearly, angle BAC is smaller. Therefore, the light moving along path AB is faster than the light moving along AE. If you use the actual angles (which are quite small), you will find that ASC predicts that the light along AE will reach point E one year after the light moving along AB reaches point B. The travel time from B to C is zero, and the travel time from E to C is zero. But the travel time from A to E is one year greater than the travel time from A to C. Hence, the observations of the light from the supernova seen in 2014 and 2015 is exactly what ASC predicts.

Peter: P6. SECOND. The wavelength of a photon, lambda*frequency = speed of light. So, if the speed of light (towards earth) is infinite, then for a given frequency, lambda (for a photon coming toward earth) must be infinity.

Dr. Lisle: So far, so good. Infinite speed implies an infinite wavelength.

Peter: However, an infinite lambda is impossible because the physical universe is NOT infinitely large, and because a wave cannot preserve coherence (or local causality) over an infinite distance. Therefore, a photon (coming towards earth) CANNOT travel at infinite speed. And this means that Lisle’s hypothesis is FALSE.

Dr. Lisle: Here, Peter has made several errors. But his main error is based on a false assumption. Namely, he seems to have assumed that in order for a wave to exist, its entire wavelength must fit between the source and destination – which of course an infinite wavelength cannot do in a finite universe. So, he is claiming that the distance between the source and destination of a wave must be less than the wavelength.[3] His assumption is false, and it is very easy to empirically prove that it is false. But let’s first provide some background information in order to better understand what is being claimed.

Dr. Lisle: The wavelength of a wave is defined to be the distance between two consecutive peaks, or two consecutive troughs, (or any two consecutive points of a given slope), at the same time. [Notice that the phrase “at the same time” necessarily requires a synchrony convention. We need to define what constitutes “the same time” for two different locations in space. For this reason, wavelength will necessarily depend on the chosen synchrony convention.] See the corresponding figure.

Dr. Lisle: But we don’t actually need to measure the positions of two peaks at the same time to know the wavelength. If we know the shape of part of a wave, we can easily extrapolate the rest and compute the wavelength. Finally, we could simply measure the speed of the wave and its frequency (how many peaks cross a threshold per unit time), and compute the wavelength without ever measuring the distance between two peaks. This last method is in fact the way we determine the wavelength for virtually all moving waves. Frequency is what we measure; wavelength is then computed.

Dr. Lisle: Peter’s assertion (that a wave cannot exist with infinite wavelength because two consecutive peaks cannot both exist in a finite universe) is based on the false assumption that a wave cannot exist unless two consecutive peaks or troughs exist at the same time. That is, he is essentially claiming that a partial wave cannot exist – that a wave cannot have a wavelength that is longer than the distance between the source and the destination. You can easily disprove this in your own home using sound waves. The speed of sound is around 340 meters per second. The frequency of sound depends on pitch, so let’s use middle C on a piano which has a frequency of 261.6255 hertz. So, if you are listening to music, a typical frequency will be around 262 hertz, which means the wavelength will be 1.2 meters. So, if you are sitting on your couch, 2.4 meters (7.9 feet) away from the radio, you are two wavelengths away from the source.

Dr. Lisle: Therefore, if you are less than 1.2 meters (3.9 feet), you are less than one wavelength from the source. See the figure below.[4] And so the wave is destroyed when it enters your ear before a complete wavelength can form. According to Peter, a wave cannot exist if the distance between source and destination is less than the wavelength. Therefore, if Peter is correct, you will not be able to hear music coming from a radio if you are less than 3.9 feet away from it. But of course, you can. Headphones would not work if Peter’s assertion were correct because the distance between the source and destination is only a tiny fraction of a wavelength.

