Our regular readers are familiar with Jason Lisle’s “Instant Starlight” Paper. As you know, Jason Lisle, Ph.D. is the creationist astrophysicist employed by Answers in Genesis (AIG).
His paper, Anisotropic Synchrony Convention — A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem, was posted at the Answers Research Journal. Like the Creation Museum, the Journal is part of the creationism conglomerate run by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo). The paper reveals Jason’s solution to the Distant Starlight problem. The problem — for young-earth creationists — is that the light we see from distant sources required literally billions of years to reach earth, yet the creationist’s universe is only 6,000 years old.
Jason has a new article today at the AIG website: ASC- Still Going Strong! Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:
Last year, I published a paper demonstrating that light from the most distant galaxies does not take billions of years to reach earth. Rather, light can reach earth virtually instantaneously. The ASC model (Anisotropic Synchrony Convention) shows how Einstein’s Theory of Relativity allows for several different conventions of synchronizing clocks separated by a distance. One of these conventions (ASC) is such that inward-directed light travels instantaneously. The ASC model goes a step further and develops a cosmology based on the premise that the Bible is using such a convention when it describes creation.
We discussed all of that in our earlier post, but don’t let that discourage you from adding more comments here. Let’s read on:
So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model. Of course, there have been some evolutionists who simply mocked the paper since it goes against their strongly held beliefs. But that is hardly a rational response.
Has Jason insulted us? No problem. Your Curmudgeon will turn the other cheek and continue:
So far, no rebuttals have been submitted for publication in the ARJ [that’s the Answers Research Journal, Hambo’s journal], which would be the scholarly way to point out problems with a published model.
Ah, so that’s the scholarly way to proceed! Who knew? Here’s more:
This gives us increased confidence in the ASC model. ASC seems to lack the scientific problems which plague other creation-based starlight models and enjoys much scriptural support as well.
Jason is feeling good. We’re happy for him. Moving along:
In light of the initial positive feedback I have received regarding the ASC model, I thought it appropriate to write a layman-level article on the topic. This article (with helpful illustrations) appears in the January issue of Answers Magazine.
Jason gives a link, but it’s not helpful. This is Hambo’s Answers Magazine. Unfortunately, the current issue isn’t yet posted. Now we have something to look forward to. Jason is quite the tease.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Well, as SC knows, I’ve communicated privately with Jason Lisle and he knows exactly what’s wrong with his paper. He has an interesting definition of “scholarly”–criticisms of his paper are only scientifically valid if they appear in his pet journal.
Further, I told him I intended to write about the ASC for a mainstream journal and I invited him to collaborate–he could write a rebuttal and we could submit them together. He refused, saying he would be far too busy.
Gabriel Hanna says:
I thought you were already busy working out the gravity on Bizarro World.
Sorry Jason, but science doesn’t work via the “no one objected so I must be right” method. Given the number of completely batty self-published cranks out there (ahem), science couldn’t work that way. And you should know that.
There are, in science, exciting right ideas, boring right ideas, exciting wrong ideas, and boring wrong ideas. It is highly unlikely that a complete lack of interest on the part of the scientific community is evidence you’ve found an exciting right idea.
Pravda and the defunct and lamented Weekly World News must be similarly pleased that their stories and claims have not been refuted in peer-reviewed journals. Surely they have been correct all along, much as Lisle must be for the same reason.
I didn’t know that scientific affirmation was so easily achieved.
It’s not even his idea, and his particular ASC was refuted before he even wrote it up.
eric says:
Well, so far no one has disputed my claim to the title of Galactic Emperor, so I guess that means it’s mine.
I guess that means it’s mine
I challenge you for it.
The most humorous part is his contention that a rebuttal published in the ARJ would be the scholarly way to respond. Really?
Gabriel Hanna dares to say: “I challenge you for it.”
That is beneath my notice. You may, however, refer yourself as the Custodian of Uranus.
Lisle didn’t give any way of actually proving his hypothesis experimentally, saying it was impossible. “That which can be presented without proof can be dismissed without proof” — Hitchens
Though I still want to know how he got around Maxwell’s equations giving the speed of light, which is what Einstein used developing special relativity. He seemed to just ignore it altogether. It’s interesting a 3rd year undergrad can find the fatal flaw in his theory.
Gabriel, in an older post on this topic, you mentioned that you had communicated with Lisle about the difficulties his ASC idea has with things like Maxwell’s Laws.
Is there any chance we could see how he responded to that? Or if it’s not something you want to post on the general Internet, would emailing me the salient points be OK?
The further elaborate on a point already raised by several commentors upstream, the test of a scientific theory is not whether or not it is refuted in the pet journal of the theory’s author (or anywhere else,) but rather the ability of the theory to make specific, testable predictions, especially ones that diverge from predictions made by current accepted theory.
With regard to this hallmark of science, Lisle’s theory falls flat on its face.
I am unaware of anyone publishing refutations to Flat Earth Theory, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory — absence of refutations does not increase anyone’s confidence the theories are true (May you be touched by His Noodly appendage.)
As Popper noted, with little effort one can almost always find evidence that is consistent with a theory, even one that is wrong. Thus, the deciding factor in evaluating a theory’s value lies in its ongoing ability to make specific testable predictions, and then resist falsification as the data is evaluated relative to the predictions.
Errata:
“To further elaborate…..”
“…. data are evaluated….”
@Paul:It’s interesting a 3rd year undergrad can find the fatal flaw in his theory.
Actually, the question of whether the speed of light is conventional has not been settled and has been debated for about 70 years. It was first brought up (I think) by Hans Reichenbach, a philosopher of science and an early popularizer of relativity, who corresponded with Einstein on the matter. Einstein himself didn’t, as far as I can tell, come down on one side or the other.
The problems with Lisle’s paper are these:
He presents the question as settled. It is not. The papers he cites do not declare the question settled. In fact they all concede that for all practical purposes one might well regard the speed of light as constant and not a convention, and everybody hopes that a knock-down argument will be found that establishes this, because the alternative is to horribly complicate the Maxwell equations for basically no reason. (There’s no problem with the Maxwell equations, it can be argued, I’m not sure there is a consensus one way or another.) No one knows the answer yet, but Lisle pretends it’s all settled and anyone can choose any convention they wish. This is, I can only conclude, a deliberate distortion on Lisle’s part of which I have made him aware.
