This brief introduction to the COI universe model focuses on the key assumptions underpinning the model. The aim is to stress the underlying simplicity and to break the model down to three fundamental steps. For each step I show the evidence that confirms these steps and note where more evidence is needed. The issues that radically challenge exiting world views are stated clearly because this model will be challenged, and you need to differentiate who is complaining about the maths and physics from those who are unhappy with the impact on their world view.
|Created: 2016/08/28. Updated: 2017/12/29.|
The COI concept was initially floated in my book “Page 1: God’s Timetable” as appendix C4 because I first saw the applicability of the model as I was rounding off the book. That was in 2014. Many of the articles in this COI Overview were developed in the following months to show Biblical consistency and highlight how the physics behind the model worked. All this work was based on what the COI process would do ‘in principle’, but in late 2015 I decided that if the universe unfolded as proposed, then it would leave a distinctive gravitational signature on the universe. I spent the next two years developing a simulator to predict the evolution of the gravitational field of the COI universe. Beyond anything I ever expected, the simulation was not only accurate, but explained many dilemmas in astronomical observations. This simulation confirms the maths and physics behind Step 1. Steps 2 and 3 are not proven in any way, but they are exciting conjecture hinting at how the universe may have formed.
The universe materialised at the speed of light from the outside of a sphere to the centre. That is the quintessential assumption of the COI model. It also assumes that density of the universe is the same throughout, as currently observed. That’s it. There is really nothing wrong with the idea that the universe is finite, spherical and has a centre—it’s just that for the last 100 years or so, scientists assumed that Hubble’s observation of increasing redshift of star-light with increasing distance meant that the universe was expanding in some weird way. OK, they got it wrong. I for one would certainly admit that this outside–in creation process was not an obvious alternative. But now there is another alternative on the table, so let’s look at what it offers.
Imagine the path of a photon travelling from the outside of the universe to the centre. This photon is effectively travelling a little behind the leading edge where all the matter of the universe is materialising. The further it travels the greater is the outward gravitational pull from the matter that has so far materialised. There is as yet no gravitational pull from the far side of the universe because it is too far away; meaning there is not yet enough time for gravitational interaction to propagate. It’s this continual ‘up-hill’ motion that causes the steady increase in redshift of the light. That is the secret of the COI model. This actually predicts Hubble’s law. The maths is relatively simple in Redshift calculations but it gets way better than that. You see, there are many exceptions or irregularities already observed in the application of Hubble’s law. These have been written off as due to peculiar motion; the ‘Fingers of God effect’; and an acceleration in the rate of expansion of the universe. However, this outside–in process actually predicts all these irregularities. (See Redshift aberrations.)
There are other simple confirmations of the COI model. Under this model, the light we currently see from all the other galaxies in the universe is the light they emitted when they were the same age as us. One day someone had the clever idea of pointing the Hubble space telescope at a very dark part of the sky, hoping to see galaxies that were very, very far away. It was an ultra-deep field view. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field) What they found were galaxies some 13 billion light years away. Under the Big Bang theory it was expected that they would reflect the state of the universe very soon after the big bang, but they appeared ‘mature’, meaning, just like our own galaxy.
The success of explaining Hubble’s law along with all its irregularities is a triumph. But it goes way beyond just the Hubble law. It confirms that the universe has a centre and that our galaxy is very close to that centre. Well, what’s wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, but, to some people it looks like we have a unique (privileged) viewpoint of the universe. That makes us special and that makes it look like there is a God. Just keep in mind that the COI model just assumes a spherical universe, but it is the maths that indicates the Milky Way galaxy must be at, or very close to, that centre.
Theoretical Physics to the rescue: During the development of the COI simulation, I came across this article:
Humphreys, R., New time dilation helps creation cosmology, Journal of Creation 22(3):84–92, 2008; http://creation.com/new-time-dilation-helps-creation-cosmology
This article suggests that time can be made to stop in the centre of the universe and then start again from the outside. This yields exactly the same conditions as matter materialising from the outside in, and it depends on the same assumption of a dense outer ring to simplify Einstein’s equations. For this reason, I switched to picturing the outside-in process as the start of time or the start of gravity rather than the materialisation of matter, though all lead to the same conclusion.
As the universe materialised from the outside in, I imagined the leading edge of this process being like a wave, a shock-wave, surging into the centre of the universe. I called this the creation wave and it has several benefits in regulating the materialisation process. Broadly speaking, the surface area of this wave is contracting as the radius decreases and the energy density increases. Like an ocean wave where the crest spills over, energy is released that gives rise to a galaxy being formed. Having spilled in one place, the spill point movers laterally in two dimensions or expands like a ring in three dimensions. This is exactly what we see as surfers ride along the crest of a wave. The wave is still surging into the middle at the same time so this expanding ring leaves a vast void surrounded by strings of galaxies.