Peter: P7. THIRD. The energy of a photon is given by E = h*f (where f is the frequency of the photon, and h is Planck’s constant). And L*f = C (where L is the wavelength of the photon, and C is the speed of light). So, if a photon is coming towards earth, and its wavelength is a finite quantity (as is needed for a finite universe, and is also needed for Local causality) then the only way that C can be infinite (coming towards earth) is if the frequency f is infinite. However, if “f” is infinite, then the energy of the photon (E = h*f) will be infinite. That means that a Single Photon coming toward the earth from a star (or the sun) would have INFINITE Energy. And that means that Single Photon would BLOW up the earth as soon as it hits the earth. … But as we can see that has not happened. Therefore, this is EMPIRICAL FALSIFICATION of Lisle’s hypothesis that the speed of light toward earth is infinite.

Dr. Lisle: Peter’s error here follows from his previous error of assuming that a wavelength cannot be infinite. But in fact, under ASC, the wavelength of incoming light is indeed infinite. Furthermore, Peter has falsely assumed that frequency is affected by synchrony convention. It isn’t. Frequency is defined as the number of peaks (or troughs) that pass a point in space per unit time. Since no other locations in space are involved, the detected frequency from a stationary observer cannot be affected by synchrony convention because the latter concerns what constitutes synchronized clocks at two *different* locations. Therefore, the frequency and energy of photons is unchanged under a synchrony convention conversion. Only wavelength is affected.

Peter: P8. FOURTH. The speed of light is a direct consequence of Maxwell’s equations that show that the propagation of an electromagnetic wave is the result of oscillation between an electric field and a magnetic field in each wave segment (or wave packet). And the speed of such a wave is related to the electrical permittivity (epsilon-zero) and the magnetic permeability (mu-zero) of space by the expression C = 1/SQRT(epsilonZero * muZero).

Dr. Lisle: So far so good. Although, if Peter understood the physics of Maxwell’s equations, he would know that they can only determine the round-trip speed of light, not the one-way speed as we will see below.

Peter: So, if the speed of light is different in different directions in space, then epsilonZero or MuZero must be different in different directions of space.

Dr. Lisle: This is wrong. The permittivity and permeability are scalar quantities, meaning they do not have directionality. Since the derivation of the speed of light from Maxwell’s equations involves integrating over a closed path, it can only determine the round-trip speed of light. *Closed integrals* are mathematical operations that involve summing quantities over a *round-trip*. Hence, the concept of a round-trip journey is built into Maxwell’s equations

Peter: However, experimental measurements show that these quantities are the SAME in all directions in space.

Dr. Lisle: I have to point out that Peter’s comment here makes no sense from a physics perspective. The electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of free space are scalar quantities. They do not have directionality, and so it makes no sense to say they are the “same in all directions in space.”

Peter: So, that means that the speed of light CANNOT be different in different directions of space. So, the speed of light towards earth CANNOT be infinite while being C/2 away from earth. Therefore, this is EMPIRICAL evidence that Lisle’s Hypothesis is FALSE.

Dr. Lisle: Peter’s claim was refuted back in 1978 by Dr. Carlo Giannoni. Giannoni derived the full differential form of Maxwell’s equations without one-way velocity assumptions. He demonstrated that they do indeed allow for a non-isotropic one-way speed of light in free space. (See Giannoni, C., Relativistic Mechanics and Electrodynamics without One-Way Velocity Assumptions, *Philosophy of Science*, Vol 45. 1, March, 1978, pp. 17-46). By the way, there are certain crystals in which the speed of light depends on polarization and/or direction. No knowledgeable physicist would claim that these violate Maxwell’s equations. Hence, Maxwell’s equations do allow for a non-isotropic one-way speed of light. Einstein was well aware of Maxwell’s equations and their implications. But Einstein never used these as an argument for a one-way speed of light. He knew that the one-way speed of light was stipulated rather than derived.

Peter: P9. FIFTH. If the speed of light changes, the wavelength of the wave changes. If the speed of light goes up, the wave becomes red-shifted. And if the speed of light goes down, the wave becomes blue-shifted.

Dr. Lisle: This too is wrong, and we can easily prove that it is wrong. A wave becomes redshifted if and only if its *frequency* drops. A wave becomes blueshifted if and only if its *frequency *increases. And recall from above that synchrony conventions *do not affect the frequency of any wave*. Therefore, redshifts and blueshifts will be identical for a given beam of light under ASC or ESC for any stationary observer.

