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

(3) We then examine general inhomogeneous models. These considerations all point to a solution which is based on the recognition that the EFE depend upon the specification of an initial condition specified on a given initial spatial hypersurface. The general inhomogeneous solution shows that the time of the initial spatial hypersurface is arbitrary within the mathematical framework of GR. (4) Finally, utilizing the freedom mentioned in (3) to choose the initial creation hypersurface, we examine a cosmological solution using a non-uniform initial density that is constructed by choosing an asymptotically null spacelike initial surface within the FLRW manifold as the initial creation hypersurface at the beginning of day one. We discuss this model and show that it solves the distant light problem. (5) In closing, we propose that possible future research in YEC cosmologies might benefit from using the 3+1 formulation of the EFE in which a spacelike initial surface (3-metric ij γ and metric 3-momentum ij π ) is integrated forward in time by way of a Hamiltonian approach. The 3+1 formulation directly corresponds to the presentist philosophy of time, and the initial data can be specified on an initial creation spatial hypersurface and its temporal development examined. (6) We then summarize our results in the conclusion. A few words on notation and conventions. Since we will be frequently analyzing spacelike sections of the metric we will use the metric signature ( , , , ) − + + + for the metric two-form: 2 ds g dx dx µ ν µν = Greek indices range over the values 0,1,2,3. Latin indices are used for the three spatial dimensions and range over the values 1,2,3. We employ natural units. Newton’s gravitational constant 1 G = and the speed of light 1 c = . Formulae containing masses can be converted to MKS units by replacing a mass m by 2 / Gm c . For convenience of analysis we restrict our attention of solutions with a zero cosmological constant. Since we will be extensively examining time dependent space- times exhibiting spatial isotropy, the metric components in the two-dimensional subspace spanned by ( x 0 , x 1 ) will be functions only of x 0 (time) and x 1 (radial coordinate). To avoid excessive typography, we will regularly employ the following abbreviations 0 R R R x t ∂ ∂ = ≡ ∂ ∂  and 1 R R R x r ∂ ∂ ′ = ≡ ∂ ∂ . Finally, we will frequently use 2 2 2 2 sin d d d θ θ ϕ Ω = + for the metric on the two-dimensional unit sphere. THEOLOGY AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF TIME As mentioned in the Introduction, our solution to the starlight and time problem, though fully based on the mathematics of the EFE of GR, will rely essentially on a coherent philosophical and biblically sound interpretational framework for the equations of GR. As such, we begin with a discussion of the nature of time from both the biblical and philosophical perspectives as this is the central framework for the solution to be presented. We will, in particular, examine two philosophies of time called “presentism” and “eternalism.” As we shall see, relativity theory does not, in itself, compel one to adopt either of these philosophies. A relativist can be either an eternalist or a presentist. A complete discussion of the philosophy of time cannot be fully addressed in the compass of this article. Those for whom the idea of presentism is new are encouraged to consult the literature on the subject; and in particular see Unger and Smolin (2015), Ellis (2012), Whitrow (1980),and Reichenbach (1956). The philosophical debate on the nature of time goes back at least to Parmenides and Heraclitus, whose philosophies embody the two modern views of time. For Parmenides unity was absolute and therefore change, along with time, was an illusion; thus, he believed in the unreality of time, or that reality is timeless. Opposed to this view was Heraclitus who held that unity is an illusion and that change is the absolute metaphysical principle. These two views are the perennial opposing philosophical positions on time. In modern parlance, these two antithetical views are generally referred to as “eternalism” and “presentism.” “Eternalism” is the philosophy that time is an illusion; that past, present and future events (referred to via tensed verbs) are eternally existing in a universe in which time has been “spatialized.” It is a universe in which there is no “now” – no unique “present.” It is sometimes called a “block-house” universe in which nothing really happens. “Presentism” is the contrary view that the present is real; that there is an actual real moment called “now,” a present moment that continually passes. The past is forever gone, the future will be. Now fast forward to the 20 th century. The philosophy of the nature of time took a dramatic turn in Einstein’s theories of relativity. From that moment scientists and philosophers took up a putative scientific viewpoint of the relativity of time and used it to argue for the unreality of time. Eternalism rose to the ascendency – apparently supported by the theories of relativity. This drift toward a “spatial” view of time and the acceptance of eternalism was, no doubt, encouraged by the mathematical formulation of the theories of relativity in which space-time is conceptualized as a four-dimensional Minkowski space. In Minkowski space, time and space are unified in a four-dimensional manifold (“space-time”) with a (local) pseudo-Euclidean “metric” 2 2 2 2 2 2 ds dx dy dz c dt = + + − . (1) This presents the notion that all events are locations in a four- dimensional space with coordinates ( , , , ) x y z t that locate events , and with space-time intervals between events computed via the metric above, much like spatial distances. It is generally well known that Einstein and Weyl were advocates of the spatialized time of eternalism. Einstein summarized his view as follows (Calaprice, p.75): “For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Einstein based his belief upon the impossibility, according to the theory of relativity, of any operational determination of “now,” and Dennis ◀ Young earth relativistic cosmology ▶ 2018 ICC 16