Answers Research Journal 3 (2010):191–207.

www.answersingenesis.org/arj/v3/anisotropic-synchrony-convention.pdf

Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—

A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem

Jason P. Lisle, Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 510, Hebron, Kentucky 41048

Abstract
We here explore a way in which light from distant galaxies can reach earth within the biblical
timescale. Though the universe is created mature, we will find that this by itself appears to be insufficient
to explain our ability to see distant events, prompting the need for a solution to the “distant starlight
problem.” The concept of synchrony conventions in physics is examined. The fact that relativistic physics
precludes an absolute, invariant synchrony space is reviewed. We then explore the consequences
and motivation for the use of the standard Einstein synchrony convention, followed by an investigation
of alternative synchrony conventions.
In particular, we find that an observer-centric anisotropic synchrony convention eliminates the
distant starlight problem by reducing radially inward-directed light travel-time in the reference frame
of the observer to zero. Such a convention implies that everything in the universe has an age of a few
thousand years as we currently see it. The biblical basis for such a convention is explored. Potential
objections to this synchrony convention are considered. When the anisotropic synchrony convention
is applied to standard cosmological parameters, a new young-universe cosmological model emerges
which makes falsifiable predictions.

Keywords: light-travel, young universe, distant starlight

Introduction The fact that the universe is very big and also young
According to the Bible, everything in the universe (by secular standards) is therefore not logically useful
was made in the span of six days (Exodus 20:11); these as a criticism against the Bible when the favored
are clearly ordinary earth rotation days comprised of alternative also has a light travel-time problem.
one evening and one morning (Genesis 1:5). Moreover,
this creation happened a few thousand (roughly 6,000) Mature Creation
years ago, as deduced from the genealogies we read in It has been suggested that God supernaturally
sections of the Bible such as Genesis 5 and 11. The created the beams of light themselves. That is, the
clear biblical teaching therefore is that everything in light beam from every star to earth is created “in
the universe is a few thousand years old. Since light transit” at the same time the stars are created. This
travels a distance of one light year (about 6 trillion light en-route model is often presented in the context
miles or 9 trillion kilometers) in one year, it would of mature creation: the idea that God created the
seem that we should only be able to see objects within universe fully functional from the start, and that the
a radius of 6,000 light years.1 Objects beyond that universe required no time or process to become what
distance should not be visible, since presumably God wanted it to be.
their light has not yet reached us. Yet, paradoxically, Mature creation is sometimes inappropriately
we can see galaxies whose distances have been referred to as “appearance of age”; however the latter
measured to be many billions of light years away. term fallaciously implies that age can be seen or
This apparent mystery has been often addressed in otherwise empirically measured. But since age is not
creation literature as “the distant starlight problem.” a physical property or substance, it cannot be directly
Critics of biblical creation have often attempted to observed. Of course there is a sense in which we say
use distant starlight as evidence in favor of the big bang that something appears old or young—a person who
and against Genesis. But such criticisms are logically looks “young” for his age, or a car that looks quite
unsound since the big bang has an ontologically “old.” In these cases, we are speaking idiomatically,
equivalent problem—the horizon problem. Solutions comparing observable characteristics and then
to the horizon problem have been proposed of course, making an inference based on comparisons with
but there is not universal agreement (Lisle 2006). other samples whose age is known. This of course is
1
The perceived problem is even more severe when we consider Adam’s view of the heavens on the day he was created. By conventional
thinking, Adam’s view of the universe would be limited to only a few light-days, in which case he would not have been able to see any of
the nighttime stars. The Solar System is within this radius. So, the sun, moon, and planets would have been visible. But did Adam have
to wait 4.3 years for the next nearest star to “blink on”? If so, then the stars would not have fulfilled their purpose for years.

ISSN: 1937-9056 Copyright © 2010, 2017 Answers in Genesis, Inc. All content is owned by Answers in Genesis (“AiG”) unless otherwise indicated. AiG consents to unlimited copying and distribution of print
copies of Answers Research Journal articles for non-commercial, non-sale purposes only, provided the following conditions are met: the author of the article is clearly identified; Answers in Genesis is
acknowledged as the copyright owner; Answers Research Journal and its website, www.answersresearchjournal.org, are acknowledged as the publication source; and the integrity of the work is not
compromised in any way. For website and other electronic distribution and publication, AiG consents to republication of article abstracts with direct links to the full papers on the ARJ website. All rights
reserved. For more information write to: Answers in Genesis, PO Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048, Attn: Editor, Answers Research Journal.

The views expressed are those of the writer(s) and not necessarily those of the Answers Research Journal Editor or of Answers in Genesis.
192 J. P. Lisle

not possible with the universe, since there is only one lights in the sky to mark the passage of time and to give
known member of its class (Chaffey and Lisle 2008). light upon the earth. Verse 16 tells us specifically what
Strictly speaking, something cannot appear old or these lights are: God created the sun, the moon, and the
young, because age is not an observational property. stars also. Verse 17 reiterates that one of the purposes of
Age is a concept indicative of history, which cannot these light-bearers is to give light upon the earth. The
be observed in the present. When someone says he phrase at the end of verse 15 “and it was so” indicates
believes the universe “looks old,” this simply reveals that these light-bearers immediately began to fulfill
something about the initial conditions he has their God-given purpose—to give light upon the earth.
assumed—not about the universe. Thus, the universe But this is the problem: if God created the light in-
was not created with “appearance of age,” but it was transit, then the light does not really come from the
created mature—in the sense that it functioned stars. In fact, it could not rightly be called “starlight”
immediately upon God’s creating it. Just as Adam at all but rather “Godlight.” If the light en-route
was created mature, needing no time or process to model were true, then all stars beyond about 6,000
reach adulthood, so was the universe. light years are not yet fulfilling their God-ordained
Many arguments against a young universe are purpose to give light upon the earth, but Genesis
indeed easily refuted by pointing out that the universe 1:14–15 suggests that the stars fulfilled their purpose
was made mature, and hence the advocate of an “old right from the day of their creation.
earth” has assumed the incorrect initial conditions. There is a serious philosophical difficulty as well
Today, for example, trees need a certain amount of concerning the preconditions of intelligibility. These
time to reach a certain size. But the first trees were are the things necessary to make knowledge of the
created supernaturally, and needed less than a day to universe possible. For example, the basic reliability of
reach their size. If someone were to assume that the our senses is a precondition of intelligibility. Clearly,
first trees came about by today’s natural processes if our eyes, ears, and other senses did not accurately
(growing from a seed at today’s rate), he or she would inform our mind about the outside world, we would
vastly overestimate the age. have no hope of understanding anything about the
The overwhelming majority of old-earth, or old- universe. We all presume that our senses are basically
universe arguments are fallacious because they reliable, that we are not just a brain in a jar being fed
are based on faulty, unbiblical initial conditions. electrical impulses about a fictional “Matrix” world.
For example, by assuming that the universe began The preconditions of intelligibility must be true,
with no size, or that the solar system formed from because without them we could not know anything
a nebula, and then extrapolating how long it would at all. Therefore, anything that undermines a
take to reach its present state, of course one is bound precondition of intelligibility must be false. But
to reach a faulty age estimate that is inflated by a the light-in-transit model undermines the basic
factor of millions. Old-universe supporters frequently reliability of our senses. Consider: the light-in-transit
make such mistakes. They have arbitrarily assumed model would mean that all events (supernovae for
unbiblical initial conditions, and then use the resulting example—fig. 1) beyond about 6,000 light years have
inflated age estimate to argue that the Bible is wrong. never happened. They would merely be a sequence
But, of course, this simply begs the question. of images in a beam of light created by God. These
images would not correspond to any real event.
The Light-in-Transit Model But if God is willing to make movies of fictional events
Mature creation is a biblical concept, and easily at distances beyond 6,000 light years, then why would
shows the majority of old-earth claims to be fallacious. we arbitrarily assume that He would not also make
But does distant starlight fall in this category? One of fictional movies nearby? (Is the tree outside my window
the assumptions involved when light travel times are real, or is it merely a picture embedded in light beams
computed is that the light did indeed originate at the created by God?) The light-en-route model requires that
star. If God created the beams of light en-route, then events we observe beyond about 6,000 light years (which
they did not originate at the stars. This would indeed covers the overwhelming majority of the universe) are
eliminate the distant starlight problem. However, fictional, and thus our senses are not reliable for those
this proposal introduces biblical and philosophical distances. If we cannot believe our eyes for 99.9999%
difficulties of its own. I suggest that it is reasonable of the universe, then why should we trust them for the
(and in fact necessary) to suppose that distant other 0.0001% that is nearby? So, light-en-route models
starlight did in fact originate from the star, and was lead to the inescapable conclusion that our senses are
not created in transit. There are several reasons to not generally reliable, in which case it doesn’t make
reject the light-in-transit view. sense to even attempt to understand the universe. Yes,
First, there is a serious biblical difficulty with this God made the universe mature. But, no, this does not by
view. Genesis 1:14–15 indicates that God made the itself alleviate the distant starlight problem.
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem 193