And that boys and girls is exactly what we see when we look out into the universe—galaxies and clusters of galaxies spread out like filaments around vast voids. It has been likened to bubbles on water. For the COI model, this is a natural consequence of a simple process. For the Big Bang theory it is a show-stopper. For images, try a web search for “distribution of matter, universe, bubbles, voids”. A good example is “The Large Scale Organization of Galaxies in Space” at http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/galaxydist.htm or https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sparke/Figures/figure7_3.jpeg.
Keep in mind what has just happened... I took the basic outside-in materialisation and likened the leading edge of that process to a wave of energy. Another simple, intuitive assumption that suddenly explains the observed galactic distribution. I don’t think you need a computer simulation to prove that voids are possible under the COI assumptions, but a simulation may be able to tease out or confirm subtle characteristics that these voids should have.
Essential clarification: The redshift predictions in Step 1 have been mathematically calculated and are predicted by the experimentally proven laws of physics. Physical observations confirm the predictions. All that is tremendous support for the initial assumption of an outside-in process. However, the subsequent steps 2 and 3 remain as speculative. Please don’t get confused and assume that steps 2 and 3 are ‘proven’. None-the-less, man seeks to know how things came to be. It is in our nature to seek these answers, and the outside in process has opened up a new way to look at things. As the first to prove the COI process works, I simply get to be first to speculate how the whole thing may have unfolded. Whether or not we can discover such details, I will always give glory to God who created all things; ordaining the laws of physics so that the universe would unfold just as it has. And for what little my opinions counts, I think He has given man wisdom to comprehend this process so that we can glimpse His majesty.
Eventually you are going to ask the question, “How long has it been since our galaxy materialised?” This ‘time since creation’ (tc) is a key factor in the equations. It’s like asking how long after a galaxy materialised were the photons we see today emitted. It has taken over four years to develop the COI simulator to the point that it accurately predicts what we observe. The calculations became way to complex for the initial algebraic solutions I started with and several rewrites of the simulator were necessary to solve unique problems associated with time dilation. My initial estimate was that our galaxy was of the order of 100 thousand years old, but once my detailed COI simulation was complete, this grew to 1.3 billion years old. The funny thing is that 100 thousand or 1.3 billion was too big for creationist scientists to accept and was too small for atheistic scientists to believe. But it is stranger still where you find supporting evidence. Popular science believes that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field pictures reveal mature galaxies that are only the order 800 million years old, exactly as predicted by the COI model. And creationists accept that the recession rate of the moon puts an upper limit on its age of 1.3 billion years. See https://creation.com/the-moons-recession-and-age.
I need to stress that this is what the maths says based on existing measurements. It came as a surprise to me, but while the shock sinks in, I would ask you to recall the amazingly accurate prediction of steps 1 and 2 about redshift and the bubbly distribution of galaxies. Recall that nothing else (e.g. The Big Bang theory) has predicted this behaviour. Now, here’s the part that will rattle your world view… Deep time just got blown away! The universe has not been languishing for 14 billion years. Our solar system is not 4.5 billion years old. You can still have a Precambrian explosion of life some 500 million years ago and you can imagine dinosaurs going extinct 125 million years ago, but you really have to work hard to imagine it all happened by accident. There is no time for life to evolve, if it ever could. To be clear though, if you are sitting in the outer most galaxies then 14 billion years has expired, but here at the centre, only 1.3 billion years have passed.
So folks, where do you sit now? I have shown that the simple outside-in assumption of the COI model explains the universe we really see. It’s early days yet, but I don’t think anyone will fault the physics. Has the COI model proposed anything more impossible than the Big Bang Theory where everything exploded out of nothing, and then all the laws of physics changed to expand the universe faster than the speed of light and then changed again and then totally failed to explain how galaxies and stars actually formed? The thing is that the COI model is simpler and more self-consistent than the Big Bang Theory. Just read on and all will be explained.
This model has undergone a series of refinements as different options or assumptions were considered. Some of this history is available in Supplement 3: Technical Extensions. There are alternatives to what I now propose and subtle reasons for what I do propose. There is also the least direct evidence of what I propose, but what I suggest is a single seamless process that accounts for galactic distribution and structure, as well as solar system structure. I stress these points up-front because I am attempting to picture something that happens at or before the beginning of time. This certainly helps to visualise key features of a rapid materialisation (start of time) process but I don’t know how far we can push it technically.
If galaxies are of the order of 1 billion years old, this galaxy did not materialise as diffuse clouds of gas and dust that somehow coalesce into stars and planets. The Big Bang Theory and the nebula hypothesis have totally failed to explain galactic and solar system formation even with billions of years of time available. So the solution must be something else, and it’s not dark matter. The other major consideration is the question of what fuelled and regulated this materialisation process. Here is my solution…
I propose that before the beginning of time there was a big bubble of Pre-Time Energy (PTE). If you subtract the dimension (units) of Time from Energy, then you are left with Mass and Length. That is why I also refer to the big bubble as a matter–space bubble or universe. This of course is a major assumption and being before the beginning of time, it is not directly testable via physics. However, the results of the process are testable. I do offer a couple of suggestions as to where the bubble came from, but in truth, this answer will always come from your beliefs and not from science.
