The visual picture of creation inspired by Appendix C3 “What the angels saw”, is now transformed into a physical model where the creation of the universe becomes an implosion of space–time rather than an explosion. I was surprised how some fairly simple physics was able to create a very plausible scenario that explained many observed features while remaining consistent with scripture. Apart from the physics, there are also interesting insights about the methodologies science employs to explain one-off events.
Appendix C3 pictured the universe being created starting from the outside and moving to the inside. Galaxies simply appeared as a splash of light that expanded into the myriad of component stars, and the stars gave birth to planets and planets to moons. Our galaxy, being at or close to the centre of the universe appeared last.
I wanted to describe this as an implosion in direct contrast to the explosion proposed by the Big Bang theory. However, the term “imploding universe” has other understandings. Some use it to describe a time when our universe will cease to expand and begin to contract under gravity. Eventually such a universe will collapse to something perhaps the size of a tennis ball, or even to a singularity. So the implosion is the death of a universe, not a creation.
I tried other words like collapsing or contracting, but nothing seemed to capture what I was picturing. So, being an engineer at heart, I reverted to an acronym—the COI universe, Created from the Outside In.
Late update, Mar 2016: COI is, I discovered, a common acronym. (http://www.acronymfinder.com/COI.html) Most are clearly unrelated to a model of the universe, but the following do come up in searches for “COI Model” and “COI Universe”.
- Common Origin Inference …used in models of the early universe.
- Community of Interest …referring to people who might use a model.
However a search for “COI Universe Model” seems to find these articles and should be included in keywords related to this subject.
I wonder if you would bear with me while I wrap a veneer of science around my proposal. I’m going to talk about some things we do understand to prepare you for something that is simple, but way different to what everyday life prepares you for. Please imagine a ball or balloon filled with water and then put into a freezer. The water starts to freeze from the outside in. There is a boundary where the solid ice has formed in the outermost layers of the ball while the water at the middle or innermost part of the ball is still liquid. The solid ice represents space–time and matter crystallising, while the liquid represents the void before time starts.
Let’s call this boundary an event horizon. This term is well understood in its application to black holes. A black hole is a large star that has collapsed at the end of its life. The event horizon is the distance away from that hole where even light cannot escape from the intense gravitational pull. Seemingly magical things happen at the event horizon. If you were to watch an object falling into a black hole, time would appear to slow down and stop as the object approached the event horizon. The light from the object would appear redshifted. It has also been postulated by the famous theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking that matter could spontaneously appear at the event horizon, simply because the Uncertainty Principle would be violated if we knew for certain that no matter could exist at this point.
Now let’s compare my proposed event horizon for an imploding universe and that of a collapsed star. OK, in my proposal all the matter, and indeed space–time itself, is on the outside of a shrinking event horizon. In contrast, the event horizon of a black hole has matter on the inside and expands as more matter falls in. In the COI universe, the event horizon really is the boundary between space–time and a total void. So the Uncertainty Principle really would necessitate matter to appear. Also, the event horizon is shrinking. Think of this like a compression effect that is increasing certainty. Wow, it sounds fine to me that the known laws of physics would support, or at least allow, the creation of matter.
So, remember that ball of water freezing. I would like to add an extra dimension to that scenario. Do you know that every snow flake crystallises into a unique shape but this shape always has hexagonal symmetry? This symmetry is a consequence of the geometry of the water molecule, H20. It is not too hard to stretch this concept and imagine that the matter appearing or crystallising as the event horizon collapses inward, takes on a structure that leads to what we see today as galaxies.
The final ingredients we need to add to our mixing bowl of event horizon magic is some redshift and time starting. Notice that time, indeed space–time, is starting in my event horizon, not stopping as in a black hole. Also add the observation that our galaxy, The Milky Way, seems to be located at, or close to, the centre of the universe. This means that the outermost parts of the universe could have been quite old when time started here.