Second, the particular convention he uses is not his idea and has already been shown not to work, before he ever wrote a line on it. I don’t think he cites that paper but I had no trouble finding it and if excercised due diligence he must know of it.
@WebMonk:
Is there any chance we could see how he responded to that? Or if it’s not something you want to post on the general Internet, would emailing me the salient points be OK?
I never asked permission to quote the correspondence–I don’t think I probably need it. But for now I think I will leave it private. Not much is resolved by it. A lot of it is me objecting to something, and Lisle telling me to go read a paper. A couple of iterations of that and I then I went and read a couple dozen papers, not trusting Lisle to give me a comprehensive overview. It’s much more illuminating to read the papers that Lisle cites, which are respectably scientific, and contrast them to his summary of them. But it would be a lot of work to put that into a form that makes sense.
I think I DO now have a knock-down argument against the conventionality of the speed of light, but I want to publish it in a mainstream journal and I have other papers I need to work on right now. It’s an obscure subject and I think that most physicists never heard of it. I certainly didn’t.
Incidentally, my paper would not be a rebuttal directed at Lisle; that would be a waste of time. Rather, it would be directed at everyone who thought the speed of light was a mere convention–I have bigger fish to fry. I would love to be the one who ended the discussion, even though almost no one cares about it, but it’s VERY satisfying to have the last word!
I do plan to acknowledge and thank Lisle for corresponding with me on it, but I have doubts about citing his ARJ paper. On the one hand he could claim legitimacy for ARJ because his paper was cited in a mainstream journal, but on the other hand anyone checking his paper would find my paper which would knock the foundation out from under it. (Assuming it does, and my argument isn’t totally stupid, which it could be.)
I think I DO now have a knock-down argument against the conventionality of the speed of light, but I want to publish it in a mainstream journal
Not even a teaser? Pretty please?
I’ll help you overthrow the Curmudgeon from his position of Galactic Emperor!
Could you at least point out the paper which talks about why his ASC doesn’t work? It seems to me that since it is a directional asynchronism (aimed “toward” Earth) there should be some very testable effects. Now, having it be directionless might be a different story (that’s untestable as far as I know, though I don’t know much), but then that undirectional status doesn’t help his case as he needs it to be infinite directed toward Earth in particular.
It seems to me that we could also test his position by looking to see if we can see galaxies which have affected each other over distances further than 6000 ly even though they aren’t lined up toward the Earth. Assuming gravity is also affected by his ASC, two galaxies not in line with Earth and a 100,000 ly apart shouldn’t be able to have affected each other even with his ASC theory since the light (and gravity) wouldn’t have had time to travel between the galaxies since light wouldn’t be an infinite speed between the two galaxies.
Theoretically, we could see a confirmation of his theory if we saw two galaxies nearly in line with the Earth in which the further galaxy has affected the nearer galaxy, but has not been affect in return since the light/gravity would have traveled nearly instantly from the further galaxy toward the closer because that would be in line with the infinite-toward-Earth speed of light. However, the nearer galaxy couldn’t have affected the further one since light/gravity would only be traveling a 0.5c going that direction.
I can’t think of any instances of galaxies affecting each other that fit the circumstances necessary to prove his theory, but I do know of quite a number of pairs of galaxies which have clearly affected each other over distances far in excess of 6000 ly. I haven’t bothered to check to see the direction they are oriented in relation to Earth, though, so it seems that there very possibly could be some definitely situations which could prove or disprove his version of ASC.
Something just popped to mind – if gravity/light were infinitely fast toward Earth, wouldn’t Earth be in the middle of a gravity well since all the light/gravity in the universe would immediately be affecting the area around Earth, but areas away from Earth would not be affect by the gravity from the rest of the universe.
That seems like another testable area. Might the CMB be affected by that? Or would we perhaps not realize that the CMB is distorted from what it would otherwise be? Meh. Just something off the top of my head.
Huh, another thing just occurred to me – the gravity from the core of our galaxy couldn’t yet be affecting the side opposite the Earth and wouldn’t the formation of our galaxy be flying apart since the stars wouldn’t have the galaxy’s gravity to keep them in orbit? That certainly seems testable, and I happen to directly know that they aren’t flying off, unaffected by our galaxy’s gravity.
I guess all this depends on whether or not gravity would be affected by his ASC.
Sorry for the Wall Of Text post. My mind started to run away with me. Or from me.
@WebMonk: The answer to all your objections is the same–how do you know what’s happening when? That’s the whole point. Other observers have different standards of “happening at the same time”.
Anyway, if the speed of light is a convention it doesn’t matter an Earth-based observer is at “the center”. Just like it doesn’t matter whether you reset your clock to zero when you see something happen and another observer resets his at a different time.
Gabriel Hanna @WebMonk: The answer to all your objections is the same–how do you know what’s happening when?
I think there’s more to it than that. Consider a binary star system where they rotate around each other in a parallel line with the earth. First the A to B photons go infinitely fast but the B to A ones don’t. Half a rotation later, the B to A ones go infinitely fast but the A to B one’s don’t. Same thing with gravitational forces. Without doing any math, that seems to me that would lead to a perturbation on their orbits which would be different from the regular model (and thus detectable, yet not detected).
@eric:Without doing any math…
Well, there’s your problem.
The history of this argument has been: somebody dreams up a scenario where they think it’s obvious that light has to travel at the same speed in different directions. Later, someone else shows that the first person made assumptions about space or time or both that tacitly assumed a constant speed of light. That’s one reason this argument has still been going on and the question is unsettled.
I would think that if gravity’s effects were traveling at different speeds in different directions, that is something we could note (as we are at the center) separate from any questions of when it “actually” happened.
If we see two galaxies, one 50 million ly away, and the other51 million ly away in nearly a straight line with us, we should see the further one deforming the closer one since the gravity from the further one has already reached the nearer one. But, the gravity from the nearer one couldn’t have reached the further one, and so the further one would be unaffected.
Or, if the two galaxies are side-by-side in relation to us, their gravities shouldn’t be affecting each other at all. That should be something we should be able to observe.
Likewise the stars on the opposite side of our galaxy should be traveling different paths than what they are since the gravity from most of the galaxy wouldn’t be curving them in toward the center.
Since we are at the center of the ASC, it seems like we should be able to observe these things.
