A Refutation of Phillip Dennis’s Claims Regarding Alleged Inconsistencies in ASC

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.

Distant Starlight in a Young Universe: Rømer, Maxwell, and Occam

We may freely stipulate the speed of light in any one direction to be anything between ½c and infinity, and the return-trip speed is set by the constraint that the average speed of light must always be exactly c in vacuum (186,282.397 miles per second). We here explore additional objections to the conventionality thesis. These have all been refuted in the technical literature within the past century. But few people have access to such literature, and so a review is expedient.

Distant Starlight in a Young Universe: Concepts of Simultaneity

We previously introduced this distant starlight issue and then examined potential solutions and their difficulties. We now move toward a solution to the issue. This solution is surprisingly straightforward, but will require some discussion of the nature of space and time as we now understand them. To that end, we will here investigate the concept of simultaneity and how this concept has developed over time.

Distant Starlight in a Young Universe: Attempted Solutions

In this article we will continue to explore additional proposed solutions to distant starlight. Creation astronomers and physicists do not currently have a consensus position on the solution to this perceived problem. Some creationists are bothered by this fact, but it is the nature of science that we don’t know everything and therefore we make hypotheses to be tested. Furthermore, science advances only when multiple models are presented and then systematically eliminated on the basis of observations until only the most probable model remains. In this spirit, I will here present some of the positions held by creation scientists, along with the strengths and weaknesses of such proposals.