If you listen to discussions about problems with the existing secular Big Bang and Biblical creation models, then the little story I have just spun has potential to explain some of the curly questions. I’ll discuss these in more detail later, but first we need to establish some rules. Let’s consider the flexibility that a mathematician or physicist may be granted based upon the acceptance of the Big Bang theory:
In the Big Bang theory they observed apparently increasing redshift in distant starlight and proposed that the Universe exploded into existence. Not far down the track there was a show-stopper. An explosion would not produce the even distribution of galaxies that we observe. (This is not a problem in my COI model.) So they proposed an expansion phase starting for unknown reasons very soon after the bang, and stopping for unknown reasons once the universe got “big enough”; and all this occurred at rates that were contrary to the known laws of physics. Now, all that was OK because, having excluded God, it seemed reasonable to assume that since things are the way we see them, then it MUST have happened that way. The lesson we learn from this is that we are allowed to think outside the reality box if that is required.
Please take the same licence to add supernatural events when solving issues associated with my model. Postulate cosmic constants for the rate at which my shrinking, (compressing) event horizon would pop-out galaxies. Try to find some fractal that might explain the structure of galaxies that all have huge black holes at the centre. If you can make it sound OK then surely it MUST have happened that way.
The Big Bang theory predicted a background radiation temperature that was correct. This gave it some credence, though one consistent piece of data (that can be explained in other ways), does not establish a theory. In fact there are many show-stoppers. But I’m sure my proposal can be spun to find some consistent data point.
In this scientific veneer, I suggested that some type of fractal or crystallisation process gave rise to galaxies. Actually, I offer some far more detailed physical mechanisms in later sections so that you will see the process is very intuitive.
It is my opinion that God did not apply a lot of conscious effort to the creation of the 100 billion odd galaxies, each with the order of 100 billion stars. Rather, I expect that He ordained the laws of physics so that it could happen automatically. But His Word makes it clear that He spent an extraordinary amount of effort customising this planet. That is why I think that there may be some algorithm that someone might be able to postulate. I tell you what – the first person that can make the maths work will get a very impressive entry to add to his CV.
I need to propose a mechanism for galaxy and star formation, but the question you need to ask first is, “What were the galaxies made from?” It might seem a little stretch of your imagination, so I will remind you of just how much incredulity has already been accepted under the Big Bang Theory. This theory postulated that everything instantaneously exploded out of nothing. This included all the rules and laws of the universe being formed, except for a brief lull while a magical expansion phase occurred. But, what I am suggesting is the laws of the universe appeared and resulted in the event horizon. This event horizon collapsed inwards (imploded), giving rise to all that we see, within the constraints of the known laws, albeit working on the edge of space–time itself.
OK, still with me? It seems good to have just one set of the laws of Physics at work from the moment space–time and matter appear, but before that moment, what existed? Note what I just said: “before that moment”, in this context, means “before time began”. My earlier analogy described a balloon filled with water and placed in a freezer. The balloon already occupied space, so space already exists at the start of the COI model. Now think of the water in that balloon as diffuse, evenly distributed matter and what do you have? The water filled balloon is a matter–space universe. Then time starts at the outside and charges inwards like a shockwave; transforming the matter–space into the space–time and matter of our universe.
Before you start asking (complaining) about where the matter–space universe came from, you have to follow the whole thing through and see that this can account many of the observable features in our universe that are currently unexplained. If you want a Biblical explanation of where the matter–space universe came from, then look at Appendix C3 where it is just a handful of heaven, frozen in time. But now-a-days, scientists have already proposed multiple universe models, so it’s not such a stretch. The good thing here is that we can take a bland, unstructured matter–space universe and convert it into this exquisitely structured universe we see today.
As a matter of interest, if you look at the dimensions of Energy and subtract time you are left with Mass and Length. So, perhaps you would be happier to view the balloon as filled with something I like to call Pre-Time Energy (PTE). When time starts, the PTE is progressively converted into the energy that creates this universe.
I would now like to introduce a new way of viewing that initial water filled balloon; this matter–space universe. I want to describe it as a Big Bubble of PTE. Bubbles are round and deformable. They have a thin membrane that naturally equates to the event horizon. Membranes are permeable, so energy can leak out. These intuitive attributes help to explain galactic structure and distribution.