Simultaneity in the Classical Limit

Before we address relativistic
synchrony conventions, it is useful to
examine the concept of synchronization
in the classical, Newtonian limit.
Before the discovery of Special
Relativity, measurements of distances
and durations were considered to be
invariant: absolute and objectively
independent of the reference frame
(velocity) or position of the observer.
Since motion does not affect the passage
of time under Newtonian physics, the
synchronization of two clocks is trivial.
Simply synchronize the two clocks at
the same location, and then move them
to the desired positions. The clocks
remain synchronized in the classical
limit. If we imagine doing this process
for an infinite number of clocks, and
then distributing these clocks in a
three-dimensional grid throughout
the universe, we could determine the
Fig. 1. Supernova 1987A. If the light-in-transit model is correct, then this time of any possible event. The clock
star never actually existed, and this explosion never really happened. It at the location of the event records the
would mean that this image does not correspond to any real object, but is
simply a picture created by God in beams of light. time.
Suppose we want to know if two
Scripture Implies a Synchrony Convention events in the universe, say two lightning strikes,
Genesis itself may suggest a simple answer to have happened at the same time. That is, we wish
distant starlight. In Genesis 1:-14–18 God tells to know if the two events are simultaneous. This is
us that the stars were created on the fourth day to easily accomplished in our system. Simply read the
give light upon the earth. This text also seems to time of the clock at event A at the instant it happens,
strongly suggest that the stars fulfilled their purpose and compare it with the time of the clock at event B
immediately (“and it was so.”) Therefore, it would at the moment it happens. If the times are the same,
seem that the light emitted by the stars reached then the two events are said to be simultaneous. If
earth instantaneously, or nearly so. This suggests a the two events are not simultaneous, then a particle
synchrony convention: a procedure for synchronizing emitted from the first event at just the right velocity
clocks separated by a distance.2
could arrive at the location of the second event exactly
Two events are said to be “simultaneous” if they
at the time the second event occurs.
both happen at the same time. When two events
If the two events are close in space, but widely
are separated by some distance and we wish to
know whether they are simultaneous, we must first separated in time (the second event happens long
establish a system of measuring time at various after the first), then a slow-moving particle can pass
locations. In particular, we must make certain that from the first to the second. If the two events are
any clocks we are using to measure time at the two widely separated in space, but only a short amount
locations are synchronized. Thus, we must develop of time separates them, then a high-speed particle
a procedure for synchronizing clocks separated by a can pass from the first to the second. However, if
distance. This turns out to be far more complicated the two events are simultaneous, no (finite) speed
than people might assume at first. Yet, we will find will be fast enough for a particle from one to reach
that the correct synchrony convention eliminates the the other. No amount of energy could accelerate
distant starlight problem. Starlight from the most the particle (of finite mass) to the infinite speed
distant galaxy can reach earth on the fourth day required to make its trip instantaneous. This leads
of the Creation Week when the correct relativistic us to propose a possible definition of the concept of
synchrony convention is employed. “simultaneous”:
2
I have previously written on the possibility that a non-Einstein synchrony convention may solve the distant starlight problem. That
preliminary article was written under my penname Robert Newton and is a precursor to the more in-depth analysis offered in this paper
(Newton 2001).
194 J. P. Lisle

Two events in spacetime are simultaneous if and Simultaneity in Relativistic Physics

only if a (mass-possessing) particle cannot move When we consider a relativistic universe the
from one event to the other. picture becomes far more complex and interesting.
To illustrate this, let us consider a universe that Time and space no longer have the objective observer-
has only two dimensions of space, and one of time; independent status which they possessed in the
this way, we can represent the entire spacetime Newtonian limit. Most significantly, particles are no
manifold in a 3-dimensional volume with time on the longer permitted to have unlimited velocity. Massive
vertical axis, as per standard relativistic diagrams particles may have a velocity up to (but not including)
(see fig. 2). In the diagram, a fast moving particle the speed of light. The finite speed of light essentially
has a nearly horizontal slope because it traverses a divides spacetime into two domains—the interior and
lot of space in a short period of time. Conversely, a the exterior of the light cones shown in Fig. 3. These
slow moving particle has a nearly vertical slope since cones represent a burst of light emitted from (in the
it crosses very little space in a relatively long period of case of the upper cone), or absorbed by (in the case of
time. A stationary particle is represented by a vertical the lower cone) event p. If we assume axiomatically
line. Let us consider a stationary observer (O) at a that light travels at the same speed in all directions
particular time and place (p), and imagine how this relative to an observer, the resulting light path forms
observer would use the above definition to determine two symmetric cones which intersect at their tips
which other events in the universe are happening at at point p. In relativistic literature, events interior
exactly this same time. to the light cones of p are called “time-like” events
(since their separation from p in time is greater than
ct
their separation in space), while those exterior to p
(such as point s) are called “space-like.” Events on
O r the cones themselves (such as ℓ) are called “light-
like” events.

ct
p
q x

ℓ
O
r
s
y
p x
Fig. 2. Simultaneous events in the classical limit for a q
universe with two dimensions of space and one of time
are coplanar.

s
In this diagram, an event p is simultaneous with y
event q because no particle is fast enough to travel
from p to q—this would require infinite speed, which
would require infinite energy in the classical limit.
Event p is not simultaneous with event r because a Fig. 3. The finite speed of light divides spacetime into
two volumes: space-like, and time-like. Points exactly
particle of the right velocity could travel from p to r. on the cones are called light-like.
Neither is event s simultaneous with p since a particle
can travel from s to p. Moreover, there is no ambiguity If we consider an event (q) that is space-like relative
about which events have happened first. Clearly to p, we find that it fits our previous definition of
events below p and q have happened before p and q, “simultaneous.” No (finite-mass) particle can travel
and events higher on the vertical axis have happened from p to q, because such a particle would have to travel
later. Any point with the same ct value as p and q faster than light, which is not possible for particles with
is simultaneous with p and q. Thus, in a Newtonian finite rest mass. Even light is not sufficiently fast to
universe with two dimensions of space and one of time, reach q from p. The region of simultaneity is no longer a
all events concurrent with p are represented by the plane as it was in the classical limit, but is (potentially)
horizontal plane that passes through p. All observers, the volume external to the light cones of event p. Thus,
regardless of their location or velocity in the universe q and p can be considered simultaneous. Likewise,
would agree on both the relative and absolute timing event r can be considered simultaneous with event p,
of these events. since no particle can travel from one to the other.
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem 195