I very well could be off on this. I understand how we can’t directly measure the speed of light through any sort of “synchronized” set up or reflections of some sort. I also read Lisle’s explanations of why some of the less direct methods such as Jupiter’s moons could be adjusted too, though I think he’s starting to get into Ether-physics territory with his explanation. But, I hadn’t heard of this issue until I ran across Lisle’s proposition, and there could very well be some aspect which I don’t realize would mean we would still see gravity affecting things “properly” in the situations I mentioned above.
@WebMonk:
Does it help if I point out that if the speed of light is different in different directions, that measurements of distance may also be different in different directions?
Special relativity has been recast into a form that is compatible with the speed of light being different in different directions. Give me a little time and I can put up a short list of papers that can tell you some of what you want to know.
Has anybody pointed out the seeming conflict with the Anthropic Principle?
If things can vary willy-nilly without any adverse effects on the possibility of “intelligent life”, then what does that have to say about the “fine tuning” of the universe, and “intelligent design”? The value of the speed of light is really just a matter of chance?
@TomS: Has anybody pointed out the seeming conflict with the Anthropic Principle?
No, because there isn’t one. If the speed of light is indeed a convention, then it has no more effect on the physics of the universe then our height above sea level, which is also a convention, or our calendar, which is also a convention.
What about doppler effects? It seems to me that if photons left the surface of a star and arrived at earth instantly, then no matter how how fast the star was receding or approaching, the photons would arrive at whatever rate they were emitted – they would not be stretched out or bunched together. With no travel time between the star and earth, the effect would be the same as if we were floating immediately above the surface of the star.
@Ed:It seems to me that if photons left the surface of a star and arrived at earth instantly, then no matter how how fast the star was receding or approaching, the photons would arrive at whatever rate they were emitted – they would not be stretched out or bunched together.
The ratio of the frequency of the source to that of the observer is the square root of 1 + beta over 1 – beta–it depends only on beta and not on c. (beta is v / c, remember.) Even if the speed of light is infinite beta might not be zero.
Look, this has been going on seventy years now, right? You guys aren’t just going to come up with something off the tops of your heads.
Gabriel Hanna says:
Even I shall remain humbly silent. I must remark, however, that communications with our solar system probes — which are two-way — don’t show any unexpected lag in any one direction. But this is very short-range stuff.
Gabriel Hanna wrote:
Oh no, you must cite it. Nothing better than the one scholarly article citing it being the one that makes mincemeat out of it.
Happy New Year, all.
You’ve been away, James F. We’ve missed you.
SC:which are two-way — don’t show any unexpected lag in any one direction.
They wouldn’t, and couldn’t, if the speed of light were different in different directions. You talk to the probe, it talks back, average speed is c. The probe doesn’t know when you sent the message.
Gabriel Hanna says:
Yes, but this is true for probes in all directions from earth. So the earth would have to be in the center of an anisotropic universe — and the center would somehow have to move with us in order for this to always work for all probes. Jason’s paper assumes that this is the situation.
It could be tested if we have a series of probes communicating with a different home base. That could be done by launching a mega-probe ship away from earth, and then it sends out a bunch of mini-probes in different directions, and the mini-probes exchange messages with the mega-probe. If the average speed for those two-way communications is also c, then the uniqueness of earth is disproved. But it’s a big expense to test a goofy theory.
@SC: What you say might be true for Jason’s particular convention, but not for every possible convention.
At any rate, there’s no reason why the Earth COULDN’T be the center of the universe. If the data ever shows that, we have to live with it, don’t we? Objecting to something on the basis that it makes Earth the center of the universe is just prejudice. We don’t know that the laws of physics here are the same as those elsewhere. We don’t know that we AREN’T the center, we haven’t BEEN anywhere else.
Every statement mainstream science makes about the cosmos needs to be mentally marked with this disclaimer: provided that the laws of physics that we observe in our teeny-tiny little bubble are exactly the same as the laws billions of light years away. Isn’t it odd that we find that disclaimer so plausible?
@Gabriel: It’s not at all implausible that we assume the laws of nature to be the same everywhere. It is the simplest assumption, and it fits our observations. If one of the four forces, gravity for example, varied from place to place in the universe, we should be able to observe the effects. The fact is, we observe a consistent universe. There is no plausible reason why the speed of light would vary while the other fundamental properties of the observable universe remain the same.
There is especially no plausible reason why the direction of light would make any difference. That assumes there is a reference frame for the universe that establishes direction, which I do not believe there is any evidence for. (I know, Jason would state that it was the earth – his theory requires an earth centered universe)
I propose a hypothetical experiment. Set up a cannon which fires a projectile at a known velocity. The cannon fires upon receipt of a burst of laser light. The observer illuminates the trigger and measures the time lapse between firing the laser and the arrival of the projectile. Although I can’t imagine a practical way to do it, if it were possible to design the hardware and measure the elapsed time to the required precision, you would be able to tell if light traveled away from the observer at half speed or c, since the speed of the return projectile would be a known and independent factor. You would thus only be measuring light travel in one direction, and you would not require synchronization of clocks. Perhaps this could be done in a vacuum with some sort of particle gun.
Gabriel and Curmy, you are both far too young to claim the title “Galactic Emperor”.
I hereby claim the title based on seniority. Curmy, you may be my Vice Emperor in charge of Communications, and Gabriel, you will be Vice Emperor of Scientific Research. Since I have no need for further wealth, you may each share my Galactic Emperor salary. The title is enough to keep me happy.
retiredsciguy says: “Curmy, you may be my Vice Emperor”
Impudence! But I am benevolent, so you will survive — and perhaps learn from this experience. Like Gabe, you may have a title related to Uranus. You are hereby designated the Protector of that orb.
Gabe, I had thought of the trouble with measuring distance with the ASC. However, I didn’t think that would make a difference – regardless of the actual distances involved, it should still be the case that we should be able to find one-way effects were ASC true. (or effects such as the stars on the opposite side of our galaxy not being affected by gravity yet)
The ways in which we measure distances to stars wouldn’t be affected by an ASC universe. Parallax, star types, luminosity, and apparent magnitude wouldn’t be affected unless I’m missing something major. We have a very solid set of measurements for the size of our galaxy (and distances to stars in other galaxies) that doesn’t rely in any way on the speed of c. (luminosity or apparent magnitude)
So, I think we have distances nailed to within acceptable margins of error, and we don’t see any of the effects which we would see if the effects of gravity were only propagating away from us at 0.5c for 6000 years.
Now, that only works against Lisle’s ASC, perhaps, since other forms of ASC would have plenty of time for gravity to have propagated out and the effects to be a lot more subtle. (though I think we would be able to see them in some cases, though I haven’t put in the thought on the topic to be confident about that)
Good Discussion!