What mechanism might create a galaxy? Imagine you are sitting on the surface of the Big Bubble that is contracting. The level of PTE being converted into Energy in the membrane of the bubble is increasing and, like a pressure cooker, something has to give. At first I pictured the event horizon releasing a burst of energy that manifests as a cluster of white holes. White holes are a known theoretical concept but they have never been observed and they do not easily account for some of the detailed features of solar systems (Note 1). None-the-less I persisted until the obvious dawned on me...
It’s this simple — when the pressure builds up and the membrane of the Big Bubble ruptures, it releases a spray of small bubbles that give rise to a galaxy. As the small bubbles collapse they form suns but may release still smaller bubbles in the process and these form planets. This is the radical yet simple key to the COI Model. One self-consistent process that gives rise to the entire universe.
There is a lot more to read about this process both here and in the supplements, but consider all the Big Bang problems that are bypassed:
Wow, that was not too hard. Consider all the Big Bang problems that are bypassed:
No problems trying to get subatomic particles spread out over intergalactic distances to coalesce and then form heavier elements that have to again explode outwards.
There are also major problems to create the initial centre of gravitational pull about which galaxies, stars and planets could form.
The Big Bang theory has the problem that equal amounts of matter and anti-matter should be created, but the anti-matter is not seen. The mall bubbles only generate matter so there is no anti-matter problem.
The Big Bang theory relies entirely on gravity to collapse everything but there are major problems that have caused scientists to postulate dark matter and dark energy to explain the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe or to hold together galaxies that are spinning too fast. But if you don’t need huge amounts of time to collapse the matter, and the distribution of matter is not simply gravity trying to collapse the initial explosion/expansion, then everything changes.
In all models, little issues creep in and some latitude must be given. If you chose to oppose a model then you use these irregularities to reject the model. In general, if it is not a show-stopper, then some latitude can be granted. I imagine many such issues will creep in to my model.
One issue that comes to mind are the great dust clouds and nebulas occurring out there. These have been proposed as the birthplace of stars under Big Bang. Excluding those that are a remanent of an exploded star, couldn’t they be regions where the “shaving foam” or the bubbles happened to take on a different nature? Couldn’t they be regions where stars failed rather than regions where the stars are being born?
I hope you get the idea. If you are taking a fresh look at the way things happened, then don’t drag old presumptions along with you. What will astronomers and theoretical physicists think? I would be honoured that that they should even consider these ideas. Whatever their verdict, it’s OK with me because the physics of looking back in time at a supernatural event is never going to be clear.
How long would it take for the event horizon to contract to the centre of the universe? Well, you are free to postulate just about anything. Perhaps the detailed physics might give some hints, but everything in the universe seems to be constrained by the speed of light. So I postulate that the event horizon would collapse at the speed of light.
This means that light from the earliest galaxies created (those farthest from the centre), would follow the event horizon in as it collapsed. That light would arrive just as galaxies were appearing at the centre of the universe. In effect, we, being close to the centre of the universe, would see all other galaxies at roughly the same age as our own galaxy. There are second order effects involved, but this would explain why, when the Hubble telescope was used to look at the most distant and hence earliest objects detectable, they discovered mature galaxies.
This is simple, but the question depends on what part of the universe you are interested in. If it is the outermost galaxies that appeared first then it is the radius of the universe divided by the speed of light, plus the age of our galaxy, which is roughly the time that has expired since the event horizon reached the centre. But how old is our galaxy, which appeared last?
This is where you really have to let go of all your Big Bang assumptions. I have proposed that a cluster of small bubbles of PTE were released at the event horizon and gave rise to a galaxy. I no longer need unimaginable lengths of time for clouds of gas to gather, if it ever could, and then form first and second generation suns. Rather, each bubble converts into matter that gives rise to a sun and a solar system. This process would be blindingly fast and only limited by the time it would take for the planets and suns to cool down and compress after the initial rapid collapse. This is discussed further in the on-line supplements.
Suppose that our galaxy is one million light years from the dead centre of the universe. This is miniscule considering galaxies are of the order of 10 to 100 million light years apart. It would mean that since the creation of this galaxy, one million years went by before the event horizon reached the centre and the universe was complete. For Christians this is an important issue because I propose that God then turned His attention to this now complete water-covered planet. But in God’s time frame, travelling at the speed of light with the event horizon, these one million years would be like nothing according to the Special theory of Relativity. So my theology and my physics allow me to squeeze a little more time for the formation of a solar system all within the first day. But subsequent steps; the atmosphere; the dry land and plants etc., roll out every millennium; or every day if that is what your theology requires.
