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

an observer’s local proper time to a global time coordinate is necessarily observer dependent – but such a process has nothing to say metaphysically about presentism. This extension of proper time is a procedure for consistently labeling locally space-time events, and thereby in SR providing a foliation based on nothing more than a conceptual parallel transport of an inertial observer’s 4-velocity that creates a surface-orthogonal vector field. The author (with DeFacio and Retzloff) used such an approach (via invariant methods) to derive exact equations of motions for a particle observed by arbitrarily accelerating observers. The analysis included equations for both space-like and null-cone foliations. For details see DeFacio, Dennis, and Retzloff, (1978, 1979). (4) Finally, asserting that a constant time surface according to the Lorentz transformation is “real” begs the question. We show below that asserting the “reality” of events in an artificial t=constant hypersurface leads to absurd conclusions. We will see that such an assumption leads to the conclusion that some events become “unreal” since they are not assigned a time. So then, a simple consideration of the absurdities that ensue in the case of accelerated observers from the SR definition of “now” is sufficient to rebut the eternalist view. One interesting case that clearly demolishes any metaphysical connection of coordinates to simultaneity or of the reality of events is the case of an inertial observer who suffers an impulsive acceleration changing his speed from zero to speed v relative to an inertial frame S . (See Figure 12 below). Using the Lorentzian operational definition of simultaneity, we see that the event E, which was in the future a moment before the impulse, instantaneously “jumps” into the past a moment after the impulse. It should be noted that events in the negative x direction also jump into the past instantaneously and will in fact be simultaneous again in the “future.” Another anomaly and the most egregious is that the event E is never simultaneous with any event in the S ′ frame. Thereby rendering it “unreal” by Putnam. It is most odd that an observer undergoing arbitrary local time dependent accelerations can instantaneously make entire regions of remote events unreal. This underscores the artificiality of Putnam’s analysis and is yet another example in which the historical development and terminology of SR leads to misunderstanding and a fallacious conclusion. Unfortunately, such confusions are still among trained physicists. A naïve application of the definition of simultaneity as the hypersurface 0 t ′ = by way of a Lorentz transformation would lead one to the conclusion that remote events in the region labeled X − instantaneously jumped back into the past due to the acceleration of the observer at event X + . Likewise, events in region X + are now no longer simultaneous with O . This uncritical application of Einstein-Poincare simultaneity yields a very bizarre instance of action-at-a- distance time travel! These conclusions are absurd and rest upon (1) an arbitrary definition of simultaneity and endowing that property definition with reality; Dennis ◀ Young earth relativistic cosmology ▶ 2018 ICC 31 Figure 11 . Space-time diagram used in Putnam’s argument for Eternalism. You are traveling relative to me in the negative x direction. By the Lorentz transformation and the Einstein definition of “simultaneity” we have different sections of space-time that we call “now.” Putnam asserts that all events “simultaneous” with an observer are “real.” At time 0 t t ′= = we are both at the origin and thus equally real to each other. By transitivity Putnam then argues that (1) “my now” is real to me, (2) you are real to me, (3) “your now” is real to you, therefore (4) “my now” and “your now” are equally “real” in a timeless cosmos. Figure 12. An observer S ′ undergoing an impulse acceleration resulting in a change of velocity at time t=0 . After the boost, the observer in the primed frame of reference is in an inertial frame moving at velocity v in the positive x-direction of observer S . A naïve application of the Lorentz transformation (LT) to observer S ′ and its extension into regions where the assumptions used in the derivation of the LT do not apply lead to manifestly absurd conclusions as described in the text.