The failure of Jason Lisle's ASC paradigm


#1

I have decided to go public with this information. My purpose is to make what I believe to be the truth available to anyone who has been interested in the topic of Jason Lisle’s Anisotropic Synchrony Convention. Comments on topic are welcome.

Lisle’s ASC paradigm is multiverse

Jason Lisle presented his formal ASC cosmology nine years ago. [Lisle 2010] In it, he rightly declares that under the conventionality thesis “both ASC and Einstein synchronization [ESC] are legitimate synchrony conventions”. Special relativity demands it. This means that the universe he constructs must accommodate both conventional views. Except, it does not.

The problem becomes abundantly clear when Lisle moves the discussion from ASC synchrony to what he calls his ASC model.

Since the ASC model has the stars being made on the fourth day of the Creation Week, and since light travel-time is zero under the selected synchrony convention …the universe appears at all distances as it is now, having aged an equal amount everywhere. Therefore, when we look at any region of the universe, we are seeing it at an age of roughly 6,000 years.

By this statement and the ensuing discussion, Lisle makes it clear that he actually believes light’s one-way speed to Earth from distant galaxies is infinite. Of course, that is his prerogative, but what he fails to recognize is that in so stipulating, his young universe now violates the conventionality thesis because it preempts a conversion to Einstein synchrony. The only way he can convert to ESC is to invoke a completely new and different universe - one that predates his ASC universe by billions of years. This he does in his seminal paper. [Newton 2001]

In fact, Lisle cannot convert his young ASC universe to any synchrony convention without invoking a new universe each time in the process. This can only mean that in order for Lisle to appear literate in relativity and to uphold the conventionality thesis he must invoke infinite universes – a multiverse – each specifically designed for conversion to the infinite range of synchrony conventions available.

Lisle’s conversion from ASC to ESC evokes points of interest. First, one notes that ASC and ESC are two extremes in an infinite range of synchrony conventions, and that by validating both extremes, Lisle has necessarily validated infinite universes. Second, since he sees indication of youth in his ASC universe and, apparently, great age in the ESC universe, the important question becomes, how much in common can we assume from both systems – and, by extension, from all infinite universes? Third, since both his ASC and ESC universes seem to be centered on Earth, does that make the earth some kind of ‘portal’ to the multiverse? Fourth, to evolutionists and Bible-illiterates, could that idea provide impetus to their view that Earth is being visited by alien life?

Indeed, Lisle’s young-universe spin on the conventionality of simultaneity may have rewarded him with unexpected surprises. A distinction between common practice in physics and Lisle’s approach to physics serves to illustrate how this may have happened. For example, it is instructive to note that ESC’ers who must accommodate ASC do not experience the trouble visited upon ASC’ers trying to accommodate ESC. Physics properly applied, the common approach, is that equal accommodation is made for all conversions to all synchrony conventions only in an old universe that is single.

Specifically, Lisle has ignored the two-way speed of light in his construct. The actual uni -verse we observe and reside in is based on the constancy of a two-way light speed that always returns a single value c. Hence, it is also necessarily quite old. By constructing his young universe solely on the one-way speed of light – which by convention can hold infinite values – Lisle has fragmented the universe into infinite universes, hoping to find evidence that we are in the youngest one.

Here, two critical observations are in order. First, if Lisle denies that his paradigm is multiverse, then it is falsified. Since, on its own, his young ASC universe violates the conventionality thesis, infinite supplemental universes are required to bring it into physical conformity. Hence, no multiverse, no model. Second, if Lisle subsumes his multiverse under the universe proper, he concedes an ancient universe. In subsumption, the unique ‘sum’ of Lisle’s infinite universes would render a single physical system the age of its oldest member universe, ESC – around 13 billion years. As such, he could still claim – that is, in a purely phenomenological sense – that the Creation clock did not start until 13 billion years after God created the galaxies. However, his claim would not change the actual physical age of the universe.

Have creationists finally found their long-sought-after young universe? To ask Lisle, one would think so. But at what cost? If Lisle has stumbled onto a multiverse, it would arguably be the biggest self-own in the 60-year history of creation science.

Lisle, J.P. 2010. Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A solution to the distant starlight problem. Answers Research Journal 2:191–207.

Newton, R. 2001. Distant starlight and Genesis: Conventions of time measurement. TJ 15, no. 1:80–85


(Matthew Pevarnik) #2

Thanks for posting. It’s been a while I think!

Makes sense that this is a logical conclusion of ASC applied to our universe.

I assumed he would think that. I’m not sure how to think or evaluate what you say next but it is interesting. To be honest, I think if you reposted this over at Peaceful Science you might get a more technical reply as there are a few astrophysicists that could discuss this in more detail than I think you could get here: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/one-and-two-way-speed-of-light/3919

Would this be like a many-worlds type of multiverse? I personally at least consider that to be different than how I typically think of the multiverse landscape from string theorists but haven’t done much thinking on it.


(system) closed #3

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.