So, do you have the picture? The age of the universe is academic. The age of our galaxy is all-important. I imagine it will be very important in the equations developed. But I would expect that solutions of the order of 10 thousand to a million years might work. The creation account then begins with a water-covered planet, probably formed before the sun has reached maturity.
In my model, the event horizon spends many billions of years contracting to the centre of the universe but at the centre, our galaxy; it is perhaps less than a million years old. That means that the gravitational effect of matter in the inner half of the universe has not yet propagated to the outside of the universe. The far sides of the universe are not yet gravitationally in contact. When you recognise that there must be a spherical symmetry, all this means that right now there is a rising tide of gravitational pull flowing outwards into the universe.
But wait a minute. Matter was created on the outside first. As galaxies first appeared they would have been subject to the pull from the outer galaxies but not from the inner, as yet unformed galaxies, and certainly not from the far side of the universe. Let me make a simple picture with stars on the outside at the top and the inner stars are at the bottom.
The stars in row A were formed first. To use round numbers, let each row and column be one million light years. When the stars in row B were first formed, they were only in gravitational contact with the row A star immediately above. So B0 was only under the influence of A0 . After another half a million years, row C has not yet formed but B0 would now be feeling the effects of the stars in the adjacent A1 columns as well.
I suppose it’s obvious ... The stars first come under the gravitational influence of the outer stars because those stars were created first, that is, B0 is initially attracted only by A0. But when we are looking at B0 at the age of 1 million years, nominally the same age as our own galaxy, we then see B0 expanding outward even faster because it is now attracted by the A1 stars as well as A0. So you expect to see an expanding universe, even an apparent accelerating rate of expansion, when viewing stars at their current early age. Looking at the big picture, we see that during this creation phase there was a gravitational tide flowing in, that was attracting things outwards.
Wow, did I just explain the accelerating rate of expansion for the universe? I wonder what other consequences of the COI model might be observed. One thing is for sure, it makes the maths harder and more dependent on guesstimates of the age of our galaxy. It makes estimates of relativistic time shifts, travelling from the outside of the universe in, quite complex. But on the bright side, I’m guessing that a young universe, not yet in gravitational steady state, may be able to answer questions that currently require dark matter or dark energy to be conjured up.
Astronomers noticed that the spectrum of light from distant stars was shifted to the red end of the spectrum. That is, yellow colours seemed a bit redder. This is a well understood phenomenon that is commonly caused when the light source is travelling away from the observer and has been called the Doppler Effect. The faster the light source is travelling away, the greater is the redshift. What astronomers also noticed is that the further away a star was the bigger was the redshift. The obvious consequence was that more distant stars were receding at greater speeds. This initially fuelled the Big Bang theory by suggesting an explosion where the things that had the higher speed were logically further out.
There was an obvious corollary. If stars appear to be receding from us in all direction then we must be near the centre of the universe. This sure isn’t a problem for the COI model – this assumes that the universe has a centre, and the observed redshift then confirms we are close to the centre. But the Big Bang model needed a magical expansion phase and it seemed too improbable that we could be at the centre of these 100 billion odd galaxies, so another more exotic explanation of redshift was proposed.
The Big Bang explanation of redshift proposed that the space–time was continuing to expand. That is, the distance between galaxies was continuing to increase – but they were not travelling away from each other at high speed, rather new space was appearing between them. I describe this as exotic because there is no experimental physics to back it up, but it fitted the paradigm and we bought it. Anyhow, the idea is that if space is stretching then so too the wavelength of the light travelling through that space, and hence there is a redshift.
There is another cause of the redshift we would see if we were watching objects close to a black hole. Time slows down the closer you get to massive object, so the frequency of its light, the number of oscillations per second appears to reduce and the light appears redder. Or turned around, time is running faster as we move away from a star and so the frequency of light looks a little redder. This effect is well described by the General Theory of Relativity. This predicts that clocks, that is time, further away from a massive object run faster than clocks near the massive object. This effect has been confirmed experimentally by observing the different speed of clocks on satellites compared to terrestrial clocks.