But do the Creationists ever make the same disclaimer? I think they should.
Ooh! Can I have a planet too? (Or maybe an asteroid?)
Gabriel Hanna says:
The current assumption of universally-applicable laws is a fairly new one. As you know, the pre-scientific assumption was that we are unique: uniquely created, uniquely in the center of the universe, uniquely interesting to the gods, etc. It’s only after each assumption was discredited (or in the case of the gods, shrugged off) that the non-unique viewpoint became dominant.
Tomato Addict asks:
Because your request implicitly acknowledges my galactic authority, your wish shall be granted. You may have Lordship of the outer planets (beyond Saturn), and those with Uranus titles shall serve you.
@Ed: It is the simplest assumption, and it fits our observations.
Our “observations” are really deductions based on extrapolation of our laws of physics. For example, because observations of the universe on a large scale are NOT fitting those extrapolations very well, we’ve had to posit “dark matter” and “dark energy”, which by mysterious coincidence have the exact properties needed to bring observations in line with theory!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
As important as dark matter is believed to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive. Though the theory of dark matter remains the most widely accepted theory to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation, some alternative theoretical approaches have been developed which broadly fall into the categories of modified gravitational laws, and quantum gravitational laws.
Of course, the same could have been, and was, said of neutrinos before they were detected, and neutrinos turned out to be real. Granted. However, the luminiferous ether turned out not to be real. So which of these is dark matter and dark energy like?
You want to make these things too simple. How we know what we know is not trivial or obvious.
@SC: It’s only after each assumption was discredited (or in the case of the gods, shrugged off) that the non-unique viewpoint became dominant.
And how, pray tell, is it discredited in the case of galaxies billions of light years away, when everything we know of those galaxies comes from extrapolating our laws of physics to them?
I’m not seriously arguing against the laws of physics being everywhere the same–I’m saying we need to be aware of our assumptions and the limitations on what we can know.
Gabriel Hanna: We don’t know that the laws of physics here are the same as those elsewhere.
And later:
Our “observations” are really deductions based on extrapolation of our laws of physics.
I don’t think that’s really the case any more. At least not entirely. In Feynman’s (posthumous) “Six Not So Easy Pieces” he discusses the logical relationship between conservation laws and the symmetry of physical laws. For example, from conservation of momentum and quantum mechanics, you can derive the principle that physical laws are symmetrical for translation in space. You can similarly combine the law of conservation of energy and QM and derive the fact that physical laws are symmetrical in time. (Feynman doesn’t do the derivation in the book, he just discusses it.)
Assuming Feynman’s comments are on the money, we can say that, contra your claim above, we do know that either physical laws are the same elsewhere and elsewhen in the universe (that’s the symmetry), or else what we know about conservation laws and QM must be wrong. Its got to be one or the other, and the conservation laws and QM look pretty darn solid.
We can also say that Jason Lisle’s position, because it proposes a specific type of asymmetry of physical laws, must result in some prediction about QM or our conservation laws being wrong. I don’t know what that prediction is, but if what Feynman said is correct, its got to be there, because the three things (conservation laws, symmetry, QM) are logically connected.
@eric:Its got to be one or the other, and the conservation laws and QM look pretty darn solid.
They look solid HERE. We have no idea if they might be different elsewhere. You just keep going around in a circle, saying that we know the laws so well here, when we assume the laws and look at the universe elsewhere the laws look the same. Hume addressed this three hundred years ago–how do you know the laws of nature are the same everywhere for all times? You claim to derive them from experience, but our experience hasn’t been everywhere for all times.
What Feynman is referring to is the Noether theorems. And you’re right, the conservation laws look pretty solid, but there’s always an experimental uncertainty in how well they are obeyed, and of course we can’t do our experiments in the Andromeda galaxy. You can’t reason your way out of it, you HAVE to accept that mental disclaimer and ALWAYS acknowledge that further experience could overthrow the laws.
Incidentally, QM is not a logical consequence of the Noether theorems, I think that’s you misunderstanding Feynman. The Noether theorems are very general statements about symmetry and apply not only to our laws of physics but any kind you could dream up.
They look solid HERE. We have no idea if they might be different elsewhere. You just keep going around in a circle, saying that we know the laws so well here, when we assume the laws and look at the universe elsewhere the laws look the same.
Lisle isn’t proposing a different set of laws in the Andromeda galaxy. He’s proposing asymmetric laws focused right here around earth. Since he is proposing a local difference in the way translation through space works, that should be apparent in the local conservation laws or local QM, because the three principles are connected. There isn’t any apparent effect.
Look, I guess what’s bothering me about this conversation is that some of the time you seem to be saying that Jason is making an omphalos argument: that his framework is fully consistent with every observation we make. But at other times you seem to be saying that he’s not making an omphalos arguement and that there are observable differences between his model and the standard one. Which is it? Rather than telling us what about his model won’t appear different, it would be more helpful if you told us what about his model you think would appear different, if you think there are any differences at all (“none” being a perfectly fine answer, but then I wonder how you think you’re going to prove him wrong).
Of course I don’t have to tell anyone here that some symmetry laws have already been experimentally disproved? Three, in fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry
Switching positive charge for negative gives different physics. Time reversal gives different physics. Switching from a right-handed to a left-handed coordinate system gives different physics.
The combination of the three, CPT symmetry, is equivalent (by the Noether theorems) to seeing laws of physics like we currently know them, but physicists continue to experiment in the hope of finding violations.
@eric:
Lisle isn’t proposing a different set of laws in the Andromeda galaxy.
True, but the problem is not limited to Lisle. You can’t pretend it’s not ther to score points on a creationist, that’s dishonest.
He’s proposing asymmetric laws focused right here around earth. Since he is proposing a local difference in the way translation through space works, that should be apparent in the local conservation laws or local QM, because the three principles are connected. There isn’t any apparent effect.
No, he’s not proposing ANY new laws! He is simply choosing a different CONVENTION to determine what things happen at the same time. Since it is a CONVENTION, it has no effect on physical laws, just like the distance between here and Paris is not affected by measuring it in meters or in inches.
There’s a big “if” in Lisle’s convention: is the speed of light a matter of convention or is it determined by the structure of the universe. This question is so far unresolved and you cannot disprove Lisle by arguing against it, because other people, mainstreasm physicists, have far better arguments than Lisle does and you don’t even know what they are. Lisle’s only scientific sin here is in presenting the question as if it has already been settled. If the controversy is settled the way Lisle says it is, what are you going to do then?