ct previous event has traveled the same distance in all

directions in the same amount of time. In other words,
O if and only if we define plane S0 as the set of points
that are simultaneous with p, will we find that light
travels the same speed in all directions, which is our
r
starting axiom. An event that happens at a later time
in the same location (q) will be simultaneous with all
events defined by the plane S1 (see fig. 6).
p x
q The Relativity of Simultaneity
What we have done in the above is to define our
coordinate system in a particular way. Specifically,
we have defined “simultaneous events” in such a way
that light by construction propagates at the same
speed in all directions relative to the observer. This
is called the “Einstein synchrony convention” and
represents what is normally done in Relativistic
physics. It may seem at first that this gives us a
perfectly self-consistent and objective definition of
simultaneity. However, when we consider an observer
Fig. 4. Although r can be considered simultaneous with
that is moving relative to event p, we will see that
q, and q with p, r cannot be simultaneous with q since r
lies within the light-cone of q. Event r is time-like with this definition of simultaneous is not invariant, but
respect to q. is reference-frame dependent. In Relativistic physics,
a “reference frame” is an observer or set of observers
However, when we consider the light cones of that all move at the same constant velocity (same
events q and r, we find that an inconsistency arises. speed and direction) through space. Every observer
These events (q and r) are inside the light cone of each is allowed to consider himself stationary; the position
other (see fig. 4). Although they are space-like with and motion of all other objects in the universe is
respect to p, they are time-like events with respect based on a coordinate system where the observer
to each other. A finite-mass particle emitted from is axiomatically always at the origin of the spatial
q will reach r if it has the right velocity. Therefore, coordinates. The path of the observer (O) through
although q is simultaneous with p by our working spacetime is simply his own time axis (ct).
definition, and although p is simultaneous with r, we ct
find that q is not simultaneous with r, and in fact is
unambiguously before r. Since q is in the past light
O
cone of r, and r is in the future light cone of q, it seems
inconsistent to call them simultaneous, even from the
perspective of a third point (p). This leads us to seek
a better definition of “simultaneous.”
To eliminate the above inconsistency, we will need
to select a 2-dimensional subset of points from our
3-dimensional volume of spacetime that is external
to the light cones. This subset we will define as the So p
x
set of events simultaneous with p (see fig. 5). This q
new definition will ensure that no event is within the
light cone of any other simultaneous event, thereby
guaranteeing that causes always happen before effects p1
in all reference frames. If we again take as an axiom
that light travels the same speed in all directions
relative to an observer, then it follows that a plane
(S0) which is orthogonal to the light cone axis (ct) will
represent the set of events that are simultaneous with
p. This is because plane S0 is the only plane passing
through p in which a light cone from an event at the Fig. 5. The assumption that the one-way speed of light is
same location as p but at an earlier time (p1) intersects isotropic leads to a definition of simultaneity for event p
as a circle. The circle indicates that light from this that is the plane S0.
196 J. P. Lisle

ct ctʹ ct ctʹ

O O
Oʹ Oʹ

n n r s
S1 q r q
s

m
m
p p
R

Fig. 6. All events on plane S1 are simultaneous with Fig. 7. All events on plane R are simultaneous with r as
events q and r as observed by O. observed by O’.

Consider another observer O’ that is moving observer O’ would conclude that event s and event q
relative to O, but happens to be in the same place are not simultaneous; event s happens before event q
at time = 0. That is, both observers pass through since event s is well below the plane R and event q is
event p. At a later time, there will be some distance slightly above (as shown in fig. 7). Moreover, observer
between O and O’ such that O passes through event O’ concludes that event m happens after event s since
q, whereas O’ passes through event r. At q, observer m lies above the plane of simultaneity (R) whereas s
O will conclude that all events in plane S1 are lies below. The Lorentz transformations can be used
simultaneous with q because the light cone intersects to convert from the coordinate system of O to the
that plane as a circle with q in the center. However, coordinate system of O’ and vice versa. The important
observer O’ will not come to the same conclusion. thing here is that not only do O and O’ disagree on
The circle of intersection between the light cones and whether or not events are simultaneous, they cannot
plane S1 is not centered on r. Therefore, light would even agree on the order in which events take place!
not be traveling the same speed in all directions This well-studied phenomenon is called the “relativity
relative to observer O’ if S1 represented his plane of of simultaneity.”
simultaneity, which would violate our starting axiom Paradoxes like this occur because we intuitively
that light propagates in an isotropic fashion relative expect space and time to be observer-independent.
to any observer. But the universe simply is not that way. The
Instead, observer O’ will conclude that the plane coordinates by which we measure spatial extents
R (see fig. 7) represents the set of points that are and temporal intervals are fundamentally observer-
simultaneous with r, because this plane intersects dependent, and hence there will always be a range
the light cones in such a way that the observer is of possible values when we assign coordinates to
in the center.3 In other words, plane R is the plane any spacetime event. The relativity of simultaneity
in which light has traveled the same speed in all is well-known and is covered more rigorously in
directions relative to observer O’. This leads to some most introductory textbooks on Special Relativity.
interesting consequences. Observer O would conclude Although Einstein synchronization is well-defined
that event s and event q are simultaneous, and event and self-consistent for any one reference frame, it
m happens before event s since event m is below the is not possible to construct a synchrony definition
plane S1 and therefore has a smaller value for the that is objectively the same for all velocity reference
time (ct) coordinate (as shown in fig. 6). However, frames at all locations.
3
This conic section is seen as an ellipse from the perspective of O; but this is because his coordinate system is compressed relative to O’
in the x direction due to relativistic length contraction. Observer O’ will perceive the conic section as a perfect circle with himself in the
center.
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem 197

Considerations on the Creation Week This effect is illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7. Observer
The relativity of simultaneity is rarely discussed in O represents earth at its creation. Event s represents
creation-based literature. And yet it is crucial to the the creation of the first galaxy we considered, and
construction of biblically-based cosmological models. event n represents the second galaxy we considered.
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the Plane S1 represents the entire universe at that time
description of the creation of the universe in Genesis (that is, Day Four). We see that event s and event n
is using Einstein synchronization; that is, the way (the creation of those two galaxies) occur on Day Four
God describes the timing of events is the same system as expected (see fig. 6). Six months later, the earth
astronomers and physicists use today. Most creationists has a different velocity frame, and is now represented
implicitly assume this. Since the creation of the by O’ (see fig. 7). So, plane R represents the entire
celestial objects (the lights of the heavens) occurs on universe at that time. We can see that event s now
the fourth day, all stars were created simultaneously, lies in the distant past, indicating that the galaxy
or nearly so (within 24 hours). But we’ve just seen that was created long ago (2.6 million years ago from the
what is considered “simultaneous” is relative to the Lorentz transformation). Whereas event n now lies
observer’s reference frame. Since God is omnipresent, in earth’s future; that galaxy will not be created for
what reference frame would He choose? The reference another 2.6 million years.
frame of the earth is the obvious choice, since the days Einstein synchronization is very useful in physics
of creation are described in terms of earth rotations and does have clear advantages over other systems.
(“the evening and the morning were the Xth day”). But, as we have seen, it also leads to some rather
Moreover, since the Bible is written for human beings, strange results. Two cosmically distant events that
it stands to reason that the planet on which all are considered simultaneous in one reference frame
humans live would be the reference frame God would will inevitably be separated by millions of years in
use for all time-stamping. another reference frame. More generally, any two
However, the reference frame of the earth changes space-like events will be considered simultaneous
throughout the year as the earth orbits the sun. Its in some reference frame. In other reference frames,
direction of velocity is constantly changing. So, if the one will occur before the other; however, the order in
creation of the stars is simultaneous relative to earth on which they occur will be different for different velocity
Day Four (as measured by Einstein synchronization), frames. So, if the creation of all the galaxies in the
then it cannot be simultaneous relative to earth only cosmos is simultaneous in one reference frame, it will
sixth months later (when the earth is on the opposite be spread out over millions of years in another. And
side of the sun, and moving in the opposite direction). the earth is constantly shifting reference frames in
In fact, the spread of time becomes enormous when its annual orbit.
we consider the most distant galaxies. We could resolve this discrepancy by selecting
For example, consider a galaxy 13 billion light years some other reference frame, one that does not change
away. And imagine that it is located in the opposite with time, such as the center of mass of the entire
direction that the earth (in its orbit around the sun) universe. However, this seems rather arbitrary, and
was moving during the Creation Week. Then if this biblically unwarranted. Essentially all other time
galaxy is created on the fourth day according to the references in Scripture are given in terms of earth
Einstein synchrony convention, we find by the Lorentz time, and in particular, the local time at the location
transformation that six months later (when the earth under discussion. Why make an exception for Genesis?
is moving toward this galaxy) it would have been This would be nothing more than special pleading.
created 2.6 million years before the earth!4 Perhaps Since the creation days are always bound by morning
even more strangely, if we consider a galaxy in the and evening, it seems clear that the velocity frame
opposite direction (such that earth is moving toward used to describe the creation account (and in general
it at its creation), also 13 billion light years away and throughout the Scriptures) is that of the earth.
created on Day Four, the Lorentz transformation Since the creation of the entire universe took
tells us that this galaxy from earth’s reference frame place within a timescale of six earth rotation days,
six months later will not have been created yet! Its we must ascertain what synchrony convention God
creation will be 2.6 million years in the future. is using when He speaks of the stars being created