Well, that was a lot of words to summarise redshift. In Supplement 3, I propose some reasons why galaxies might be created with an outward velocity that decreased as they got closer to the middle of the universe. So the common old Doppler Effect is the obvious and clear candidate for redshift under the COI model. No exotic solutions needed. But there is another effect that we need to grapple with in the COI model ...
In the preceding section on Gravitational Tides, we saw that the light travelling from the outermost stars to the centre was travelling up-hill all the way. That is, it was travelling against the gravitational pull that was always outward. The path of the light that is reaching us today is like the light moving away from black holes and like the clocks distant from the earth. This light was continually moving through a zone where time was running faster and so the frequency reduced. So the COI model offers up two sources of redshift, both due to experimentally proven physical effects.
There is another less accurate way to picture this relativistic redshift. Clocks run faster away from gravitational influences. Did you know that if you could travel to the centre of the earth, you would be weightless because there would be no net gravitational pull on you? Hence time would run faster. In the same way, in a steady state universe time would run faster at the centre. Our universe is not yet in gravitational steady state but the COI model shows that we are under no net gravitational pull from the distant galaxies, even as the gravitational tides are flowing. (There do seem to be privileges being at the centre of the universe.)
This section is not about physics but about something beautiful. I had most of this model already in place when I was watching a TV program about black holes. But as it recounted various astronomical observations it also showed a diagram depicting the distribution of matter in the universe and it made the comment that the distribution appeared to be “bubbly” in nature.
I briefly researched this bubbly nature. It seems that a broad plot of the positions of galaxies revealed great voids where there where virtually no galaxies while the vast majority of galaxies are in clusters that are spread like filaments between these voids. Basically it looks like bubbles or foam. Here are some references that have good pictures. Try a web search for “distribution of matter, universe, bubbles, voids”.
If you look on a big enough scale the universe still seems evenly populated but these huge voids are real show-stoppers for the Big Bang theory.
Later that night, after I saw the program on black holes, I recalled my initial inspiration for the COI universe. It was from Appendix C3 “What the angels saw ”, and it pictured a wave of creative power surging into the centre of the universe, not a collapsing event horizon. Well, what do we know about waves, especially ocean waves? As they reach shallower water the crest of the wave tends to overflow in front of the wave, spilling off energy and leaving a trail of foam behind the wave. But in my initial vision I also described galaxies appearing like expanding shaving foam. The event horizon and bubbles of PTE I describe in this appendix just seemed to be a more scientific manifestation of my initial inspiration.
Wow, all the images were lining up, at least in my mind. The wave of power surging into the centre of the universe was contracting in circumference and so energy was continually building up; just like an ocean wave reaching shallow water. I could picture it spilling over in front of the wave and then all that energy comes up behind the wave, like the bubbles coming up behind the ocean wave. Only this time the bubbles of PTE are releasing their energy as matter.
Then things got even more exciting. Do you recall how the crest of an ocean wave spills over? It starts in one spot and moves laterally. Surfers are always trying to catch this spot. Now imagine my creation wave spilling over in one place which gives rise to galaxies being formed there, not just isolated stars. Then this spill point moves laterally, or expands in three dimensions, giving rise to the filaments as the creation wave continues to surge towards the centre of the universe. After it has finished spilling over in one region it leaves the vast voids, before energy builds up again in that part of the wavefront.
So, do you see it? This totally unexplained bubbly distribution is not just explained away as some curious mathematical fractal, but has a simple physical mechanism behind it. And if you are a believer, or want to be, you can see how the Bible’s assertion of creation through water manifests symbolically though this wave and the bubbles.
OK, as promised, there was no maths or physics here – just a really great picture that allows us to see a how surge of power flowing into the universe might easily spill-off the energy needed to give rise to the galaxies. And even better we can understand why the broad-scale distribution of galaxies looks bubbly. But best of all, I imagined how a TV program about the COI universe would be loaded with exciting surf footage; way better than the graphics in the program on black holes.