I guess what’s bothering me about this conversation is that some of the time you seem to be saying that Jason is making an omphalos argument: that his framework is fully consistent with every observation we make. But at other times you seem to be saying that he’s not making an omphalos arguement and that there are observable differences between his model and the standard one. Which is it?
It’s neither! Lisle wants to measure the distance from the Earth to the Sun in cubits, because that’s what they use in the Bible. You are saying that’s bogus because he’s trying to change the distance! But he’s not. It’s a convention.
But Lisle is also arguing for a specific convention which I think has experimental consequences and is therefore NOT a true convention. If I get him to see that, then he’ll just dream up another one. The only way to put an end to is is to show that the speed of light is NOT merely a convention in how we measure distance and time. And my attempt to prove that may well fail like the others.
Lisle’s argument is subtle, but you are trying to make into a straw man, I think.
@Gabriel Hanna:
Reichenbach surely wasn’t the first to discuss the idea that the speed of light might be conventional. Henri Poincaré (whose views I believe Reichenbach mentions) discusses it in a 1898 essay, which (conveniently) turns out to be available in English translation here on Wikisource.
@Glenn Branch: That’s a good reference. Jason Lisle is trying to punch way above his intellectual weight.
When an astronomer tells me that some stellar phenomenon, which his telescope reveals to him at this moment, happened, nevertheless, fifty years ago, I seek his meaning, and to that end I shall ask him first how he knows it, that is, how he has measured the velocity of light.
He has begun by supposing that light has a constant velocity, and in particular that its velocity is the same in all directions. That is a postulate without which no measurement of this velocity could be attempted. This postulate could never be verified directly by experiment; it might be contradicted by it if the results of different measurements were not concordant. We should think ourselves fortunate that this contradiction has not happened and that the slight discordances which may happen can be readily explained.
The postulate, at all events, resembling the principle of sufficient reason, has been accepted by everybody; what I wish to emphasize is that it furnishes us with a new rule for the investigation of simultaneity, entirely different from that which we have enunciated above.
This postulate assumed, let us see how the velocity of light has been measured. You know that Roemer used eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter, and sought how much the event fell behind its prediction. But how is this prediction made? It is by the aid of astronomic laws; for instance Newton’s law.
Could not the observed facts be just as well explained if we attributed to the velocity of light a little different value from that adopted, and supposed Newton’s law only approximate? Only this would lead to replacing Newton’s law by another more complicated. So for the velocity of light a value is adopted, such that the astronomic laws compatible with this value may be as simple as possible. When navigators or geographers determine a longitude, they have to solve just the problem we are discussing; they must, without being at Paris, calculate Paris time. How do they accomplish it? They carry a chronometer set for Paris. The qualitative problem of simultaneity is made to depend upon the quantitative problem of the measurement of time. I need not take up the difficulties relative to this latter problem, since above I have emphasized them at length.
Or else they observe an astronomic phenomenon, such as an eclipse of the moon, and they suppose that this phenomenon is perceived simultaneously from all points of the earth. That is not altogether true, since the propagation of light is not instantaneous; if absolute exactitude were desired, there would be a correction to make according to a complicated rule.
Or else finally they use the telegraph. It is clear first that the reception of the signal at Berlin, for instance, is after the sending of this same signal from Paris. This is the rule of cause and effect analyzed above. But how much after? In general, the duration of the transmission is neglected and the two events are regarded as simultaneous. But, to be rigorous, a little correction would still have to be made by a complicated calculation; in practise it is not made, because it would be well within the errors of observation; its theoretic necessity is none the less from our point of view, which is that of a rigorous definition. From this discussion, I wish to emphasize two things: (1) The rules applied are exceedingly various. (2) It is difficult to separate the qualitative problem of simultaneity from the quantitative problem of the measurement of time; no matter whether a chronometer is used, or whether account must be taken of a velocity of transmission, as that of light, because such a velocity could not be measured without measuring a time.
To Glenn and Gabe: That is grand stuff!
Sorry, Curmy, but if you choose to decree that I am Protector of the Seventh Planet, you shall no longer be allowed to use Uranus.
Huge LOL at retiredsciguy!!!
Old question to Gabriel – how did Lisle reply about the Maxwell Equation question? I would guess there is some way to massively change the equations to somehow fit in his ASC, though I shudder to think of the horribly complex transformations necessary to do so. They would certainly lose any and all ease of use and would have a metric buttload of weird variables, if it is possible at all.
Had he checked to see if Maxwell could be shoehorned into his ASC?
@WebMonk: Your guess is exactly right. Lisle suggested a tensor form, though he didn’t give it explicitly. Other authors have come up similar things.
@Gabriel…or others.
The only Maxwell I know is the one with the silver hammer, so I’m having a wee bit of trouble following the logic here. However, the most difficult part is trying to see why this is so difficult.
As I understand it, Lisle proposes that light travels at different speeds in different directions. I understand reference frames with respect to relativity, but I do not think that is what Lisle is describing – I think his idea is based on a concept that there is actual direction in space. It’s as though the universe has a set of coordinates so that the direction of light can be determined. And, based on his biblical literalism, he would put the earth at the center of that coordinate system.
The second question I have is, what does this do to relativity? If light speed is not a constant, but varies depending on direction, does that mean that the energy or mass of an object moving in one direction is different than in another? It seems to me that c as a constant is basic to a large fraction of modern physics and to make it variable will have significant impacts.
I need a layman’s interpretation of why this is truly possible.
Ed asks:
Now that I think about it — in my simple way — why doesn’t the Michelson-Morley experiment demolish Jason’s cosmology?
The Curmudgeon asks:
What aspect of the M-M experiments did you have in mind? An infinite c in one direction wouldn’t cause any of the effects that the proposed aether would have caused.
Here’s a good image of the experiment.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Michelson-Morley_experiment_(en).svg
Let’s say the infinite speed is pointed toward the right, and the 0.5c speed toward the left.
The Red beam is going infinitely fast. (doesn’t affect anything yet)
Red beam splits into green and orange.
Green, would be moving at c for its entire trip.
Orange would be moving at infinite speed toward the right, but at 0.5c after it reflects back toward the left, giving it an average of c for its trip – the same as the green part of the beam.
