The Core of the Conflict
In Special Relativity, we can measure the two-way speed of light, but not the one-way speed. It is usually assumed that light is isotropic (the same speed c in all directions). This is known as the Einstein Synchrony Convention (ESC). Dr. Lisle notes that other assumptions are mathematically possible. One could, for instance, adopt a Geocentric Light-speed Model (GLM) where light travels extremely fast toward Earth (so light from the furthest galaxies reaches us within a day) and c/2 away from it. While this seems implausible, it is difficult, if not impossible, to disprove using material instruments.
Lisle’s Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) takes this further, arguing that because the one-way speed cannot be measured by humans, a definite one-way speed simply does not exist.
To Lisle, the question of how long starlight took to reach us is physically "undefined." He affirms:
"Our inability to measure the one-way speed of light is not due to a lack of creativity on our part... Rather it is due to the way God has constructed spacetime." (Lisle 2010, p. 203)
Dr. Dennis challenges Dr. Lisle's conventionalism, arguing that there must be an objective one-way speed of light, even if we can't measure it. The debate ranges from intricacies in relativistic mathematics, interpretations of relativity, the nature of time, and God's relation to time.
I have discussed my reservations about the ASC in a previous post. Here I just want to note one additional consideration.
The Two-Angel Experiment
The "one-way problem" exists because material observers supposedly cannot transmit information faster than light to synchronize clocks. However, this constraint does not apply to non-material observers, such as angels.
The traditional view, defended by Thomas Aquinas, Herman Bavinck, and many others, is that since angels are spirits, not bound by the constraints of material objects, angels can change location virtually instantly. Likewise, they can also communicate instantly by a simple act of will.
Imagine two angels: Angel E on Earth and angel P on a planet 30 light-minutes from Earth. Angel E notes the time on his Earth clock and instantly shares it with angel P, who synchronizes his own clock. Both clocks are now synchronized to an absolute Earth time. This intellectual sync bypasses photons entirely.
At 12:00 angel P sends a light flash to Earth. When does angel E received the light signal? Consider three options:
1. ESC (Isotropic): Arrival at 12:30.
2. GLM (Geocentric): Arrival a fraction of a second after 12:00.
3. ASC (Conventionalist): Arrival is never observed.
Under ASC the speed has no definite value. It is merely a mathematical label chosen by a human observer. This leads to a startling contradiction:
The traditional view, defended by Thomas Aquinas, Herman Bavinck, and many others, is that since angels are spirits, not bound by the constraints of material objects, angels can change location virtually instantly. Likewise, they can also communicate instantly by a simple act of will.
Imagine two angels: Angel E on Earth and angel P on a planet 30 light-minutes from Earth. Angel E notes the time on his Earth clock and instantly shares it with angel P, who synchronizes his own clock. Both clocks are now synchronized to an absolute Earth time. This intellectual sync bypasses photons entirely.
At 12:00 angel P sends a light flash to Earth. When does angel E received the light signal? Consider three options:
1. ESC (Isotropic): Arrival at 12:30.
2. GLM (Geocentric): Arrival a fraction of a second after 12:00.
3. ASC (Conventionalist): Arrival is never observed.
The Ontological Conflict
Under Realism, the one-way speed of light has a definite physical value (between c/2 and infinity). While this value may be humanly unknowable, the angels—using their synchronized clocks—can determine exactly what that value is.Under ASC the speed has no definite value. It is merely a mathematical label chosen by a human observer. This leads to a startling contradiction:
For Angel E to witness the flash, it must arrive at a specific "Now" on his Earth-synced clock. But if the ASC is correct and that arrival time is physically undefined, there is no objective moment for the flash to inhabit. Consequently, the signal becomes invisible to the angel.We are left with a dilemma: while a human on Earth sees the flash (by applying a convention), the angel sees nothing (because there is no objective event to witness). Thus, we must conclude: Either the ASC is a mathematical fiction, or angels are as physically bound by Einstein’s light-limit as a piece of lead.
The Logic of the Absolute Now
This works because the angelic "intellectual sync" creates a privileged frame of reference that material objects cannot access. In standard relativity, we are forced to use "conventions" because light—a physical entity—takes time to bridge the gap.
However, when Angel E and Angel P share information instantly by a simple act of will, they establish a Universal Clock. They are no longer guessing or "defining" when "Now" occurs on the other end; they possess certain, shared knowledge of a single, objective timeline. By locking their clocks to this non-material handshake, the angels reveal that the "arrival time" of light is not a linguistic choice, but a timed physical journey across a real distance. This restores an Absolute Now to the cosmos—a singular, objective history of events as seen by the Creator.