Folks, if you can market it, someone will buy it. I recalled a joke I had with some friends – I said that the product was great but God just needed a good PR man. On a more serious note, I was amazed that something so awesome and unfathomable had resolved itself into something so easy to grasp.
Galaxies are described as spirals, elliptical or irregular. Our galaxy is a spiral that has a bar at the centre. The rotation speed of the stars around the centre of our galaxy is such that it would take the outer most stars over 200 million years to make one orbit. But about half way out the speed is still about the same and one rotation would take only 100 million years. Put simply, this differential rotation would cause the spiral arms to rapidly windup on themselves and disappear within a few hundred million years.
This is a well-known problem called ‘the winding-up dilemma’ or ‘galaxy rotation problem’. Some exotic theories have been offered up to try and justify how the common spiral galaxies could exist over billions of years, but the straight forward data suggests an upper limit of just a couple of hundred million years.
The COI Model comes to the rescue. It’s this simple – when a wave spills over, a lot of vortexes are created. Similarly, when the creation wave spills energy then we can expect that vortex formation is at least common. The small bubbles that give birth to stars within the galaxy are created in this process and their distribution reflects this vortex. So, spiral galaxies are spirals because they were created that way and they still appear that way because we are looking at quite a young galaxy.
How simple is that? No exotic theories (Dark matter, Density waves) needed. The really sweet thing about this solution is that it is intuitive. Who cannot see the similarity between a spiral galaxy and a vortex? We see spin and angular momentum at work in sub-atomic particles right up through weather systems, planets, stars and galaxies. Turbulence and vortices are common in fluid flow. The paths of flow in an evolving vortex are usually spirals. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex.) Although different physical mechanisms are at work, you would be hard pressed to deny that vortex formation was not at least likely in the COI model.
I offer some more details on this topic in Supplement 3. If you would like to research it yourself then a good starting point with pictures and links to most other things I have described is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way.
This topic is something you should put into your search engine or especially the engine at Creation.com. My brief summary is that the redshift of light from galaxies seems to fall into discrete steps and hence the distance falls into discrete steps. This then suggests galaxies are distributed in bands that are about one million light years apart.
The effect was detected and verified and refined for several decades but many attempts to explain it away have been made for two reasons:
This does not sit well with the Big Bang theory. My experience is that if you don’t like something, then you will always find some reason to reject it, so, though debate continues, I accept it. If you are going to look at quantisation and banding it sure helps to start out with a model that accepts there is a centre to the universe and a physical mechanism behind its creation – that is, the creation wave. In fact, when there is a physical mechanism in place, whether it is the rings around Saturn or the orbits of electrons, there are bands and discrete energy levels. There always seems to be some property that can overlay some subtle feature on what otherwise seems like a random process. So, some banding is almost to be expected.
At the very simplest level, if the creation wave spills out energy once it reaches a certain level, and must then contract (move in) further before the energy density builds up again to the required threshold, then banding is to be expected.
Are things sounding a bit fanciful? I’m just chasing down my initial premise of a contracting event horizon, a surge of power, releasing clusters of PTE bubbles. I’m just recognising the speed of light as the fundamental limit at which gravitational effects can propagate. Basically I’m just applying the known laws of physics.
If you can accept that the Big Bang:
Then, how hard is it to accept a predictable appearance of bursts of small bubbles that release the matter into the structures we see today?
The really scary thing is that I keep talking about time periods in tens of thousands of years and not billions of years that we have become so accustomed to using. Sure, the billions of years are there if you are an observer on the outermost galaxies watching the universe appear, so to speak, beneath you. But from the centre, all we can see is a universe, roughly the same age as our own galaxy. And then I start suggesting that gravitational steady state has not even set in!
One objective of science is to explain everything with the hope of either controlling it or at least predicting it. Now we suddenly discover ourselves in a universe where the dust has barely settled! Of course things seem a little scary to some people. But I know the Creator of the universe and His good plans that will soon be fulfilled. So it is just an encouragement to me that He has not dilly-dallied. He got it up and running and established man at the earliest opportunity. We now see the universe in its most magnificent state.