The two beams would recombine just as if they had both been traveling at c the entire time.
M-M’s experiments certainly disproved an aether, but I don’t see off-hand how they might disprove Lisle’s ASC.
WebMonk says:
Yeah, that sounds right. Maybe if it could be done with the detectors arranged around the rim …
Okay, SC and WebMonk:
First, forget Lisle for a minute. That the speed of light is different in different directions is not Lisle’s proposal. It has been argued by many people over the last hundred years. He is simply trying to exploit it for creationism.
Okay, the Michelson-Morely experiment. It depends on light making round trips. It does not measure the speed of light in one direction, but the AVERAGE speed forward and back. Now, of course I for one would argue that the speed of light in one direction is equal to that average, but others disagree and have held their own so far.
@WebMonk:
I think his idea is based on a concept that there is actual direction in space.
No, he doesn’t, but other people have argued that and not been shown to be wrong. Lisle argues that the speed of light changes with respect to the orientation of the observer. As you turn your head it turns with you.
And, based on his biblical literalism, he would put the earth at the center of that coordinate system.
Doesn’t matter if or why he does, that’s totally legit. You can put anything you want in the center of your coordinate system for any reason. The laws of physics don’t care, if conservation of momentum is a real law. Lisle is using this to his advantage.
The second question I have is, what does this do to relativity?
Remember when you first learned relativity? For me it was hard to accept that if you move WITH the light or AGAINST it, you still have to measure the same velocity for light. That’s because the rate of time and change in position you experience is different for someone moving in a different way.
In this case it is similar–what is different now is that your ideas of “simultaneous” has to change for objects that are moving at the same velocity but are separated in space. It’s hard to get your head around at first, but there’s math for that, just like there is for time dilation.
Gabriel Hanna says:
Right. When I was reminded of that (no, I’m not embarrassed, much) I then suggested a variation. Use one-way light beams, with the detectors set up around a circular rim. Then set the thing a whirling, with light from the center shooting out in all directions.
@SC; If there’s no reflection, then the rim doesn’t know when the center sent the beam, and so it can’t measure the elapsedtime. You have to synchronize the center with the rim, which is the same thing (according to conventionalists) as deterimining the one-way speed.
Gabriel Hanna says:
I don’t care what the rim knows. It’s what we know. To simplify, say the center is sending out beams every second. If the rotating rim is receiving hits every second, regardless of its rotation, then doesn’t that tell us something? Or, as often is the case, am I missing something?
@SC:Or, as often is the case, am I missing something?
I have a clock and you have a clock, but you’re in Louisiana or wherever and I am in Wisconsin. You want to send a light ray to me to measure its one way speed. So, you send the light on its way. How do I know when you sent it?
You could send me a light signal to tell me to zero my clock—but by the time I get it it’s too late. Do you see?
This is the problem of synchronizing distant clocks. Einstein didn’t think it was important, so he said you send me a signal, I send it back, and we agree to zero our clock to the middle of that time interval, which is the same thing as saying that the speed of light is the same in both directions–which is the very thing we are arguing about how to measure.
Gabe, I’m saying something different. It’s not important to know exactly when the signal is sent or received in my whirling device out there in space. All we need to know is the interval between signals. We’re here on earth, in one location, with one clock, and we’re getting feedback from the device. If the center is sending the signals out at one-second intervals, and the rim is receiving signals at one-second intervals, then we know — don’t we? — that there were no delayed or speeded-up signals, regardless of direction.
@Gabe, et. al.
Suppose you and I stood next to each other with identical atomic clocks and synchonized them. Then we traveled in opposite directions an equal distance at equal speed. Whatever time dilation did to our synchronized clocks, it did the same to both. Now, at a previously agreed to time, we each send a flash of light to the other and measure the time it was received. If Lisle is right, our detector should indicate that the other’s flash was received at the same time as we sent our flash, indicating infinate speed. Further, we could each have a mirror, which would reflect the flash, and the other’s detector would record that reflected flash as well. Perhaps we each have a different color laser to make the signals distinguishable. Now, if Lisle is right, we would each record the reflected signal…when? The reflection would return to us instantaneously, but if light was received by the mirror at the other end instantaneously…????? So that’s the thought experiment – two identical experimenters – each with synchronized clocks, a laser flasher and a mirror, and sending signals at to previously agreed-to times. What would they record?
Too cool! I hereby command there be Free Ice Cream for all visitors to Titan.
What about laser interference? IIRCMPKOP (If I Recall Correctly my Paltry Knowledge of Physics) you cannot reflect a laser beam directly back on itself because of interference. If the laser travels instantaneously in one direction, would it still interfere with itself? On further thought, this seems like it must be a different version of questions already well answered above.
But hey, Free Ice Cream!
Tomato Addict says:
Dolt! You don’t rule Saturn, and that includes Titan.
Sorry, meant to say Triton.
I also command Complimentary Free Breakfast for Curmudgeons.
Tomato Addict says: “Sorry, meant to say Triton.”
I shall now utter a sentence that has never before been spoken: You don’t know your moon from Uranus.
@SC: If the center is sending the signals out at one-second intervals, and the rim is receiving signals at one-second intervals, then we know — don’t we? — that there were no delayed or speeded-up signals, regardless of direction.
You’d know the frequency at which you send signals unambiguously but not the speed–suppose the light on one side takes one second to get across, the other side light could take two seconds to get across and you’d still get signals every second.
@Ed: You’ve rediscovered slow transport, which has brought you up to the 1960’s in this discussion. If light is anisotropic, so can time and distance measurements, so you’d never know if you really moved both clocks in the same way, according to the conventionalists (remember, it’s not Lisle’s idea and never was), so you wouldn’t know if your clocks are really synchronized.
@everyone: I think I really underestimated Lisle. By choosing such an obscure topic he has all the rest of us trying to reinvent the wheel, and it’s all a distraction from his real point. Again, the only thing that Lisle has done wrong is pretend that the convetionality question is settled. All that anisotropic light stuff is perfectly kosher, and all we do by arguing about it is prove that we don’t know what we are talking about.
Gabriel Hanna says:
True, but only after the initial whirl. I think that the first time around the delay should be apparent. After that, you’re right. And now I’ll quit playing theoretical physicist.
@SC:And now I’ll quit playing theoretical physicist.
This is philosophy of physics, not physics, so you have all the qualifications, you’re just 70 years behind the discussion. 🙂
So it takes 70 years of thought to come forward to where we are, but we can go backwards instantly. That’s Creationism for you.