When time starts, it acts as an operator, progressively transforming the bland diffuse matter–space universe into energy. The film around the bubble contracts and the energy that fuels the creation process builds up. When it reaches some critical threshold in a region, the film briefly ruptures releasing a burst of energy that manifests as a galaxy of smaller bubbles. This process is turbulent and as a consequence, this distribution of the small bubbles often reflect a vortex like structure. This accounts for the most common spiral galaxy formations.
Take note that I am just building on to the fluid like properties already established by the creation wave, and I am also using the analogy of a film to reveal more details. This is one of the first places we can test the third step. We know there are massive problems with spiral galaxies under the Big Bang theory, like the ‘galaxy wind-up dilemma’. Right now, all the COI model offers is the intuitive assumption that turbulence during the spill of energy can account for a vortex like distribution.
The small bubbles behave the same way as the big bubble, that is, they shrink and periodically release still smaller bubbles. These end up forming the planets and the sun of a solar system. All this proceeds at the speed of light but it’s not until the bubbles get down to quantum levels they make the transition into a cloud of gravitationally bound particles that will then rapidly compress and form the respective planets and sun.
There is a tremendous amount of work needed to verify the feasibility of these final stages of solar system formation. You need to verify how the different chemistry of suns and planets could arise and how long the initial cooling would take. But one fairly predictable spin-off is that planets would settle down much sooner than the sun. This means that the sun would ignite, ‘flame-on’ after planets had resolved a lot of their structure. I think that this will help explain many of the quirky attributes of the planets and moons in our own solar system that are unresolved by the nebula hypothesis.
So there you have it—one seamless process that rapidly delivers the observed galactic distribution as well as the observed galactic structure, and the observed solar system structures. It will need testing. This third aspect of the COI model is not like the first two where the redshift data and the bubbly distribution of galaxies strongly confirm the model’s assumptions. However, the complete failure for accretion type processes or models to account for solar systems, let alone galaxies, demands something that is a radical departure from existing theories. I expect (hope) that the late flame-on of the sun in combination with considerable evidences of a more recent creation of this solar system (magnetic field decay rates, volcanism on frozen moons, short lived comets, etc.) will be seen as supportive of a rapid process.
Up until now I have presented some of the challenges that science will have as it adjusts to a new redshift explanation. At least their paradigm of an expanding universe only goes back 100 years or so and scientists have plenty of precedents for man-made theories failing; then persecuting the radicals who got it right, only to later adopt their work. But Christians and Jews were given a paradigm by their God 3,500 years ago through Moses. It’s page 1 of the Bible and it is non-negotiable.
Well, God has always pointed out to man that our ways are not His ways and His ways are far above our ways. God cannot lie, but He is observed to give simple brief descriptions of key events that become clearer in the light of later revelations in the Bible. That is what Supplement 10: The key to everything is all about.
It seems to me that the COI model would be hard to picture for a nomadic people 3,500 years ago. I think the Genesis 1 account, which contains way more layers of information than we can grasp, has beautifully presented a simplified description, and the COI model helps to see details that were always there. I have heaps more to say in other articles to fully establish biblical support, but to close this section, I propose that God created this magnificent universe from the outside in, so that as soon as everything was ready on this planet for Adam, the full magnificence of the starry heavens would be visible.
I have been very brief on the technical details and the biblical justification. I have made the assumptions very clear and shown the confirmation for those assumptions. If that was all that was needed I could have been very much briefer. However, the barriers to understanding something new comes from the reader’s propensity to filter everything through old paradigms, world views, and philosophical assumptions. Try this out:
Right now (December 2017), the COI Universe model sits between two world views. An all-natural science explanation and an all-supernatural God explanation. But actually it encompasses both. I have stressed that it is testable at many levels and I want secular science to thoroughly test it. I also need other scientists to pick up this ball and run with it. I feel like I have reached the limit of my skill set. I’m not sure how much more I can contribute. There is already a wealth of amazing data about our universe just waiting to be processed under some new assumptions. New explanations of the CMB; Quasars; and stellar formation are waiting to be proposed. Particle physics may well be able to fill in many gaps. ...I’m out of my depth.
A decade ago, the creation of the universe seemed all too much for me—God just did it. But everywhere I look I see predictable laws and processes at work. For example, God established the orbital dynamics that keep the earth rotating around the sun and we understand that. God established the DNA mechanism to control all living processes and we are coming to understand that. And now I feel that the creation process is within our reach, at least steps 1 and 2.
I believe that God ordained the process and the matter–space universe so that the laws of physics, pretty much hands free, produced this universe. I reserve the right for this planet to be a custom job, after the rest of the universe was created. What you believe is your choice. It’s not about the science. I do not claim that the COI model is perfect. I do claim that it allows us to better picture the universe that God created.
Many articles available at the COI Overview further develop the technical and biblical features introduced here. A tremendous amount of information about a recent creation and failures of the Big Bang theory, can be searched at www.creation.com. One of the best overviews that I have seen of problems with existing universe models is by Spike Psarris, and is available on video at http://www.creationastronomy.com/. Finding problems has never been the problem.