What I present here, I present as plausible – not proven. I have the luxury of postulating events at the edge of space–time; an edge that no longer exists and so it’s hard to disprove. However, I have not been any more reckless than well-accepted theoretical physicists. I don’t actually mind if God tells me I was wrong. The goal is to demonstrate that my spin on the Biblical account is technically feasible. I don’t require technical perfection because it is fundamentally a supernatural event. It’s the people who deny that God was involved that need technical perfection, and at the moment they are finding problems faster than answers.
Please remember that it was my suspicion that galaxy and universe formation was fast and involved little conscious effort by God that led to this suggestion. In the end, the quantum fluctuations at the event horizon that periodically release a burst of small bubbles which then form a galaxy, is just a technical facade that appeals to our understanding. The point is that God either prompted it, or ordained that it would happen this way via the laws of physics.
I am rather excited at the potential for this model to explain what we see. I find it quite intriguing that this is exactly the opposite of Big Bang:
What about those who will disagree? No problem to me, but I sure would like to know what they do believe:
OK, now assume that someone has been able to produce a veneer of mathematics to support my COI universe model. (Maybe someone else has also proposed one.) Let’s listen in at the press conference as they release their astounding theory:
“Ladies and gentlemen, we want to announce the most amazing discovery. We have a new model of how the universe appeared that explains so many things.
“By the way, our last model, which was presented for decades as proven and unchallengeable, was completely wrong. In fact, the new model is almost completely the opposite. But don’t worry; we have been able to preserve our initial assumption that there is no God required.”
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the way it will always be. Scientists will happily accept a new science that gives a better fit to the data, provided no God is required. No matter how close the science aligns itself with a Biblical viewpoint, it is never proof that there is a God or that that God is the Father of Jesus. That part is a free choice. God made it a free choice so we can freely choose to love Him and choose Him as our Father.
In the COI Universe I have postulated a mechanism which predicts the observed distribution of galaxies and why they appear to be roughly the same age as our own galaxy, which is virtually at the centre of the universe. This is not explained well by the Big Bang theory. No change in the known laws of physics had to happen after the initial appearance of the event horizon. However, the expansion phase of the Big Bang theory does imply fundamental changes occurred. The formation of galaxies, suns, planets and moons seems considerably more plausible, and potentially a lot faster, than under the Big Bang theory. Distant starlight along with a relatively young galaxy is explained.
Many topics introduced here are discussed in more detail in Supplement S3 and S4, only available online at Page-1-God.com. Yet again, the COI model yields intuitive explanations for some of the strange things we see as our telescopes search the heavens.
I don’t care if someone else gets a Nobel Prize for making the maths work. I don’t care if someone laughs at it. I would like to find out what success someone has with it or where problems seem to occur. I have proposed something consistent with my interpretation of the creation account in the Bible. The creation account is supernatural from beginning to end, but because I have assumed God took little conscious effort in creating the galaxies of the universe I felt that some predictable process might be behind it. The Big Bang theory has a lot of show-stoppers, but I was excited by how simply this model has unfolded. This model is not a proof of God, but an encouragement to believers that have felt threatened or side-tracked by a godless Big Bang theory that itself lacks technical merit.
Some people with more experience than myself in the creation/evolution debate, or should I say war, don’t like untested theories being offered up. If it turns out not to work, creationists are ridiculed. Of course there is little mention of the frequent problems with secular solutions. I think these people are wise in being cautious to endorse new ideas. But actually, I think the COI universe model could work in both secular and Biblical world views.
There are a few organisations to which I could submit my ideas to get a technical assessment. However, I need to confess that I have been hesitant in doing this because of previous experience described in Supplement S1. I have found that until the Biblical support for my views in “God’s Way” and “On Day 8” are more widely accepted, technical debate is stifled. But guess what? I agree with this – a technical model must be consistent with Scripture. My COI Universe model is consistent. In the meantime, perhaps secular scientists will pick it up – all they have to do is not think too hard about how the creation wave got started!
So, buoyed only by my excitement at how it all unfolded, and without the wisdom of peer review, I have taken the risk of faith and thrown my model out there. Will my view of Scripture be accepted? How will the model hold up under the scrutiny of physics? All I can do is wait and see, but I hope you have been excited to see a view, perhaps not flawless, that nevertheless explains the creation of the universe.