Dr. Lisle: You can easily refute Peter’s claim by an experiment. The speed of light in water is only 75% of its speed in vacuum. So, when light passes into water, its speed drops, and therefore its wavelength is reduced to 75% of the original. According to Peter, the light will be blueshifted. So, the next time you go swimming, when you are underwater, take a look directly overhead and see if all the colors have shifted blueward. In fact, if Peter were correct, then you should be able to see infrared light underwater since it will have been blueshifted into our visual range. But of course, this does not happen.

Peter: If the speed of light towards earth is infinite, then light coming from the sun (or stars) must become infinitely Blue-Shifted… This means they would ALL become Gamma rays (at worst) and there would be NO visible light coming to the earth from the sun or the stars. However, this is NOT what we observe. We DO see visible light coming to us from the stars and the sun. Therefore, this is EMPIRICAL evidence that Lisle’s Hypothesis is FALSE.

Dr. Lisle: In reality, redshift and blueshift are a function of a change in the light’s frequency between source and observer, *not *wavelength. When light travels through a substance, its speed changes, but its frequency remains unaffected and therefore it is not redshifted or blueshifted. Hence, light has exactly the same frequency when measured under ASC as when measured under ESC, and so Peter’s claim is easily refuted.

Peter: P10. SIXTH. Energy-level differences in atoms depend on constants such as the electrical permittivity and the magnetic permeability. Those energy-level differences are what determine the locations and the spreads-between emission and absorption lines in optical spectra of (or from) various elements. We can look at the optical spectra from the sun and the stars. If the speed of light were infinite towards the earth, then the photons emitted towards the earth by atoms in the stars (or the sun) must show changes in electrical-permittivity and magnetic-permeability consistent with an infinite speed of light (since speed of light is equal to 1/SQRT(permittivity * permeability). So, we should see these changes in the optical spectra that we observe for light coming from the stars towards the earth. However we do NOT see such spectral changes that would indicate an infinite light-speed towards earth. Therefore, this is EMPIRICAL evidence that Lisle’s Hypothesis is FALSE.

Dr. Lisle: Peter’s mistakes here stem from his previous errors in thinking that the electromagnetic permittivity and permeability of free space somehow affect the one-way speed of light. But as Dr. Carlo Giannoni demonstrated in 1978, that is wrong. The energy levels in atoms do depend on the electromagnetic constants, and these constants determine the round-trip speed of light. But as Einstein pointed out, the one-way speed of light is a purely conventional stipulation.

Peter: P11. SEVENTH. We can set up a modified Michaelson-Morley interferometry (MMI) experiment that can pick up differences in light speed in directions parallel to the surface of the earth, vs perpendicular to the surface of the earth. However, NO such MMI experiment has ever shown a difference in light speed parallel-to versus perpendicular-to the surface of the earth. [An example modified MMI. Path = A-B-C. Leg one = AB. Leg two = ACB. Adjust the path lengths to obtain constructive interference with the MMI horizontal. Now gradually tilt the MMI to varying degrees with respect to the horizontal, all the way up to vertical. IF the speed of light perpendicular to the earth surface is DIFFERENT from the speed of light parallel to the earth’s surface, then the MMI should move in and out of constructive interference in a pattern that matches the difference in speed of light between parallel and perpendicular orientations.] Therefore, this is EMPIRICAL evidence that Lisle’s Hypothesis is FALSE.

Dr. Lisle: This is another error of confirmation bias, and a really obvious one. Peter proposes comparing the round-trip speed of light in two orthogonal directions, and showing it to be the same. But ASC requires the round-trip speed of light to be the same in all directions. Only the one-way speed is stipulated to be non-isotropic. So the fact that light takes the same time to travel a round trip A to B to A in the north-south direction as it takes to travel a round trip C to D to C in the east-west direction is a prediction of both ASC and ESC. Both conventions accept that the round-trip speed of light in vacuum is c, regardless of the path.

