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

CTC-based solution is independent of the choice of observer and clarifies the respective roles of the initial conditions and synchrony convention. Figure 3 compares the ASC and CTC conventions to each other and to the commonly used Einstein Synchrony Convention (ESC), according to which the one-way speed of light is c in all directions (see Appendix A). From the figure one can readily conclude that the three conventions are just that; the choice of one over another does not affect the underlying physical reality. In the diagram, the events A and B correspond to objectively real phenomena, while the coordinate axes merely serve to assign coordinates. Switching conventions alters the coordinate axes, changes how coordinates are assigned to events, and consequently the events’ perceived ordering, but does not change the relationship among the events in spacetime. For this reason, for example, switching from one convention to another does not affect how light propagates in spacetime and does not change the properties of spacetime. Another conclusion from the diagram in Figure 3 is that the CTC synchrony convention prescribes an objective time and space reference frame. By contrast, both the ASC and ESC are subjective conventions, because they both depend on the choice of observer. For any given situation one could choose among arbitrarily many ASC or ESC conventions according to the number of observers involved, but there can be exactly one CTC-based synchrony convention. Therefore, compared to the ASC convention, the CTC convention is ostensibly more consistent with Scripture, because Scripture always speaks of time in absolute terms. In reality, however, Lisle (2010) does not use the ASC convention in its general form but applies it only to observers on Earth. This narrower definition of the ASC is essentially equivalent to our definition of the CTC. Although the isochrone hypersurfaces differ slightly, hyper-cones in one case versus hyper-hyperboloids in the other, they converge asymptotically with each other at large distances. Perhaps the most significant difference between our CTC convention and Lisle’s narrowly defined ASC convention, is how they are motivated. Lisle’s explanation for why the Bible uses the ASC is based on the presumption that ancient cultures were unsophisticated, which is a rather weak justification. By contrast, we infer that the CTC convention is the divinely-prescribed synchrony convention of Scripture. A common question raised in regard to Lisle’s model is about the convention that God Himself uses: is it the ASC or the ESC? Our definition of the CTC convention provides a clear answer; using Scripture as our guide, it appears that God uses the CTC convention. As we have shown above, this happens to be essentially equivalent to Lisle’s narrow application of the ASC. Next, we consider how the initial conditions implied by Lisle (2010) compare to the initial conditions of the CTC solution. Although Lisle is vague about the fact that special initial conditions are needed, the following quote (Lisle, 2010, p. 204) suggests he understands that theASC convention alone is insufficient to resolve the Distant Starlight problem and that some sort of special initial conditions are required: To be clear, the ASC convention does not make testable predictions and cannot be falsified. However, the ASC model goes beyond the mere convention and does make testable claims and is therefore falsifiable. The essential claim of the ASC model is that the Bible uses the ASC convention. When the stars are created near the surface of the light cone Tenev et al. ◀ Creation time coordinates solution to the starlight problem ▶ 2018 ICC 89 Figure 3. Simultaneity of two causally independent events A and B decided by two different observers: unprimed observer (red) and primed observer (blue) while using, alternatively, three separate synchrony conventions ESC, ASC, and CTC. The spatial axes, of which only x is represented on the diagram, determine the isochrone hypersurfaces (hypersurfaces of simultaneity). For the ESC, ASC, and CTC cases, these hypersurfaces are shaped, respectively, as hyperplanes, hyper cones, and hyper-hyperboloids. (The prefix “hyper” refers to the fact that these are three-dimensional surfaces within four-dimensional spacetime instead of ordinary two-dimensional surfaces within three-dimensional space.) In the ESC case, the primed observer is moving with speed close to c in the negative x direction relative to the unprimed observer and determines that the time coordinates of A and B are ordered differently from what the unprimed observer determines; that is, t' A < t' B while t A > t B . In the ASC case, the two observers are spatially separated and similarly disagree on the order of A and B . In the CTC case, the axes do not depend on the observer, and the order of events is absolute.