## comments on Jason Lisle's cosmology

Expand Messages
• Baty commented about Jason Lisle s proposed cosmological model. Here are some comments I ve made on other lists as I m seeking input from others who
Message 1 of 6 , Mar 4, 2011
Baty commented about Jason Lisle's proposed cosmological model. Here are some comments I've made on other lists as I'm seeking input from others who understand the physics better than I.

#### Begin crosspost #####

OK.... I've had a bit of time to try reading Lisle's proposal. While some of it is over my head, it looks like a rehash of his "dual speed" model for light in which light travels toward an observer at infinite speed and away from the source at half of "c." Since our measurements of the speed of light are based on "round-trip" values, this would give the accepted speed of light while resolving the YEC light travel time problem.

As I see it, there are three major issues here:
1) It creates a paradox in which light reaches an observer at two different times. For example, if we have 18.6 miles between the source and observer, light would reach the observer 0.0002 seconds after being sent (as measured by the source) and at the instant it is sent (as measured by the observer).

2) Lisle claims his model can't be tested. In his discussion, he uses two stations "A" and "B." He discusses why it is impossible to synchronize the clocks of those two stations. For example, if one of them is moved, that will change the rate of time passage for the moving station. Unfortunately, the change in time due to motion over such a (relatively) short distance would be insignificant compared to the time required for the light to travel based on the accepted value of "c." It took me only a few seconds to come up with a solution to the synchronization issue. Simply place a third station "C" halfway between stations "A" and "B." Send a pulse from C to A and B. Under either the generally accepted model and Lisle's proposal the pulse would reach both A and B at the same time and their clocks would be synchronized. It would then be a simple matter to send a pulse from either station to the other and test Lisle's proposal. Alternatively, one can send a synchronization pulse from A to B. If Lisle is correct, both stations would then have the same time. You could then send a pulse from B to A which should have no delay as measured at A.

3) Perhaps most importantly..... GPS relies on the time delay of signals sent from satellites to receivers to calculate position. If there is no time delay, the GPS system wouldn't work. The very fact that GPS works speaks strongly against Lisle's model.

(I'm sending this to a couple other lists to see what kind of feedback I get on this.)

-----Original Message-----
From: PIASAN@...
Creationist physicist Jason Lisle claims to have come up with a solution to the
YEC light travel time problem.

It's on line at:

Dave, if you have time, could you look at this one and let us know what you
think?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Another observation about this is the manner in which people such as Jason Lisle operate. It s the typical crackpot/young earth creationist method. They spout
Message 2 of 6 , Mar 5, 2011
Another observation about this is the manner in which people such as Jason Lisle operate. It's the typical crackpot/young earth creationist method. They spout out things they've made up without even attempting to actually deal with people in the scientific community who have training and demonstrated professional expertise in the subject. (Indeed, in the case of young earth creationist, it is their deliberate intention to ignore people in the scientific community who have training and demonstrated professional expertise in the relevant subjects.) Thus, they make stuff up in a vacuum and get no critical feedback. They don't even get to the point of writing a research article (even a theoretical research article) meeting even the basic standards of professional science, because they refuse to even discuss their ideas with scientists.

And THEN they publish this stuff for the ignorant sheep.

And THEN the ignorant sheep eat it up - for no reasons whatsoever having anything to do with any actual science.