Peter: P12. EIGHTH. If Lisle’s hypothesis is true, we are seeing EVERY part of the universe (stars, galaxies etc) JUST as they are at this very moment of time (since the speed of light is infinite towards us according to Lisle’s hypothesis).

Dr. Lisle: Here, Peter seems to unwittingly switch from critiquing the anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC) to the anisotropic synchrony model (ASM). The former is a stipulated convention which allows us to define what constitutes synchronized clocks at separation locations. The latter is a model based on the falsifiable claim that the Bible uses the anisotropic synchrony convention when describing events, and that the universe is therefore approximately 6000 years old as measured by clocks synchronized by ASC. By ASC, we definitely are seeing the universe in real-time – by definition. If ASM is true, then the universe we see has aged about 6000 years since creation, with the very distant regions aging a bit less. Peter seems to be confused about this crucial difference.

Peter: If this is the case, then there would be NO reason to expect a systematic appearance of YOUNGER age the further out we look in the universe. All of the galaxies should look the same (or similar in distribution of morphology and behavior) all the way from near us to the most distant galaxies. However, this is NOT what we observe. When we look out into the universe, we see a greater Appearance of Age (of stars and galaxies) NEAR us, compared to stars/galaxies that are 5-10-14 billion light years from us. More DISTANT galaxies appear YOUNGER.

Dr. Lisle: Peter has made *many* mistakes here. Students of logic will readily recognize Peter’s error of the reification fallacy. The phrase “appearance of age” is always an example of reification because age does not literally have appearance. Age is a concept of history; the time between the beginning of an object and now. You cannot literally see age.

Dr. Lisle: People often make this mistake because it is perfectly acceptable to use figures of speech like reification in non-scientific, informal communication, when not making a logical argument. We might say that a person “looks young for his age.” But we are being non-literal, because age cannot be seen. What then do we mean by such a figure of speech? We mean that a person has physical, observable characteristics that are *typical* of a younger person. But we are not seeing *age*; rather, we are seeing *physical traits* that are often associated with a particular range of ages. But how do we know what physical traits are typical of a given age? The only way we can know this is to have observed lots of people whose age we know either because we saw them born or we have documentation of their birth (such as a birth certificate, or their verbal attestation).

Dr. Lisle: But would this apply to galaxies? No mortal man has seen a galaxy born. Do we have historical documentation of their birth? There is only one eye-witness record of the creation of galaxies – the Bible. And the Bible teaches that the stars which comprise galaxies were made on day 4 of the creation week. There is no historical eye-witness testimony that would document ages of galaxies at millions of years. Hence, it is a reification fallacy to claim that galaxies “look” different ages as part of an argument. They simply look the way they look.

Dr. Lisle: Also, Peter has again committed the straw-man fallacy, and demonstrated that he has not studied this issue in any depth at all. He claims that in the ASC model, “there would be NO reason to expect a systematic appearance of YOUNGER age the further out we look in the universe.” But in my technical paper, I state the opposite. This is explained in footnote 9. Namely, in the ASC model, galaxies at extreme distances from earth will have aged *less* than 6000 years due to relativistic effects. Hence, if galaxies age in a systematic way, and assuming their morphology at creation is not a function of distance, then we would expect to see slight systematic differences between nearby galaxies and galaxies at extreme distance.

Dr. Lisle: Peter has also made the unfounded assumption that any difference between nearby galaxies and distant galaxies is due to differential aging. But how could anyone possibly know this? Perhaps God created galaxies with systematic differences depending on their distance from our local group. Not every sequence is a time-sequence.

Peter: They do NOT look the same in morphology and behavior as those that are closer to us. So that observation is consistent with the galaxies that are further from us (nearer the periphery of the observable universe) being actually YOUNGER when they emitted the light that we are now seeing. So, this is another Empirical Evidence that Lisle’s hypothesis is False.

Dr. Lisle: Here Peter has committed the fallacy of the confirmation bias – claiming that evidence supports one model when it equally well supports the alternative. Namely, Peter has claimed that the observed slight systematic differences in morphology between near and distant galaxies is consistent with the standard secular model, and he thinks this refutes the ASC model. But had he bothered to study the ASC model he would have found that it makes the same prediction.

