by Dr. Jason Lisle | Nov 7, 2025 | Physics, Refuting the Critics
We have been analyzing the claims of Phillip Dennis and his criticism of the ASC model. In particular, Dennis claims to have refuted the conventionality thesis – Einstein’s claim 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” [emphasis in original] (Einstein 1916). Conversely, Dennis claims that Einstein is wrong and that the one-way speed of light is necessarily the same as the round-trip speed of light: c = 186,282.397 miles per second in vacuum. However, we have already shown that Dennis’s previous attempts to prove this were fallacious because they begged the question. That is, Dennis had used equations that tacitly assume the one-way speed of light. In his latest article, Dennis claims that the one-way speed of light has been empirically measured in two independent experiments. We will examine the first of these here. We will again show that Dennis has once again begged the question. That is, he unwittingly assumed the one-way speed of light is isotropic in his argument.
by Dr. Jason Lisle | Oct 24, 2025 | Apologetics, Physics, Refuting the Critics
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.
by Dr. Jason Lisle | Sep 26, 2025 | Astronomy, Physics, Refuting the Critics
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.
by Dr. Jason Lisle | Jun 6, 2025 | Uncategorized
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. It is the lightest element, consisting of one proton encircled by one electron. About 91% of the atoms in the universe are hydrogen. Helium is the next most abundant. It is the second-lightest element, consisting of two protons and two neutrons in the nucleus, encircled by two electrons. Helium constitutes just under 9% of the atoms in the universe. All the remaining elements combined constitute less than 1%. Astronomers refer to these heavier elements as metals. In astronomy, a metal is any element with an atomic number higher than 2. Note that this is different from the definition used by chemists. In astronomy metals include elements like oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon. Metals pose a serious challenge for advocates of the big bang and secular models of galaxy evolution. But they are a feature and natural expectation of biblical creation.
by Dr. Jason Lisle | Jul 13, 2024 | Physics, Refuting the Critics
Did Phillip Dennis actually disprove the conventionality thesis (Dennis 2024)? Did he really prove at long last what physicists over the last century have been unable to do – to establish that the one-way speed of light in any given direction must be the same as the round-trip speed of light? Did he find any genuine inconsistency with the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) and the young universe model upon which it is based? Well, no to all of the above…. We show below that when the full synchrony-independent equations are used, they do not support Dennis’s conclusion but rather the opposite. Furthermore, we will demonstrate several critical errors in Dennis’s analysis and show that several of his claims are incompatible with the physics of relativity.