- Todd Greene

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
>
>
> Baty commented about Jason Lisle's proposed cosmological model. Here are some comments I've made on other lists as I'm seeking input from others who understand the physics better than I.
>
> #### Begin crosspost #####
>
>
> OK.... I've had a bit of time to try reading Lisle's proposal. While some of it is over my head, it looks like a rehash of his "dual speed" model for light in which light travels toward an observer at infinite speed and away from the source at half of "c." Since our measurements of the speed of light are based on "round-trip" values, this would give the accepted speed of light while resolving the YEC light travel time problem.
>
> As I see it, there are three major issues here:
> 1) It creates a paradox in which light reaches an observer at two different times. For example, if we have 18.6 miles between the source and observer, light would reach the observer 0.0002 seconds after being sent (as measured by the source) and at the instant it is sent (as measured by the observer).
>
> 2) Lisle claims his model can't be tested. In his discussion, he uses two stations "A" and "B." He discusses why it is impossible to synchronize the clocks of those two stations. For example, if one of them is moved, that will change the rate of time passage for the moving station. Unfortunately, the change in time due to motion over such a (relatively) short distance would be insignificant compared to the time required for the light to travel based on the accepted value of "c." It took me only a few seconds to come up with a solution to the synchronization issue. Simply place a third station "C" halfway between stations "A" and "B." Send a pulse from C to A and B. Under either the generally accepted model and Lisle's proposal the pulse would reach both A and B at the same time and their clocks would be synchronized. It would then be a simple matter to send a pulse from either station to the other and test Lisle's proposal. Alternatively, one can send a synchronization pulse from A to B. If Lisle is correct, both stations would then have the same time. You could then send a pulse from B to A which should have no delay as measured at A.
>
> 3) Perhaps most importantly..... GPS relies on the time delay of signals sent from satellites to receivers to calculate position. If there is no time delay, the GPS system wouldn't work. The very fact that GPS works speaks strongly against Lisle's model.
>
> (I'm sending this to a couple other lists to see what kind of feedback I get on this.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PIASAN@...
> Creationist physicist Jason Lisle claims to have come up with a solution to the
> YEC light travel time problem.
>
> It's on line at:
>
> Dave, if you have time, could you look at this one and let us know what you
> think?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
• ... http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v3/anisotropic_synchrony_convention.pdf ... In the referenced article, it appears Jason is proposing that
Message 3 of 6 , Mar 5, 2011
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:

> Creationist physicist Jason Lisle claims to
> have come up with a solution to the YEC light
> travel time problem.
>
> It's on line at:

While it might take awhile to digest the technical details of that article, it seems to me that Jason is further confirming my fundamental claims regarding why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters like him have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges:

> They have their interpretation of the text
> regarding the real world and that trumps
> any real world evidence to the contrary.

In the referenced article, it appears Jason is proposing that we can't really determine the age of anything and that he starts with his interpretation of the Bible without considering that his interpretation might be subejct to falsification with referenced to the non-textual evidence of age.

In support of my opinion about that, I note that Jason writes:

> We here explore a way in which light from
> distant galaxies can reach earth within the
> biblical timescale.
>
> According to the Bible, everything in the
> universe was made in the span of six days
> (Exodus 20:11); these are clearly ordinary
> earth rotation days...
>
> Moreover, this creation happened a few
> thousand (roughly 6,000) years ago...
>
> The clear biblical teaching therefore is
> that everything in the universe is a few
> thousand years old.
>
> (M)ature creation: the idea that God created
> the universe fully functional from the start,
> and that the universe required no time or
> process to become what God wanted it to be.
>
> Mature creation is sometimes inappropriately
> referred to as "appearance of age"; however the
> latter term fallaciously implies that age can
> be seen or otherwise empirically measured.
>
> Strictly speaking, something cannot appear old
> or young, because age is not an observational
> property.
>
> Age is a concept indicative of history, which
> cannot be observed in the present.
>
> When someone says he believes the universe
> "looks old," this simply reveals something
> about the initial conditions he has
>
> Thus, the universe was not created with
> "appearance of age," but it was created
> matureÂ—in the sense that it functioned
> immediately upon God's creating it.
>
>> Jason Lisle
• In fairness..... Jason Lisle does have a physics PhD. To me, the fact he ignores such obvious issues with his model is simply a reflection of his dedication
Message 4 of 6 , Mar 5, 2011
In fairness..... Jason Lisle does have a physics PhD. To me, the fact he ignores such obvious issues with his model is simply a reflection of his dedication to a literal Genesis and AIG's "statement of faith."

To his credit, Lisle does reject "apparent age" citing pretty much exactly the same reasons I have pointed out many times to Willis, Benton, and Macdonald.