4
The Lorentz transformation for the time (t’) of a distant event in earth’s reference frame six months after creation compared to the time
(t) during the Creation Week is given by: t’ = γ(t−vx/c2) where x is the distance to the galaxy at creation, v is the relative velocity of earth
at creation compared to six months later, c is the speed of light, and γ = 1/√(1−v2/c2). The orbital speed of the earth is 29,785 m/s. So the
relative velocity of earth (v) on one side of its orbit compared to the other would be twice this value. The distance to the galaxy (x) is 13
billion light years which converts to 1.23 × 1026 m. The time (t) may be set to zero for our purposes, since we start the clock when the galaxy
is created, and γ is closely approximated as unity, since the earth moves slowly compared to the speed of light. We find that t’ = 8.25 × 1013 s
which converts to 2.6 million years.
198 J. P. Lisle

on the fourth day. We have seen that if we assume directions. This is permitted in Relativity, provided
that this is the fourth day as measured by Einstein that the round-trip speed is constant for any observer.
synchronization, then creation takes place in six days In fact, it has been shown that Special Relativity
only when the earth is moving at a particular speed can be expressed using non-Einstein synchrony
in a particular direction. Thus, those six days become conventions, leaving the one-way speed of light as a
spread out over millions of years when the earth free parameter (Winnie 1970a, b).
changes direction in its annual orbit. But there is no Therefore, an infinite number of such synchrony
hint of such a thing in Scripture. The Bible only ever conventions may be stipulated. However, not all such
speaks of creation taking place in a short span of time selections will be particularly useful. But there is
(six days) regardless of when the statement is made one that is especially useful. Let us consider a non-
(for example, Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11; Mark 10:6). Einstein synchrony convention in which all points in
Moreover, the fact that the creation of some galaxies the past light cone of p are considered simultaneous.
lies in the distant future when measured by Einstein This convention has been used in the technical
synchrony seems to clash with Genesis 2:1–2, which literature (Sarkar and Stachel 1999). Moreover,
indicate that God’s work of creation is finished and Einstein himself considered using this convention, but
that God is no longer creating. The Einstein synchrony preferred to use the standard convention because it is
convention seems to create a number of inconsistencies position-independent (as we will see shortly). To avoid
when applied to Genesis 1. Might this suggest that having causally-connected simultaneous events, we
the Bible does not use Einstein synchronization? This could move the cone infinitesimally outside the past
leads us to ask whether there may be an alternative light cone as follows.
definition of simultaneity in which creation takes We define “simultaneous” as the set of events that
place in six days regardless of the earth’s velocity at form a cone around the lower (past) light cone of p at
other times. angle ϕ where ϕ represents an infinitesimal quantity
(see fig. 8). For all practical purposes, we are using
Alternative Synchrony Conventions the lower light cone as the surface of simultaneity;
The Einstein synchrony convention that we have except I am displacing it by an infinitesimal amount
been working with so far is based on two axioms. (ϕ) in order to ensure that simultaneous events are
First, if a (massive) particle can travel from event A always space-like rather than light-like, thereby
to event B, then the two events are not simultaneous. making them causally unconnected. This is an
This criterion is necessary to preserve cause-and- anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC) because we
effect relationships and eliminates the volume within are stipulating that light travels at different speeds
the light cones. Second, in order to eliminate any depending on its direction or position relative to
remaining ambiguity, we selected only a 2-dimensional ct
subset of the remaining points: the plane in which the
ctʹ
light cone intersects as a circle. This is equivalent to O
assuming that light travels at the same speed in all Oʹ
directions relative to any observer. We chose this for
simplicity. However, this second axiom is not actually
a requirement or premise of Special Relativity
(Einstein 1961). Relativity only requires that the two-
way time averaged speed of light is constant for any
observer. Although Einstein synchrony is normally
used as the particular system in which the equations p
are expressed, it is not a requirement. By dropping
this second axiom, we find that there are alternative
definitions of simultaneity that are logically consistent
for any given observer. n
In principle, we could select any two-dimensional s
manifold exterior to the light cones of p, providing m
that no point in this manifold is within the light cone
ϕ→0
of any other point. Any such definition of simultaneity
will be self-consistent for any given observer and will
preserve causality. For example, we could select planes
of simultaneity that are tilted relative to the light Fig. 8. A cone surrounding the past light cone of p at
cones. Such a definition is equivalent to assuming an infinitesimal angle ϕ is defined as those events
that light travels at different speeds in different simultaneous with p.
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem 199

observer O. It is clear that this definition fits our most distant galaxy is created on Day Four, and its
criteria. First, no positive-rest-mass particle can light reaches earth effectively simultaneously on Day
travel from any event on this cone to any other. Second, Four. Of course, the fact that ASC solves the distant
no point on this cone is within the light cones of any starlight problem does not ipso facto mean that it is
other point. Although ASC lacks the mathematical the convention that the Bible uses. Nonetheless, we
symmetry of the Einstein convention, it has certain have seen thus far that (1) if the Bible does use ASC
interesting advantages. to mark time in Genesis, then (2) the distant starlight
Notice that since events p, m, n, and s are on the problem is solved. Part 1 of this proposition remains
surface of the cone (or infinitesimally exterior to to be proved. However, we are already seeing a strong
it), they are all considered simultaneous under the suggestion that it may be so, since ASC eliminates
ASC definition. Moreover, since observer O’ shares the problem of the de-synchronization of the Creation
the same light cones as observer O at point p, this Week that occurs when the Lorentz transformation is
means observer O’ also considers events p, m, n, and applied to earth’s annual orbit.
s to be simultaneous. This is a unique feature of ASC:
observers at the same location all agree on which Synchrony Conventions and the
events are simultaneous—regardless of the velocity One-Way Speed of Light
of the observer. Recall that the Einstein synchrony Both theory and experimentation confirm that
convention lacks this feature; two observers at the same the round trip speed of light in a vacuum is constant
location will (in general) disagree on which events are relative to any inertial observer.5 So, if we take
simultaneous if the observers have different velocities. light and bounce it off one or more mirrors so that it
The Einstein synchrony convention requires that returns to its source location, the time it takes will be
two observers have the same velocity (not position) constant for a given distance (for any inertial observer
if they are to agree on which events in the universe who performs the experiment) and is given by L/c
are simultaneous. Apparently, a preference for a where L is the total length of the path and c is the
position-independent synchrony convention rather (round trip) speed of light. However, the speed of light
than a velocity-independent one was the reason that in any one direction is not necessarily constant. As
Einstein himself preferred to use the convention that counter-intuitive as it may seem, the one-way speed
now bears his name (Sarkar and Stachel 1999). of light is not a constant of nature, but is a matter of
convention. It is something we may choose, providing
Implications of Describing Creation using ASC that our choice preserves causality, is self-consistent,
If we suppose for argument’s sake that the Bible and providing the round trip speed of light is still
uses the anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC) as exactly c.
defined above when describing the timing of events, we The act of choosing a synchrony convention is
find that this eliminates the problems we encountered synonymous with defining the one-way speed of light.
under the Einstein synchrony convention. Recall If we select Einstein synchronization, then we have
that under Einstein synchronization the creation of declared that the speed of light is the same in all
the distant stars is instantaneous when earth is on directions. If we select ASC, then we have declared
one side of its orbit; however, that creation becomes that light is essentially infinitely fast when moving
spread out over millions of years only six months directly toward the observer, and ½c when moving
later. This occurs because of the difference in velocity directly away. Under ASC, the speed of light as a
of the two reference frames as computed from the function of direction relative to the observer (θ) is
Lorentz transformation. However, with ASC, the given by cθ = c/(1-cos(θ)), where θ = 0 indicates the
velocity does not matter. Both earth at creation (O) direction directly toward the observer.
and earth six months later (O’) have approximately It seems counter-intuitive that we may simply
the same position, even though the velocity is quite stipulate the one-way speed of light. It seems that the
different. Therefore, under ASC, both would consider one-way speed of light should be unambiguous and
the creation of the stars to be simultaneous on Day measurable, in which case we would not have the
Four—even for the most distant galaxies. freedom to choose an alternate synchrony convention.
Most significantly, ASC reduces the inward- However, this is not so. We should remember that
directed light travel-time to zero. Since ASC defines people once thought that durations in time and
simultaneity as being infinitesimally close to the past lengths in space were objective and unambiguous,
light cones, it follows that the creation of a star on irrespective of the observer’s velocity. But Einstein’s
Day Four happens at essentially the same time as discoveries rule out such possibilities. In the next two
the light from that star reaches earth. Under ASC, sections, I will show that the one-way speed of light
the “distant starlight problem” disappears. Even the is conventional. It is something that is stipulated by
5
In Special Relativity an “inertial observer” is one who moves with an unchanging velocity and without rotation.
200 J. P. Lisle