This thread is pure win for multiple reasons, one of which are the gems like Tomato Addict’s!
I still think that Lisle’s particular brand of ASC is disprovable through stellar observations.
We know the distances to and between stellar bodies through methods not affected by the speed of light (luminosity and apparent magnitude). We can see gravitational effects of those stellar bodies on each other in lots of different directions. If Lisle’s ASC were true, a lot of those bodies would only be affecting things in one direction.
But then, astronomy is my field of expertise and physics like this are just my play toy. (though I should say ‘field of interest’ rather than ‘expertise’ since I never was able to get a job in the field – I cry a little inside when I admit that)
WebMonk says:
After many a sleepless night, I’ve decided there’s only one way to persuade both Gabe and Jason. When we finally make contact with ET, we just ask him if, from the vantage point of his world, he too finds that lightspeed is constant in all directions.
ET would have to be from a planet at least 3000 ly away, otherwise he too would see starlight in the same way we do. (though, in ET’s history, there would be a time when half the sky was devoid of stars)
LeftCosmos —–> ET —–> Earth ———> RightCosmos
Light from the RightCosmos would move infinitely fast toward Earth, and then at 0.5c the rest of the way to ET. Light from the LeftCosmos would move infinitely fast to ET and on to Earth.
At year zero, ET would see the LeftCosmos just fine, but the skies toward Earth and the RightCosmos would be blank. Slowly, the things in between Earth and ET would start showing up as their light traveled at 0.5c on a path away from Earth, toward ET’s planet.
Then, suddenly, at distanceToEarthInLY*2 years after year zero, all the light from the RightCosmos would finally arrive at ET’s planet. If the universe were created 6000 years ago, ET’s planet would need to be within 3000 ly of Earth to see the cosmos that is beyond Earth from ET’s vantage point.
One way to solve a lot of things is to gain FTL travel (let’s call it wormhole travel that is essentially instantaneous just to make things simple). Send a telescope 20,000 ly away, and then look back toward Earth. If it can see Earth, then both Lisle’s version of ASC and the young earth creationists claims have been disproved.
My theory is that they would move to a God-Made-Light-Beams-In-Transit sort of theory at first, but if our telescope were good enough, we would be able to see events on Earth, and then they would have some funky theology about God making light beams showing a history on earth that is specifically counter what they say Genesis claims. Theoretically they could find some sort of wiggle room, but realistically the last nail would be put into the YEC coffin.
So I’m in the 60’s…well, that’s a pretty cool place to be. SC, you’re 20 years behind me – ha.
@Gabe:
We have ~31 GPS satellites currently in orbit, with cesium clocks. GPS works by computing the receiver’s distance from at least four satellites – each of which sends a signal with time and location. The receiver compares the time signal to it’s own internal clock, and using the value of c it computes distance to each satellite. Distances from four satellites will intersect as a point in three dimensional space, giving the location of the receiver.
As a side point, the clocks in the satellites are corrected for relativistic effects – the system in fact confirms relativity to a very precise degree.
As it applies to this discussion – GPS receivers do not send signals, they only receive them. The GPS satellites are in multiple different directions, and the receiver relies on a precise, constant value of c to perform it’s calculations and determine distance to each satellite. The value of c in this case is not an average there-and-back speed, it’s one way. If the signals arrived instantly in the receiver from the four satellites, with their time information being the same – or if they were the same as the time on the receiver’s clock, the system would not work. It would not work if c varied in any direction, or was other than the constant value used in the unit.
Is GPS not practical evidence for a constant, known, speed of light?
@ed: The conventionalist position is (so far thought to be) 100% compatible with relativity. If the speed of light varied with direction, and we assumed it constant, we would adjust the clocks on the GPS until they said what we thought they should say. In fact, the GPS clocks are continually adjusted to be in synchrony with each other. Also, they are moved from time to time and the clocks need to be adjusted again when they are. So they are not the knock-down proof you think they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
The flight paths of the satellites are tracked by dedicated U.S. Air Force monitoring stations in Hawaii, Kwajalein, Ascension Island, Diego Garcia, Colorado Springs, Colorado and Cape Canaveral, along with shared NGA monitor stations operated in England, Argentina, Ecuador, Bahrain, Australia and Washington DC.[51] The tracking information is sent to the Air Force Space Command’s MCS at Schriever Air Force Base 25 km (16 miles) ESE of Colorado Springs, which is operated by the 2nd Space Operations Squadron (2 SOPS) of the United States Air Force (USAF). Then 2 SOPS contacts each GPS satellite regularly with a navigational update using dedicated or shared (AFSCN) ground antennas (GPS dedicated ground antennas are located at Kwajalein, Ascension Island, Diego Garcia, and Cape Canaveral). These updates synchronize the atomic clocks on board the satellites to within a few nanoseconds of each other, and adjust the ephemeris of each satellite’s internal orbital model. The updates are created by a Kalman filter that uses inputs from the ground monitoring stations, space weather information, and various other inputs.[52]
Satellite maneuvers are not precise by GPS standards. So to change the orbit of a satellite, the satellite must be marked unhealthy, so receivers will not use it in their calculation. Then the maneuver can be carried out, and the resulting orbit tracked from the ground. Then the new ephemeris is uploaded and the satellite marked healthy again.
@Ed,
How do all those cesium clocks get synchronized in the first place so that they are all on the same time? Well, a signal is passed from one clock to another, the signal travels at the speed of light, which is what is trying to be determined.
Using GPS satellites to measure the speed of light won’t rule out an ASC since the speed of light is used to set up the GPS satellites in the first place.
@Gabe, any hints about what avenue you are looking at which you think will be able to put the nail in the larger asynchronous speed of light question?
Oops. I went off for lunch leaving my comment half done and didn’t check for changes before I submitted it. I’ve been Ninja’d by Gabe.
@WebMonk: Did you ever hear the story about Columbus and the egg? If you have, you’ll know why I won’t say anything about it now. I need to read more anyway because I’m afraid someone will have said something that already refutes it.
There’s a Wikipedia article on it, written from the convetionalist perspective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light
@Gabe, WebMonk
The signal to the satellite is from a different location, and probably travels a different distance, than the signal from the satellite to the GPS user. Also, signals travel to the user from multiple different directions, each of which would cover a different distance. It is not exactly equivalent to a single, to-and-from signal for which the speed of light is computed as the average. If the signal to the satellite covered 9 megacubits at 1/2 speed, and the instantaneous return signal travelled 10 megacubits, the average of the two signals would not equal our current definition of c. In fact, the average value for c in that scenario would be different for every satellite.