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 6:15 am
Subject: [M & B] Re: comments on Jason Lisle's cosmology

perate. It's the typical crackpot/young earth creationist method. They spout
ut things they've made up without even attempting to actually deal with people
n the scientific community who have training and demonstrated professional
xpertise in the subject. (Indeed, in the case of young earth creationist, it is
heir deliberate intention to ignore people in the scientific community who have
raining and demonstrated professional expertise in the relevant subjects.)
hus, they make stuff up in a vacuum and get no critical feedback. They don't
ven get to the point of writing a research article (even a theoretical research
rticle) meeting even the basic standards of professional science, because they
efuse to even discuss their ideas with scientists.
And THEN they publish this stuff for the ignorant sheep.
And THEN the ignorant sheep eat it up - for no reasons whatsoever having
nything to do with any actual science.
- Todd Greene

-- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:

Baty commented about Jason Lisle's proposed cosmological model. Here are some
omments I've made on other lists as I'm seeking input from others who
nderstand the physics better than I.

#### Begin crosspost #####

OK.... I've had a bit of time to try reading Lisle's proposal. While some of
t is over my head, it looks like a rehash of his "dual speed" model for light
n which light travels toward an observer at infinite speed and away from the
ource at half of "c." Since our measurements of the speed of light are based
n "round-trip" values, this would give the accepted speed of light while
esolving the YEC light travel time problem.

As I see it, there are three major issues here:
1) It creates a paradox in which light reaches an observer at two different
imes. For example, if we have 18.6 miles between the source and observer,
ight would reach the observer 0.0002 seconds after being sent (as measured by
he source) and at the instant it is sent (as measured by the observer).

2) Lisle claims his model can't be tested. In his discussion, he uses two
tations "A" and "B." He discusses why it is impossible to synchronize the
locks of those two stations. For example, if one of them is moved, that will
hange the rate of time passage for the moving station. Unfortunately, the
hange in time due to motion over such a (relatively) short distance would be
nsignificant compared to the time required for the light to travel based on the
ccepted value of "c." It took me only a few seconds to come up with a solution
o the synchronization issue. Simply place a third station "C" halfway between
tations "A" and "B." Send a pulse from C to A and B. Under either the
enerally accepted model and Lisle's proposal the pulse would reach both A and B
t the same time and their clocks would be synchronized. It would then be a
imple matter to send a pulse from either station to the other and test Lisle's
roposal. Alternatively, one can send a synchroni
zation pulse from A to B. If Lisle is correct, both stations would then have
he same time. You could then send a pulse from B to A which should have no
elay as measured at A.

3) Perhaps most importantly..... GPS relies on the time delay of signals
ent from satellites to receivers to calculate position. If there is no time
elay, the GPS system wouldn't work. The very fact that GPS works speaks
trongly against Lisle's model.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• There s no fairness about it at all. Since the guy completely ignores dealing with other physicists his Ph.D. in physics is meaningless. The fact that he did
Message 5 of 6 , Mar 5, 2011
There's no fairness about it at all. Since the guy completely ignores dealing with other physicists his Ph.D. in physics is meaningless. The fact that he did correct work to earn his Ph.D. doesn't mean he's doing science now. A snake oil salesman with a Ph.D. who ignores dealing with professional peers simply means he knows how to pile the manure higher and deeper with people who don't know better.