us, and is not an independent measurable property B to A and synchronize the two at the same location.
of the universe. This will be only a brief review of This eliminates any ambiguity due to light travel
what is often called the “conventionality thesis.” More time. We then move one of the clocks to point B. It’s
thorough treatments are available in the technical simple enough, but there is again a catch. Einstein
literature (Salmon 1977; Winnie 1970a, b). tells us that motion affects the passage of time. So,
although the two clocks were indeed synchronized
Attempts to Measure the when they were together, the very act of moving one
One-Way Speed of Light clock to B has caused it to become desynchronized
Measuring the round-trip average speed of light with the clock at A. How much it is off will depend
is quite easy in principle. We could set up a clock at on the one-way speed of light, the very issue in
location A and a mirror at location B which is distance question.
S from A. We send out a light beam from the clock at
location A; the beam reflects off the mirror at B and Slow Clock Transport
returns to A. We subtract the time when the light left Some people have proposed a method by which we
from the time when it returned and call the difference might overcome the difficulty of synchronizing clock
t. The round trip time-averaged speed of light is then B with clock A. Since motion affects the passage of
given by c = 2S/t. time, if we were to synchronize two clocks at point
We could attempt to measure the one-way speed of A and then move one clock to B and then back to A,
light by a similar experiment. But since the light is the two clocks would no longer read the same time. If
no longer on a closed path, we will now need another we repeated this experiment but moved clock B much
clock at B to record the time at which the light more slowly, we would find that it would be much
arrives. The time of light arrival at clock B minus the closer to synchronization with clock A, though still
time of light departure at clock A is t. The one-way not exactly.
speed of light would seem to be cθ = S/t. But there is Although we will not repeat the proof here, it
a catch. In order for us to obtain the correct answer is a consequence of Special Relativity that clock B
we must be certain that clock B is synchronized with will be exactly synchronized with clock A if we do
clock A—that both clocks read the same time at the this experiment in the limit as the velocity of clock
same time. This seemingly trivial task turns out to be B goes to zero (Salmon 1977, p. 264; Winnie 1970a,
surprisingly difficult. pp. 96–97). In other words, clock B will be very nearly
How do we synchronize clock B with clock A? synchronized with clock A as long as we move it as
Suppose that we send out a radio signal from clock slowly as possible. Based on this, some have suggested
A when it strikes noon. Clock B is then set to noon that slow clock transport will allow us to synchronize
when it receives this signal. But the problem here is clocks separated by a distance. Simply synchronize
that the radio signal has taken some time to travel clock B to clock A when the two clocks have the same
from A to B. So, perhaps we should set clock B a bit location. Then move clock B to a distant location as
ahead of noon, when it receives the signal. But how slowly as possible, and (it is claimed) it should still be
far ahead should we set it? This of course will depend synchronized with clock A.
on the amount of time it took the radio pulse to travel As reasonable as this may sound, there is a
from A to B. Radio waves travel at the speed of light. fundamental flaw in the method; a critical assumption
But the one-way speed of light is the very thing here has been made. We know from Special Relativity
in question. So, we would have to know the one-way that a clock moved slowly will still be synchronized
speed of light in advance in order to synchronize clock with its stationary counterpart when moved back
B with clock A, in order to measure the one-way speed to the original position (in the limit of zero velocity).
of light. The catch-22 is clear. However, we have merely assumed that it remained
Other types of signals suffer from the same problem. synchronized throughout the journey. In other
All other types of signals directly or indirectly depend words, how do we know that clock B did not lose ten
upon the one-way speed of light. For example, sending minutes when moved to its distant position, and then
an electrical signal from A to B to synchronize the subsequently gain ten minutes when moved back to
clocks does no good, because electricity travels at clock A? It could very well be that outgoing clocks
essentially the speed of light, which is the quantity experience time differently than incoming clocks.
in question. Even sound signals are dependent on the Special Relativity only requires that the net effect
one-way speed of light, because the collision of atoms adds to zero when clock B returns home in the limit of
is an electromagnetic interaction; and electromagnetic zero velocity (Winnie 1970a, pp. 96–97). The amount
fields propagate at the speed of light. by which clock B becomes desynchronized as it gains
Another way in which we might attempt to distance from A can be computed, but only if the one-
synchronize clocks at A and B is to bring the clock at way speed of light is known in advance.
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem 201

In all cases, the one-way speed of light must first light is not actually a property of nature, but a choice
be stipulated before we can construct any experiment of man. Before Einstein, we might have assumed that
to measure it. Therefore, at best, such experiments the one-way speed of light (and thus, the corresponding
can only show consistency. But they show consistency synchrony convention) is a property of the universe—
for many different synchrony conventions. If we one that we are not clever enough to measure. But
synchronized two distant clocks using the Einstein according to Einstein, the fact that we can never
synchrony convention, and then used these clocks to test a synchrony convention shows us something
measure the one-way speed of light, we would find fundamental about the universe. Namely, it tells us
that it is the same in all directions. This result is that synchrony conventions are not a property of the
hardly surprising since we have assumed this at the universe, but are instead a system of measurement
outset. The very method of Einstein synchronization invented by man. According to the conventionality
implicitly presupposes that the speed of light is the thesis, no experiment will ever be able to establish
same in all directions. one synchrony convention over another, because
If we were to repeat the experiment, this time synchronization systems are a human invention
synchronizing our clocks by ASC, then we would by which we measure other things—much like the
find that the speed of light is different in different metric system.
directions—confirming (but not proving) our starting
presupposition. Such experiments cannot therefore The Motivation for
ever actually test the one-way speed of light without Selecting a Synchrony Convention
first stipulating it. The results are self-consistent; The above thought experiments demonstrate that
but other definitions of simultaneity also lead to nature does not prefer one synchrony convention over
self-consistent results. Although there have been another any more than nature prefers the metric
attempts to refute the conventionality thesis, so far system over the English system. We may choose to
all such attempts have subtly presupposed Einstein work in the metric system, but we can always convert
synchronization as the method by which the two to another system. Likewise, we may freely stipulate
clocks are synchronized; hence, they have begged the the one-way speed of light (within certain constraints)
question and are not cogent refutations (Sarker and and synchronize clocks accordingly. However, there
Stachel 1999). are good reasons for selecting one convention over
Einstein himself noted that attempts to measure another depending on the circumstances. Though
the one-way speed of light are inherently circular. In the Bible may use ASC exclusively (I will make an
discussing the simultaneity of two bolts of lightning argument for this shortly), this does not mean that
at A and B, as perceived by a person standing exactly we must also use ASC in all circumstances. After all,
in between them at M, he says, it would be absurd to say that we cannot use “meters”
. . . if only I knew that the light by means of which the or “yards” on the basis that the Bible uses “cubits.”6
observer at M perceives the lightning flashes travels Einstein synchronization does have its place. In
along the length A → M with the same velocity as along particular, Einstein synchronization is isotropic;
the length B → M. But an examination would only be the speed of light is stipulated to be the same in
possible if we already had at our disposal the means all directions. This greatly simplifies the equations
of measuring time. It would thus appear as though we of Special Relativity, thereby making Einstein
were moving here in a logical circle. (Einstein 1961, synchronization the preferred convention to be used
pp. 22–23). when doing physics computations.
Einstein rightly concludes that the one-way speed Much as the metric system is easier to use in
of light is not an empirical quantity of nature, but a physics calculations than the English system, no
choice of man. He states, one would suggest that students learning Special
That light requires the same time to traverse the Relativity for the first time should use anything
path A → M as for the path B → M is in reality neither other than the Einstein synchrony convention. One
a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical consequence of the Einstein synchrony convention
nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make is that all observers agree on the timing of distant
of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of events if the observers have the same velocity—
simultaneity (Einstein 1961, p. 23) [emphasis is in regardless of the position of the observers. Conversely,
the original]. ASC would have all observers agree on the timing
This conclusion is quite profound. Since we cannot of events if the observers have the same location,
(even in principle) ever measure the one-way speed regardless of velocity. Since Relativity is concerned
of light, Einstein concludes that the one-way speed of with velocity reference frames, it is very useful to
6
However, it would inappropriate to read the Bible’s measurements in cubits as if they were meters. The point here is that it is acceptable
to convert from one measurement convention to another.
202 J. P. Lisle

select a synchrony convention in which velocity alone (implicitly), for example, when naming supernovae. A
(irrespective of location) sets the timing of distant supernova (such as 1987A) is always named for the
events. The mathematical advantages of the Einstein year in which its light reaches earth—the anisotropic
synchrony convention are clear. synchrony convention.
And yet, mathematical advantage is not the only Einstein synchronization only became widely used
consideration when selecting a synchrony convention. in the twentieth century, and only in educated parts
The focus of this paper is to discern what convention of the world. Given that ASC has been the standard
the Bible is using, not which convention should be for all other times and cultures, it makes sense
used in introductory physics textbooks. Indeed, the that the Bible would use ASC when communicating
Bible does not always select the convention that the timing of celestial events. The perspicuity of
modern physicists would prefer. For example, consider Scripture (the principle that the Bible is clear and
the timing of events on earth. Events on earth can be meant to be understood by all cultures at all time
measured in terms of local time (the time as defined by periods) strongly suggests a synchrony convention
our local time-zone), or universal time (the standard that would be understood by all cultures at all times,
time in Greenwich, England). A scientist measuring rather than a synchrony convention that would only
the speed of an aircraft (one that crosses several time be used by academics in the twentieth and twenty-
zones) would no doubt use universal time. And yet the first centuries.
Bible uses local time (not identical to our time-zones, Perhaps most significantly, Scripture itself seems
but similar), more or less exclusively. The primary to suggest that the creation of the stars was nearly
purpose of the Bible is to communicate as clearly as simultaneous with their light reaching earth. Genesis
possible, in a way that reaches all people-groups at all 1:14–15 describes the creation of the celestial lights,
times, not just modern physicists. To best accomplish and gives their purpose: to be for signs, seasons, days,
this purpose, the anisotropic synchrony convention is and years, and to give light upon the earth (Genesis
superior to the Einstein synchrony convention. Thus, 1:15). Verse 15 also states, “and it was so” indicating
it seems very likely that the Bible uses ASC. Let us that the stars immediately functioned in their God-
consider some of the advantages of ASC in terms of ordained role: to give light upon the earth. This
communicating truth to all cultures at all times. strongly implies that the Bible is using the anisotropic
synchrony convention—the only convention in which
The Biblical Basis for ASC all events are effectively simultaneous with their light
Note that ASC has definite observational reaching the observer.
advantages over the Einstein synchrony convention. If the above analysis is correct and the Bible is
Of all the infinite possible synchrony conventions, indeed using ASC, then the distant starlight problem
only ASC does not require knowledge of the distance is resolved. The starlight problem was not so much
to the source to record the time of any event. Since the a physics problem, but an error of exegesis. It is the
surface of simultaneity is essentially identical with the semantic anachronism fallacy (Carson 1984). This
past light cone, events happen as they are seen. Any is the fallacy of reading a modern meaning into an
other synchrony convention requires (1) knowledge of ancient term. In this case, people have been reading
the distance to the source, and (2) knowledge of the Genesis as if it were using the modern Einstein
speed of light (or at least the stipulation of its one- convention, rather than the more ancient and more
way speed), in order to compute the light-travel-time common ASC. Since it now strongly appears that the
from the object to the observer. The resulting number Bible is using ASC, starlight from the most distant
is then subtracted from the time the event was galaxies will naturally reach earth essentially
observed, to find the time when the event happened. instantaneously on the fourth day of creation.
But since the (inward directed) light-travel-time of It may seem a strange result to those unfamiliar
ASC is axiomatically zero, there is no need to know with Special Relativity. However, it is already well-
the distance to the source, nor the round-trip speed established that clocks tick slower as they approach
of light. the speed of light, and would stop completely if they
As far as we know, ancient cultures did not know could attain the speed of light. So, from light’s point
(1) the distance to any star (aside from perhaps the of view (imagine that we could travel alongside the
sun, and then only very roughly), nor (2) the speed light) every trip is instantaneous anyway. This
of light (either in one direction, or the round trip happens regardless of which synchrony convention
speed). Thus, it appears that all ancient cultures on we use. So, it is not so surprising that we can find
earth implicitly used ASC. The time when a celestial a synchrony convention where the travel time is also
event is seen was considered to be simultaneous zero as measured by observers on earth.
with the time in which the event happened. It is also In light of this, it seems that distant starlight
noteworthy that modern astronomers also use ASC cannot be legitimately used as an argument against
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem 203

the biblical timescale. The critic cannot even begin Third, while it is true that converting from six
to construct an argument based on starlight travel- days in ASC to the Einstein synchrony convention
time unless he can first show that the Bible does not will give billions of years, we should also consider
use ASC or some equivalent synchrony convention. the reverse: Converting from six days in the
Of course, there are many other things the critic Einstein synchrony convention to ASC will also
would also have to demonstrate about the nature of give billions of years. So, the critic’s objection is
light, spacetime, and so on. The point here is that his completely reversible, and therefore not legitimate.
argument cannot have any merit whatsoever until The real issue is not age per se, but rather what
he at least deals with synchrony conventions and does the Bible teach?
attempts to refute the claim that the Bible uses ASC. (2) “But maybe light really does travel the same speed
in all directions. You don’t know for sure that
Potential Objections to the it doesn’t. So, ASC could potentially be wrong.”
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention This objection also denies the conventionality
Although it is impossible to anticipate all potential thesis. Those unfamiliar with Relativistic physics
objections to the above analysis, I will here discuss are deeply inclined to believe in absolute time
some of the more obvious possibilities. and space. And therefore, it will seem strongly
(1) Consider the person who says, “But if the Bible intuitive to them that the one-way speed of light
really indicates that God created in six days by should be an objective, invariant, and measurable
ASC, then when we convert ASC to Einstein quantity. But the universe is not constructed that
synchrony, it would mean that God really created way. For whatever reason, God has constructed
over millions of years. It means that He made the universe in such a way that length, duration,
the stars long before the earth so that their light and synchronization are relative to a given
would reach earth on Day Four. But then God observer. Our inability to measure the one-way
didn’t really create in six days.” Such an objection speed of light is not due to a lack of creativity on
fails for several reasons. First, it contradicts our part in designing some experiment to do it.
the conventionality thesis. The objection subtly Rather, it is due to the way God has constructed
presupposes that the Einstein synchrony spacetime. Consequently, the one-way speed of
convention marks the “true” time, and that ASC light must be stipulated at the outset.
does not. However, the conventionality thesis tells (3) “If God made things such that their light reaches
us that ASC marks the “real” time of an event just earth on Day Four, then He must have made them
as much as does Einstein synchrony. According to millions of years before earth. But Exodus 20:11
Einstein, there is no “true” time if by that we mean indicates that God created everything within six
an objective universal synchrony convention that days.” This objection is fallacious because it begs
doesn’t depend on position or velocity. The person the question. Only in the Einstein synchrony
who argues otherwise has slipped into non- convention would God have made the celestial
Einstein thinking. ASC is a perfectly legitimate sources long before earth such that their light
synchrony convention. Therefore, God really did reaches earth on Day Four. In ASC, the stars are
create in six ordinary days, and the light really made on Day Four of the Creation Week, and their
did reach earth on Day Four. light reaches earth essentially instantaneously.
Second, even if the conventionality thesis were This criticism implicitly assumes that the Bible
refuted, this objection still fails because the issue uses the Einstein synchrony convention in Exodus
is not “which convention does nature prefer?” 20:11 to argue that the Bible must use that
but rather “which convention does the Bible convention in Genesis. But such an assumption is
use?” If someone could show that ASC is merely unwarranted. We have seen previously that there
a phenomenological convention, this would not are good reasons to think that the Bible uses ASC
invalidate the Bible’s use of it. Sunrise and sunset throughout—including Exodus 20:11.
are phenomenological, and the Bible does use (4) “ASC is more mathematically complex than the
them in that way. To be clear, I do not believe that Einstein synchrony convention. Therefore, by
ASC is phenomenological.7 But even if it were, Occam’s razor, Einstein synchrony is more likely
the critic must still show that the Bible is not to be correct.” This objection also fails for two
using ASC, but is using Einstein or some other reasons. First, Occam’s razor applies to competing
synchrony convention in which light-travel-time models, not alternative conventions. It would
is not instantaneous. be ridiculous to argue that the metric system