I have discovered that this 'Angelic Argument' was used as early as 1932 by the Lutheran philosopher of science Bernhard Bavink in his work The Natural Sciences (Ergebnisse und Probleme der Naturwissenschaften). Bavink used this thought experiment to argue for an 'Absolute Now' against the positivistic block universe of Einstein, which he felt reduced the objective flow of time to a mere human perspective.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Lisle’s ASC relies on the presumed isolation of the observer—the idea that because no physical signal can currently be proven to bridge the gap instantly, we are left with a temporal "no-man's land" where we are free to invent our own rules. It is a model built entirely on the technological and material limitations of the fallible human observer.
However, if we grant the existence of a spiritual realm—as both Catholic and Reformed traditions do—that perceived isolation is reclaimed. The Angelic Handshake suggests that the "convention" of light speed is a human heuristic, not a cosmic law. By appealing to an observer who is not "blinded" by the light-limit, we find that:
Relativity limits human knowledge, not reality: The difficulty in measuring the one-way speed of light is a logistical hurdle for man, not an ontological void in the universe.
The "Absolute Now" is restored: If an angel can witness a star's birth and communicate that event to Earth instantly, then the "Now" of the star and the "Now" of the Earth are the same moment in the eyes of the Creator.
The speed of light is a physical journey: Rather than an "undefined" arrival, light is revealed as a traveler moving across a real distance over a real duration of time.
While the ASC remains a sophisticated mathematical tool for reconciling distant starlight with a young-earth chronology, the "Angelic Argument" reminds us that reality is not defined by what we are able to measure.
However, if we grant the existence of a spiritual realm—as both Catholic and Reformed traditions do—that perceived isolation is reclaimed. The Angelic Handshake suggests that the "convention" of light speed is a human heuristic, not a cosmic law. By appealing to an observer who is not "blinded" by the light-limit, we find that:
Relativity limits human knowledge, not reality: The difficulty in measuring the one-way speed of light is a logistical hurdle for man, not an ontological void in the universe.
The "Absolute Now" is restored: If an angel can witness a star's birth and communicate that event to Earth instantly, then the "Now" of the star and the "Now" of the Earth are the same moment in the eyes of the Creator.
The speed of light is a physical journey: Rather than an "undefined" arrival, light is revealed as a traveler moving across a real distance over a real duration of time.
While the ASC remains a sophisticated mathematical tool for reconciling distant starlight with a young-earth chronology, the "Angelic Argument" reminds us that reality is not defined by what we are able to measure.
If we believe in a God who sees all things simultaneously and a heavenly host not bound by the "drag" of the material world, then we must conclude that the universe is anchored to an Absolute Now—one where the light-speed limit is an objective physical reality, not a linguistic choice.
----------------------------------------------------
Appendix: The Recent Exchange: Realism vs. Conventionalism
2010: Dr. Lisle published Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem (Answers Research Journal 3, 2010).
July 2024: Dr. Dennis published An Internal Contradiction of Lisle’s ASC Model (Answers research Journal 17, July 2024), arguing that ASC leads to physical inconsistencies.
August 2024: Lisle published A Refutation of Phillip Dennis's Claims Regarding Alleged Inconsistencies in ASC (Aug 2024, Biblical Science Institute). He argued that Dennis's critiques were circular, as they relied on equations that already assumed the standard "Equal-Speed" convention.
November 2024: Dennis responded with A Refutation of Lisle’s "Refutation" (ARJ 17, Nov.2024), doubling down on the idea that the ASC is a mathematical mask rather than a physical reality.
Dec.2025- April 2026: Lisle published an 8 part series of posts against Dennis. Refuting Phillip Dennis’s Errors in Physics, ASC, and Philosophy (Ongoing series, 2025–2026, Biblical Science Institute).
*****
Appendix: The Recent Exchange: Realism vs. Conventionalism
2010: Dr. Lisle published Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem (Answers Research Journal 3, 2010).
July 2024: Dr. Dennis published An Internal Contradiction of Lisle’s ASC Model (Answers research Journal 17, July 2024), arguing that ASC leads to physical inconsistencies.
August 2024: Lisle published A Refutation of Phillip Dennis's Claims Regarding Alleged Inconsistencies in ASC (Aug 2024, Biblical Science Institute). He argued that Dennis's critiques were circular, as they relied on equations that already assumed the standard "Equal-Speed" convention.
November 2024: Dennis responded with A Refutation of Lisle’s "Refutation" (ARJ 17, Nov.2024), doubling down on the idea that the ASC is a mathematical mask rather than a physical reality.
Dec.2025- April 2026: Lisle published an 8 part series of posts against Dennis. Refuting Phillip Dennis’s Errors in Physics, ASC, and Philosophy (Ongoing series, 2025–2026, Biblical Science Institute).
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment