The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

There have been a variety of attempts to solve this discrepancy; these include: • Tired Light Model (spatial variation of speed of light) • c-Decay Model (temporal variation of speed of light) • Pseudophos theory (“false light,” light created in transit but not actually emitted from source, hence star image is an illusion) • “White Hole” models (General Relativity based models) Of these, the “white hole” models were potentially the most promising as they were based directly on general relativistic physics. None of these models, as currently developed, however, have adequately solved the starlight issue. They all suffer from either conflict with other observational data, require theologically untenable assumptions, are of an ad hoc nature, or have utilized faulty mathematics/interpretations of metrics and coordinates. Faulkner (2013) discusses the issues with these models (and others). A rigorous and consistent solution is thus still needed. Presented herein is what I believe to be a satisfactory approach to the starlight problem based on inhomogeneous space-times with appropriate relativistic initial conditions. The model relies more on a consistent application and interpretation of a presentist philosophy of time and the relativistic nature of time based on Christian presuppositions rather than on mere technical mathematical details of the several models presented. In fact, I will present one model with an alternative miraculous interpretation of the time aspects of the geometrodynamics during the creation week. In this regard, I agree with Faulkner (2013) when he states we have been: “… thinking primarily in terms of a physical explanation for the light travel time problem, when the solution may be far simpler and more direct” (emph. added). I leave it to the reader to assess whether the proposed solution here is “far simpler and more direct.” It should be emphasized that the models I present are still first approximations; nevertheless, when interpreted properly they do solve the starlight travel problem. More exact models can be developed from the framework presented herein. It is my hope that young earth physicists trained in GR can take the framework presented and produce models with higher fidelity that fit observational data. To motivate the examination of inhomogeneous models, we note that there has been a long history of physicists stating that the homogeneous cosmological models, e.g. Friedmann-Lemaître- Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model are an oversimplification of the physical universe and are best viewed as first order approximate models of the universe. Examples are Dingle (1933) and Tolman (1934). The reader is encouraged to consult Krasiński (1997) for a history of the research on inhomogeneous models. As more recent observational evidence of large scale structures in the universe has accumulated the study of inhomogeneous models has taken on renewed interest. These recent observations have thereby placed doubt on the “cosmological principle.” Examples of such structures include galaxy filaments, “great walls” e.g. the Sloan Great Wall (SGW), superclusters and voids. Several structures larger than the theoretical size limit of 1.2 Gly (see Yadav, 2010) for the cosmological principle have been found. These are (year of discovery in parentheses): Name Size (Giga Light Years) Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall (2014) 10 Giant GRB Ring (2015) 5.6 Huge-LQG (2012-2013) 4 U1.11 LQG (2011) 2 Clowes–Campusano LQG (1991) 2 Sloan Great Wall (2003) 1.37 Clowes et al. (2013), in their study of the Huge-LQG, present recent evidences of departures from homogeneity. In particular, they state, “In summary, the Huge-LQG presents an interesting potential challenge to the assumption of homogeneity in the cosmological principle.” In addition, Krasiński (1997, p.283) presents the argument that the existence of gravitational lensing implies that the universe cannot be conformally flat. Consequently, he notes that the “universe is not FLRW within the limits set by observation.” In light of such, the homogenous FLRW solutions can only be viewed as first-order local approximations that are useful conceptual tools for interpreting average cosmological effects. It is generally recognized that inhomogeneous models are needed to represent our actual universe. Examples of closed inhomogeneous spherical cosmologies can be found in Zel’dovich (1984) and Sussman (1985). The treatise by Krasiński (1997) is also an invaluable reference. The outline of this paper is as follows. (1) We begin with a theological/philosophical discussion of the nature of time. This discussion concludes with the biblically uncontroversial view that time is real and that only the present “now” is real. This view is termed “presentism.” This presentist interpretational framework of GR is a major point of this paper. (2) Having resolved the time issue, we then discuss the theoretical basis of the proposed solution which is the General theory of Relativity (GR). We consider the time development of the standard FLRW cosmological solutions. It is well known that such models predict a lifetime for the universe which is a function of the matter density. This implies that the lifetime of different regions in an inhomogeneous universe will be different. That feature has been the subject of many investigations into structure formation in the universe (such as the large scale inhomogeneities listed above). Within that discussion we explore potential cosmological solutions by examining inhomogeneous cosmologies via the “stitching method.” The “stitching method” consists of cutting regions from different solutions of the Einstein field equations (EFE) and “stitching” them together at their boundaries subject to certain continuity conditions. Such models will provide the theoretical framework for the YEC cosmology. Dennis ◀ Young earth relativistic cosmology ▶ 2018 ICC 15