7
I was more open to this idea in past publications: that is, “Distant starlight and Genesis: Conventions of time measurement” (written
under the penname “Robert Newton”). But, I now consider the conventionality thesis to be very well-established.
204 J. P. Lisle

is more likely to be “correct” than the English is accurate and is using the anisotropic synchrony
system on the basis that it is mathematically convention.
simpler. A system of measurement cannot be We now consider some additional reasonable
“correct” or “incorrect”, though it may be “useful” assumptions upon which we can construct the ASC
or “not useful.” Likewise, the Einstein synchrony model. Let us suppose first of all that the effects
convention and ASC are two different systems of gravitational time dilation in the universe are
of measurement (like English units and metric), relatively small. Einstein’s General Relativity tells
and one can be converted to the other. They are us that gravitational potential affects the passage of
not competing models. time. However, the effect is quite small except near
Second, by arguing that one measurement system the surface of a neutron star or a black hole. Based on
is “correct,” this hypothetical critic exhibits the estimated mass in the visible universe, and the
non-Relativistic thinking. He has denied the distance to the galaxies, the gravitational potential
conventionality thesis in which we understand between earth and the farthest known galaxies is
that both ASC and Einstein synchronization small enough that it produces only a nominal amount
are legitimate synchrony conventions in Special of relativistic time dilation. So we have a good reason
Relativity. Even for those people familiar with for making this assumption.
Relativity, it is all too easy to slip back into pre- I am aware that there are young-universe
Einstein thinking, in which we intuitively feel cosmologies which suppose that the effects of
that the one-way speed of light (and hence a given gravitational time dilation are, or at least were at
synchrony convention) can be “true” or “false.” some point in the past, extremely large (Humphreys
But that simply isn’t so. Synchrony conventions 1994). In principle, ASC is perfectly compatible with
are stipulated. They are not a property of the a large degree of gravitational time dilation; however,
universe that can be investigated. such dilation is not required in the ASC model. Thus,
the ASC model I propose here will presume that
The ASC Model gravitational time dilation is negligible. This may turn
The anisotropic synchrony convention is just out not to be the case, in which case the model will need
that—a convention. It is not a scientific model; it to be modified. But it seems the simplest interpretation
does not make testable predictions. It is a convention of the data at the moment.8 I will further stipulate that
of measurement and cannot be falsified any more the consensus understanding of galactic distances,
than the metric system can be falsified. However, redshifts, and universal expansion is basically correct,
I have made an argument in this paper that the having been established by good scientific procedures
Bible uses the ASC system. This claim is in principle which are verifiable in the present.
falsifiable, though of course I have argued that it is
true. Furthermore, given the information in Genesis Observational Predictions and
and the inference that the Bible does use ASC, we Confirmations of the ASC Model
can construct a cosmology that does make testable Given the above stipulations, we are now in a
predictions. I will refer to this as the “ASC model.” position to make falsifiable predictions about how
To be clear, the ASC convention does not make the universe should appear. Since the ASC model
testable predictions and cannot be falsified. However, has the stars being made on the fourth day of the
the ASC model goes beyond the mere convention and Creation Week, and since light travel-time is zero
does make testable claims and is therefore falsifiable. under the selected synchrony convention, and since
The essential claim of the ASC model is that the we have supposed that gravitational time dilation
Bible uses the ASC convention. Depending on which is negligible, it follows that the universe appears
additional assumptions we make, we could actually at all distances as it is now, having aged an equal
construct a number of different ASC models which amount everywhere. Therefore, when we look at any
make different testable predictions about the way region of the universe, we are seeing it at an age of
the universe should appear today. These will all have roughly 6,000 years.9 That being the case, we should
certain features in common because—by definition— expect to see indications of the youth of the universe
they all presume that the Bible’s description in Genesis (in contrast to billions of years) at all distances. We
8
By itself, a large degree of time dilation should produce an extreme universal blueshift. Galaxies in which clocks tick more rapidly than
on earth will naturally appear blueshifted since the atomic processes producing the light are sped up relative to us. Since we do not see
a universal blueshift (on the contrary, we see a universal redshift), the simplest explanation would seem to be that the galaxies are not
substantially time-dilated. This is not conclusive however, because the effects of universal expansion (which tend to produce a redshift)
could, in principle, overcompensate for the effects of time-dilation.
9
There is a departure from this rule as redshifts become extreme. The universe will appear slightly less than 6,000 years old at extreme
distance due to differential aging. This is not due to gravitational time dilation; rather, it is caused by the expansion of the universe. This
causes a positional change of the distant galaxies relative to us, producing a cosmological time dilation.
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem 205

should expect to find processes that cannot be easily Indeed spiral galaxies nearby strongly resemble
extrapolated into a billions-of-years hypothetical those found in the Hubble Deep Field—at the edge
past, and which consequently place an upper limit on of our current knowledge of the universe. The spiral
the age of the process that is far less than big bang structure is clearly seen in both nearby and distant
models would predict. The ASC model predicts that galaxies, suggesting that they are all roughly the same
such indicators will be found at all distances within age as we see them now. This again confirms the ASC
the visible cosmos. It is noteworthy that we already model. Even the amount of spiral wrapping seems to be
have some confirmation of this. about the same for nearby and very distant galaxies as
Consider blue stars. Blue, O-type, stars are the we see them now—exactly as the ASC model predicts.
hottest and most luminous stars in the universe. The ASC model also makes some predictions that
Although they are more massive than their yellow are as yet only partially confirmed. Since the model
and red counterparts, their high luminosity means predicts that all regions of the universe should have
that they use up their fuel much more quickly than aged only a few thousand years as we now see them,
other stars. The hottest blue stars cannot last more it follows that there should be evidence of youth in our
than a million years or so. Moreover, it is well known own solar system as well as distant stellar systems.
that spontaneous star formation is riddled with Creationists have already pointed out a number
theoretical difficulties (overcoming internal gas of such examples in the solar system. Comets, the
pressure, angular momentum, and magnetic fields) internal heat of three of the Jovian planets,10 and
and lacks any significant observational support. This strong planetary magnetic fields are all things than
is particularly problematic for blue stars since they cannot last billions of years and yet are found within
have the greatest mass. If blue stars do not form, our solar system. I am aware that secularists have
then their presence in any region of space suggests their auxiliary hypotheses to explain these things
that that region was created in the recent past. Blue from within their own worldview. Here I simply mean
stars are ubiquitous in our galaxy, and are apparently to show that within a creationist framework these
in the most distant spiral galaxies as well. This is a lines of evidence confirm a young solar system.
strong confirmation of the ASC model. The fact that Of course, evidence of youth within our solar system
numerous blue stars exist at all distances is consistent does not confirm the ASC model over and above other
with a universe that is thousands of years old at all creation models. But it does confirm the ASC model
distances as we now see it. over and above secular models. But unlike some
Another example is spiral galaxies. It is well known creation models, the ASC model also predicts that
that spiral galaxies rotate differentially, with the inner such things should exist at great distances within our
regions rotating significantly faster than the outer galaxy, and even in the most distant galaxies in the
regions. Thus, if any spiral galaxy were more than 1 universe. We have already seen indications of youth
billion years old, its spiral structure should be so tightly in other stellar systems.
wound that it would no longer be discernable. Yet this is As one example, most astronomers would concede
not what we find. Spiral structure is easily visible in most that ring systems (such as those surrounding Saturn)
face-on galaxies, indicating the youth of these galaxies cannot last billions of years.11 Yet even now there is
regardless of their distance from the solar system. evidence that at least some extrasolar planets have
Secular astronomers have created auxiliary such ring systems as well. Fomalhaut b, for example,
hypotheses to rescue their worldview from this evidence. is suspected to have a massive ring system based on
For example, they suppose that some sort of density its high brightness in visible wavelengths (Kalas et
waves might trigger star formation in spiral patterns al. 2010). The planet’s brightness in infrared suggests
thereby continually creating new spiral structure a high temperature which is also indicative of youth
as the old structure dissipates (Lin and Shu 1964). (Kalas et al. 2010). Although Fomalhaut b is one of
But such a hypothesis has a number of difficulties only a handful of extra-solar planets that have been
(the trigger mechanism, contrary observations like directly imaged so that we have such brightness
backward-wound spirals, etc.) and presupposes star and temperature data, and although it is not a very
formation (which has difficulties of its own). So the distant world by cosmological standards,12 it at least
simplest explanation is that the galaxies are young. suggests that other extra-solar planets will exhibit
10
Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have internal heat. Uranus does not.
11
This is not meant to be taken (by itself) as an argument for a young solar system. It is simply one of many indicators that are consistent
with a young solar system. A number of secular astronomers will readily concede that Saturn’s rings are a recent phenomenon while
maintaining that the planet itself is billions of years old.
12
The Fomalhaut system is only about 25 light years away. It is therefore unlikely to be useful (by itself) in establishing the ASC model
over and above time-dilation models, since such models most likely would not predict significant time dilation effects over so short a
distance. My point here is that in the future this type of data analysis for more distant star systems could be very useful in judging
between the predictions of the ASC model versus those of time-dilation models or other models.
206 J. P. Lisle