- Todd Greene

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
>
>
> In fairness..... Jason Lisle does have a physics PhD. To me, the fact he ignores such obvious issues with his model is simply a reflection of his dedication to a literal Genesis and AIG's "statement of faith."
>
> To his credit, Lisle does reject "apparent age" citing pretty much exactly the same reasons I have pointed out many times to Willis, Benton, and Macdonald.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
> To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 6:15 am
> Subject: [M & B] Re: comments on Jason Lisle's cosmology
>
>
> perate. It's the typical crackpot/young earth creationist method. They spout
> ut things they've made up without even attempting to actually deal with people
> n the scientific community who have training and demonstrated professional
> xpertise in the subject. (Indeed, in the case of young earth creationist, it is
> heir deliberate intention to ignore people in the scientific community who have
> raining and demonstrated professional expertise in the relevant subjects.)
> hus, they make stuff up in a vacuum and get no critical feedback. They don't
> ven get to the point of writing a research article (even a theoretical research
> rticle) meeting even the basic standards of professional science, because they
> efuse to even discuss their ideas with scientists.
> And THEN they publish this stuff for the ignorant sheep.
> And THEN the ignorant sheep eat it up - for no reasons whatsoever having
> nything to do with any actual science.
> - Todd Greene
>
> -- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@ wrote:
>
>
> Baty commented about Jason Lisle's proposed cosmological model. Here are some
> omments I've made on other lists as I'm seeking input from others who
> nderstand the physics better than I.
>
> #### Begin crosspost #####
>
>
> OK.... I've had a bit of time to try reading Lisle's proposal. While some of
> t is over my head, it looks like a rehash of his "dual speed" model for light
> n which light travels toward an observer at infinite speed and away from the
> ource at half of "c." Since our measurements of the speed of light are based
> n "round-trip" values, this would give the accepted speed of light while
> esolving the YEC light travel time problem.
>
> As I see it, there are three major issues here:
> 1) It creates a paradox in which light reaches an observer at two different
> imes. For example, if we have 18.6 miles between the source and observer,
> ight would reach the observer 0.0002 seconds after being sent (as measured by
> he source) and at the instant it is sent (as measured by the observer).
>
> 2) Lisle claims his model can't be tested. In his discussion, he uses two
> tations "A" and "B." He discusses why it is impossible to synchronize the
> locks of those two stations. For example, if one of them is moved, that will
> hange the rate of time passage for the moving station. Unfortunately, the
> hange in time due to motion over such a (relatively) short distance would be
> nsignificant compared to the time required for the light to travel based on the
> ccepted value of "c." It took me only a few seconds to come up with a solution
> o the synchronization issue. Simply place a third station "C" halfway between
> tations "A" and "B." Send a pulse from C to A and B. Under either the
> enerally accepted model and Lisle's proposal the pulse would reach both A and B
> t the same time and their clocks would be synchronized. It would then be a
> imple matter to send a pulse from either station to the other and test Lisle's
> roposal. Alternatively, one can send a synchroni
> zation pulse from A to B. If Lisle is correct, both stations would then have
> he same time. You could then send a pulse from B to A which should have no
> elay as measured at A.
>
> 3) Perhaps most importantly..... GPS relies on the time delay of signals
> ent from satellites to receivers to calculate position. If there is no time
> elay, the GPS system wouldn't work. The very fact that GPS works speaks
> trongly against Lisle's model.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
• By way of filling in the record on Jason Lisle s cosmological proposal..... it isn t new. He was proposing the dual velocity model for light years ago
Message 6 of 6 , Mar 5, 2011
By way of filling in the record on Jason Lisle's cosmological proposal..... it isn't new.

He was proposing the "dual velocity" model for light years ago (before he had tenure) under the pen-name "Robert Newton." That is why I said (in my initial comments): "it looks like a rehash of his 'dual speed' model."

One doesn't need to read very far in his "new" work to know exactly why this version was (almost certainly) never submitted to the mainstream scientific journals.... and why it will gain no traction toward scientific acceptance. As Todd points out, it may reinforce the beliefs of those who are already convinced of a literal Genesis. They will point to his publication in AIG's house journal as a "peer reviewed" publication. They will claim it is the "bias of atheistic science" that prevents its acceptance in the general scientific community. Vast numbers of them will be completely unaware their GPS wouldn't work if Lisle is right.

It will be interesting to see what Willis has to say about Lisle's model and my proposed tests of it. (Though I think the fact GPS works should be a sufficient test.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 10:04 pm
Subject: [M & B] Re: comments on Jason Lisle's cosmology

There's no fairness about it at all. Since the guy completely ignores dealing
ith other physicists his Ph.D. in physics is meaningless. The fact that he did
orrect work to earn his Ph.D. doesn't mean he's doing science now. A snake oil
alesman with a Ph.D. who ignores dealing with professional peers simply means
e knows how to pile the manure higher and deeper with people who don't know
etter.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.