Peter: P13. NINTH. If Lisle’s hypothesis is correct, and the speed of light is infinite, then the rate of transfer of energy from stars towards the earth should be infinite (once the photons are emitted by the stars).

Dr. Lisle: This is wrong. The rate of energy transfer (the joules per second) received by the observer depends only on the number of photons received per unit time and their frequency, neither of which is affected by synchrony conventions. The speed of those photons is utterly irrelevant. Peter is confusing velocity with power.

Dr. Lisle: For example, a distant source can emit X number of photons per second toward an observer. If the observer is stationary relative to the source, then he can only receive X number of photons per second from that source. How long it takes the photons to get from the source to the observer is utterly irrelevant. If they arrive instantly, he observes X photons per second. If they take a thousand years, he observes X photons per second. The energy transferred per unit time is the same, and is hence unaffected by synchrony conventions or one-way velocities.

Peter: This means that every part of the night sky should be at the same temperature as the surface of a star (because the density of stars and galaxies in the night sky is high enough that no matter what direction you look in the night sky, that direction will intersect a star or galaxy).

Dr. Lisle: Peter’s claim here does not follow logically even from his own stated premises. His comments here seem to reflect a misunderstanding of Olbers’ Paradox. The only way his conclusion could follow is if several unstated assumptions were true. For example, Peter would have to assume that (1) the visible universe contains an infinite number of stars, and (2) that the luminosity of the universe as a function of distance falls off slower than 1/r^a, where a is greater than 1.

Dr. Lisle: But of course, no one other than God knows whether those two assumptions are true. The number of stars in the visible universe may well be finite, in which case Peter’s claim (that “no matter what direction you look in the night sky, that direction will intersect a star or galaxy”) is false. Furthermore, even if the universe contained an infinite number of stars, the night sky would still be dark if the total luminosity of all stars in a given spherical shell of distance r and thickness dr falls off faster than 1/r^a, where a is greater than 1. The integral of 1/r^a from r_{0} to infinity is *finite* for any power (a) that is greater than 1.

Peter: That means that IF Lisle’s hypothesis is correct, the entire night sky should be as bright as the surface of the sun (since the sun is an average star in terms of surface temperature). However, the Night Sky is Dark and NOT as bright as the surface of the sun. Therefore, this is EMPIRICAL evidence that Lisle’s Hypothesis is FALSE.

Dr. Lisle: So, Peter’s claim turns out to be another straw-man fallacy. The ASC model predicts a dark night sky, which is what is observed.

Peter: CONCLUSION C1. Lisle’s One-Way-Light Hypothesis has been Empirically Falsified.

Dr. Lisle: Since none of Peter’s premises/assertions are true, his argument is unsound. Conclusion: don’t put much stock in non-peer-reviewed internet claims, particularly when made by people uneducated on the topic. If you would like to become educated on this topic, I recommend reading some papers on the “conventionality thesis.” Many scientists in the 20^{th} century have defended the conventionality thesis (and a few have unsuccessfully challenged it) – the fact that the one-way speed of light is conventional and cannot be measured without tacitly assuming it in advance. Einstein himself briefly defended the thesis in his primer on relativity. My book “The Physics of Einstein” has several chapters on the issue. Also, the book “Concepts of Simulteneity From Antiquity to Einstein and Beyond” by M. Jammer provides a fairly detailed summary of the technical literature on the topic.

[1] Lisle, J., Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem, Answers Research Journal, Vol 3, pp. 191-207, Sept. 2010. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/anisotropic-synchrony-convention-distant-starlight-problem/

[2] Lisle, J. Astronomy Reveals Creation.

[3] Peter has also assumed that the physical universe is not infinite in extent. This is an unproved assumption.

[4] In this figure we have represented the sound waves as transverse for the sake of clarity. Sound waves are actually compressional, which is harder to illustrate. But the point remains the same: a wave need not have a complete wavelength in order to exist. Light waves are transverse.