the same indications of youth that we find within our There are an infinite number of possible synchrony
own solar system. Extra-solar planet research is still conventions. However, two of them turn out to be
in its infancy. But the prospect of finding evidence of extremely useful. The Einstein (standard) synchrony
planetary youth (as the ASC model predicts) in other convention has the advantage that two observers
solar systems both within and beyond our galaxy is with the same velocity will agree on which events are
very exciting. simultaneous (regardless of position). The anisotropic
synchrony convention has the advantage that two
Conclusions observers with the same position will agree on which
The distant starlight problem is resolved if we events are simultaneous (regardless of velocity).
accept that Genesis is using the anisotropic synchrony Since Relativity is primarily concerned with velocity
convention (ASC) rather than the Einstein synchrony frames, it is normally formulated according to the
convention. The resolution is simple: under ASC, the Einstein convention in which the equations take on
one-way speed of light when directed toward earth their simplest form due to symmetry.
is axiomatically infinite, even though the round-trip However, Relativity can be (and has been)
speed of light remains 3 × 108 m/s. Thus, the light from formulated in non-Einstein synchrony conventions
stars that are created on the fourth day will naturally (Winnie 1970a, b). Indeed, Einstein himself pointed
reach the earth essentially instantaneously. out that it would be possible to stipulate that the past
Moreover, we have seen that there are good reasons light cone is the surface of simultaneity, just as ASC
to suppose that the Bible does indeed use ASC. First, does. He states:
the fact that Genesis implies that the light from stars We could content ourselves with evaluating the time
created on Day Four reached earth on that day (“and of events by stationing an observer with a clock at the
it was so”) naturally implies the ASC convention. origin of co-ordinates, who assigns to an event to be
Second, such a convention was the only one available evaluated the corresponding position of the hands of
to the ancient world. Thus, if the Bible really is the clock when a light signal from that event reaches
designed to communicate truth to all people-groups at him (Sarkar and Stachel 1999).
all times then ASC is the obvious choice. The Einstein He ended up choosing to formulate Relativity in the
synchrony convention was not in common use until the standard synchrony convention, not of necessity, but
early twentieth century, and so it makes little sense because it has the advantage of being independent
for God to use such a convention in the Scriptures. of the position (rather than the velocity) of the
Third, we have seen that the Einstein convention is observer. Of the anisotropic synchrony convention
heavily dependent on the observer’s state of motion. Einstein states that it “has the drawback that it is not
Thus, events that are simultaneous in one velocity independent of the position of the observer with the
frame will be spread over millions of years in another. clock” (Sarkar and Stachel 1999). However, there are
Even the earth’s annual orbit would cause the Creation other factors that make ASC the superior choice for
Week to become millions of years long.13 There is no best preserving the perspicuity of Scripture.
hint of this in Scripture, thereby suggesting that the The potential objections to ASC covered above
Bible does not use the Einstein convention. Indeed, are found to be unwarranted. Most of them deny the
the problem disappears when we use ASC. conventionality thesis. Many of them beg the question
We have seen that synchrony conventions amount by presupposing that only Einstein synchronization
to a choice of coordinate system. They are stipulated is acceptable, and then arguing that alternatives are
on the basis of their usefulness. They are not a unacceptable. Moreover, even if the conventionality
hypothesis; they are not something that can be “tested” thesis were refuted, the critic would still have to show
for truthfulness. Stipulating a synchrony convention is that the Bible cannot be using ASC as a convenient
mathematically equivalent to stipulating the one-way phenomenological system. It is my judgment, however,
speed of light. Though it may seem counter-intuitive that the case for the conventionality thesis is quite
to those unfamiliar with Relativity, the one-way speed strong, and cannot be refuted without begging the
of light cannot be measured without first stipulating it question.
either explicitly or implicitly. In the same way that we By merely accepting the ASC as a convention, the
cannot test whether the English system or the metric distant starlight problem is resolved. However, by
system is “correct,” so we cannot test the one-way making a few additional, reasonable assumptions, we
speed of light. It is chosen as a matter of convention. are able to produce a basic model of cosmology—the

13
The ancient Hebrews may not have known about the earth’s orbit around the sun, and it is very unlikely that they could have known
how large the visible universe is. So, they may not have perceived this as a potential problem. But God has always known about these
things. It is ultimately God’s Word that tells us that the entire universe was created in the span of six days (Exodus 20:11). Therefore,
any conclusion contrary to this (using the same terms in the same way but drawing a different conclusion) is unacceptable, even if the
Hebrews would not have understood it as such.
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem 207

ASC model. This model makes falsifiable predictions, References

many of which have already been confirmed. The Carson, D. A. 1984. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids,
ASC model implies that all regions of the universe Michigan: Baker Book House.
have aged only a few thousand years as we now Chaffey, T. and J. Lisle. 2008. Old-earth creationism on trial.
see them. This prediction is contrary to most other Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.
starlight models, including time-dilation models. Yet, Einstein, A. 1961. Relativity: The special and general Theory,
authorized translation by R. W. Lawson. New York: Crown
the prediction has some observational support, such
Publishers Inc.
as the detection of blue stars and spiral galaxies at
Humphreys, D. R. 1994. A biblical basis for creationist
all distances. cosmology. In Proceedings of the Third International
We note that the ASC model only accounts for Conference on Creationism, ed. R. E. Walsh, pp. 255–266.
distant starlight and other earthward-directed Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
phenomena that move at nearly the speed of light Kalas, P., J. Graham, E. Chiang, M. P. Fitzgerald, M. Clampin,
(such as neutrinos). It has been suggested that E. S. Kite, K. Stapelfeldt, C. Marois, and J. Krist. 2008.
other celestial phenomena require billions of years: Optical images of an exosolar planet 25 light years from
collisions of galaxies, jets of material from active earth. Science 322, no. 5906:1345–1348.
Lin, C. C. and F. H. Shu. 1964. On the spiral structure of disk
galactic nuclei (AGNs), etc. However, I do not believe
galaxies, Astrophysical Journal 140:646–655.
this is so. It seems to me that the mature creation
Lisle, J. 2006. Taking back astronomy, pp. 48–50. Green
argument works quite well on distributions of matter. Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.
Unlike light, the supernatural creation of matter Newton, R. 2001. Distant starlight and Genesis: Conventions
in a specific configuration does not undermine any of time measurement. TJ 15, no. 1:80–85
precondition of intelligibility; nor do we have biblical Salmon, W. C. 1977. The philosophical significance of the one-
information that would be contrary to the idea that way speed of light. Noûs 11:253–292.
God may have created the matter in the universe very Sarkar, S, and J. Stachel. 1999. Did Malament prove the non-
close to its present location. So, we should consider conventionality of simultaneity in the Special Theory of
the possibility that galaxies currently in collision may Relativity? Philosophy of Science 66:208–220.
Winnie, J. A. 1970a. Special Relativity without one-way velocity
have been created in collision. There is no reason to
assumptions: Part I. Philosophy of Science 37:81–99.
assume that they must have come from a previous Winnie, J. A. 1970b. Special Relativity without one-way velocity
state. The fact that it is possible to imagine a previous assumptions: Part II. Philosophy of Science 37:223–238.
state which could have led up to the present state is
logically irrelevant. After all, it is possible to imagine
a previous state which would have led up to Adam’s
adult state—namely a baby. Yet Adam did not come
from such a state.
Starlight is different because we do have some
Scriptural information about its origin. Namely,
it really did come from the stars (Genesis 1:15).
And our sensory experiences are basically reliable.
Therefore events we see happening in space really
have happened, which would seem to refute the light-
in-transit model. Yet, starlight is not a challenge for
a young universe when we consider the anisotropic
synchrony convention. Taking all the Scriptural
information into account, ASC seems to be implied
by the Bible, and naturally solves the starlight
problem by reducing inward-directed light-travel-
time to zero. Moreover, ASC forms the basis for a new
young-universe cosmological model which has made
successful predictions.
208