@ed: In fact, the average value for c in that scenario would be different for every satellite.
Which you would never find out because you are constantly adjusting the clocks of the satellites to agree with what you think they ought to be.
All proposed attempts to measure the one-way speed of light using all three dimensions reduce to choosing a synchronization convention.
@Gabe: So in any convention other than a constant speed of light, the GPS satellite clocks must vary in such a way that when receivers apply the constant c to the time and location information of multiple satellites they will calculate correct distances. The satellite clocks must vary for every receiver in every location somewhat differently…which seems weird to me.
Is there anyone besides Lisle that believes c is not the same speed in all directions? Or is it just an interesting philosophical debate? It appears impossible to prove, per the above thread.
@Ed: So in any convention other than a constant speed of light, the GPS satellite clocks must vary in such a way that when receivers apply the constant c to the time and location information of multiple satellites they will calculate correct distances.
Great! The problem is solved! Now all we need to do is figure out how to measure distances–how do I know that the distance from A to B is the same as B to A… oh, wait…
Is there anyone besides Lisle that believes c is not the same speed in all directions? Or is it just an interesting philosophical debate?
It doesn’t matter if anyone wants c to be different–the point is that if conventionalists are right then c is whatever we decide it is. This isn’t any different from deciding that henceforth all seconds are half as long as they were before. Nothing in the universe will change its behavior in any meaningful way. If the conventionalists are right.
Gabe, thanks for the link. Good article. I’m reading it now. Here’s another link in case anyone missed it: One-way speed of light.
Well, I can forget about writing that paper. Marco Capria beat me to it in 2001, and it evidently didn’t settle the conventionalist hash.
So I’ll tell you what I was thinking. To measure the one way speed of light, have two observers, O and O’.
They start in the same place and synchronize their clocks. They choose a number N. O’ moves a distance L away making sure that his speed is such that he gets there in N ticks of his clock. He can “bobble” a bit, but the point his he only ever need to look at his own clock.
When N ticks have gone by O sends his signal and O’ starts timing–but their clocks disagree by a bit. We don’t know how much, and we don’t care. When O’ gets the signal he notes the time and sends it back to O, who notes HIS time. So O has the round trip time T and he has the one way time T’ measured by O’.
If the speed of light is the same in both directions, T’ is guaranteed to be less than half of T, because O’ moved at some velocity and “lost” some time to dilation, which he can’t measure on his own clock.
Now we repeat the measurements, each time using a bigger number N (hence slower transport). If the speed of light is the same in both directions we will never get T’ exactly half of T, but we can make it as close as we like, and each time we choose a larger N we set stricter limits on how much the speed of light can be different in different directions. In the limit that N is infinite, T’ is exactly half of T.
I don’t know what the conventionalist riposte is, I will try to find out. Here were are ten years later still arguing about it.
The paper contains a good historical overview and is pretty long. The reference is Foundations of Physics 31, 775 (2001).
Gabriel Hanna says:
I can’t professionally critique that, except to say that it’s good, but not really a one-way measurement. I still like my whirling rim thingie that measures the interval, not the distance.
but not really a one-way measurement.
It’s two one-way measurements in each experiment.
After some thought, I think there is a simpler experiment that will adequately treat this question.
This experiment would require a ship equipped with a highly accurate clock, programmed to fly into a strong gravity well (the sun would do nicely). Place Jason Lisle on the ship an launch.
Also works without the clock.
What’s the chance that the conventionalists haven’t really taken note of Capria’s paper?
I’ve been away and haven’t had a chance to think over his proposed test, but I haven’t grokked it yet.
This is testing the amount of time dilation caused by O’ moving, correct? It doesn’t matter if the distance L is 1 km or 10000 km, as long as O’ covers it according to his own watch in N seconds.
How would the dilation experienced by O’ be different if c were traveling in different speeds in different directions? I don’t see why, if c in the direction O’ is traveling is actually 100c and the return trip is 0.5025c, the dilation experienced by O’ should be any different than if c is constant in both directions.
Hi all,
This is my first post to this group. I’m not an Astrophysicist… I don’t even play one on TV. And I had never heard of Jason Lisle until two days ago when I watched the DVD of “What’s The Matter With Kansas?” Jason makes an appearance in a scene at the Creation Museum . He says the following to some museum visitors from Kansas (my transcription is about 95.27% accurate):
“Biblically, planets are actually clasified as stars. In fact there is a lot of evidence that those planets were created recently, a few thousand years ago.
For example the internal heat of planets like Jupiter and Neptune — they give off a lot of energy. If they were really billions of years old they should have cooled down a long time ago. But the fact that they’re still warm is because they are young.
“There is no justification for believing in the big bang ….” (because they don’t know what came before it). .. ” Things that have a beginning require a cause. The universe has a beginning and so it requires a cause. Because the universe is running down, it needs something to have wound it up a finite amount of time ago … it has a beginning.
God is beyond time, and doesn’t require a beginning and doesn’t require a cause. If the bible wasn’t true, science wouldn’t really be possible.
Science requires a logical orderly universe that behaves in a consistent, predictable fashion. Otherwise science would be impossible. And if the universe were just an accident, a byproduct of a big bang, why would it obey laws? If naturalism were true, logic would be impossible… you wouldn’t be able to reason. If you give up the bible, you’ve given up the possibility of really knowing anything.”
Having turned this over in my mind for a while, I am left with the question: Why would anyone with even a minimal understanding of science and logic take anything Jason says seriously? His grasp on reality appears to lack opposable thumbs…
Just because a statement is structured like a logical argument (If A then B) does not in itself make it one. At the very least. A and B must be related in some way. A few of Jason’s statements make as much sense to me as “If the moon were not made of green cheese, all the fish would have to live in volcanoes.” Maybe Jason’s move from Ohio to study in Boulder, CO starved his brain of oxygen and destroyed his ability to reason.
Welcome aboard, Realist1948.
Thank you Curmudgeon.
Just because it’s a great zinger and I intend to steal it.
🙂
Steal away … I stole it from somebody else years ago.
But the following Haiku is a Realist1948 original:
Palin on TV
Turned up the brightness control
But it did not help
> “… But it did not help”
And now I need to wipe the spittle off my screen.