This supplement extends the ideas initially presented in Appendix C4, The COI Universe. The aim is to discuss the physics with minimal theology.
OK folks, the prize before us is to take the physical model, maybe with a few adjustments, and to objectively account for observed data. The essential ingredients of the model are:
Appendix C4 has described the process by which galaxies appear at an event horizon, or as a wave or shell of energy, contracting toward the centre of the universe, nominally at the speed of light. No maths has been presented in support of this model and it remains pure speculation about how stars and galaxies could be created in this process, but wow, aren’t the consequences exciting! The basic physics predicts or is consistent with:
I’m not the only one who can dream and postulate waves in space–time. Have a look at wikipedia.org on the Alcubierre drive. I also looked at wiki on Faster-than-light (FLT) travel and found a lot to stimulate one’s imagination, including vacuum energy. However, I have never seen anyone describe a matter–space universe. I have taken poetic licence to describe the contents of such a universe as Pre-Time Energy (PTE), so that we can easily picture how the start of time in the matter–space universe could release the energy to build this universe. Is this worse than the hypothetical, undetectable Dark Matter or Dark Energy that is taken for granted now-a-days?
I think the first two prizes will go to someone who can explain redshift quantitatively via this model. The second will go to someone who can simulate a small buuble of PTE breaking up (Note 1), and generating a solar system. But I wonder if anyone will ever be able to describe how the COI model could generate such bubbles on the very edge of space–time. No matter, if they fit, they can be assumed to have occurred but the mechanism is currently out of our reach.
You will notice that in places I have not been too subtle when an opportunity came up to challenge secular god-less assumptions. Perhaps the penny will drop and some of you guys will figure out that there is a God and He wants you! But whether or not you can or have made that leap, I know that God gives gifts to all men, irrespective of whether they believe in Him or not. There are a lot of very smart people out there, more gifted in physics and maths than me, and the statistics say that most of you don’t believe in my God. My underlying assumption is that God did not expend a lot of conscious effort on the creation of the universe but ordained mechanisms that would bring it into existence when He supplied the power. As such, these mechanisms should survive scrutiny within the framework of physics that we have also observed (and which He established).
Large parts of my book are devoted to establishing a theology that Christian scientists can accept and be comfortable in pursuing the COI model. But secular scientists are not so encumbered – just show me the money, that is, show me physics that better explains the observations. The COI model does not prove God nor demand belief in God, though it sure would remove a lot of excuses to disbelieve in God.
In various places I have talked about an event horizon or a wave of energy surging in to the centre of the universe. But let’s start with the simplest view: a shell of energy appears and begins to collapse inwards. Note that all the energy is assumed to be in the shell while the contents are assumed to be a void. It might be easier to imagine this shell as the membrane of a bubble. In 3D it’s a spherical shell but it is more easily pictured as a circular wave in 2D. As it collapses inwards, the decreasing surface area causes an increase in the energy density until some magic value (translate that as cosmic constant), is reached and somehow energy from within the shell is released and appears as small bubbles of PTE(Note 1) behind the shell. In 2D this release is likened to the crest of a wave that spills energy in front of the wave into the void before the creation of space–time and bubbles of energy pop-up causing the appearance of stars and galaxies. Maybe black holes appear as well – just to give some balance, or maybe they appear early on because extra-large or numerous bubbles close together in the centre of this burst, merge and reach the mass needed for a black hole to form. ...This is fun stuff to think about later.
In 3D, I found it helpful to picture the energy build up causing the thickness of the shell to increase. Then I had a simple analogy between the height of the 2D wave and the thickness of the 3D shell. But this may be more than a useful analogy because the thickness of a boundary layer could impose all sorts of attributes to the way energy is released through it, perhaps something like quantum tunnelling. Or, in another analogy, as the shell gets too thick, bits break away. The right terminology can really help to picture the process and I imagined these bits flaking off the shell like dandruff. Each flake then disintegrates into a galaxy. Wow, galaxies are just the dandruff of creation! Well, that is the cosmic perspective with over 100 billion galaxies, but I had better start sounding technical again...
Once released into space–time, energy seems always to manifest as matter or particles, whether it’s photons or atoms. To make the COI model work I simply picture the release of matter being through a plethora of small bubbles rather than the explosive style of a bang. There is more on this later.
I don’t know how large the matter–space universe starts out but suppose the radius at which this critical shell thickness or energy density is first achieved is R. This is where matter starts to be released into our universe and is effectively the radius of this universe. When this radius has reached half way in, the surface area has dropped to 1/4. That means that 3/4 of the energy has been expended creating galaxies in 7/8ths of the volume. The remaining 1/4 of the energy will be expended in the remaining 1/8th of the volume. Oops, isn’t the distribution of galaxies supposed to be even? Well, not in the observed bubbly universe. I read that defenders of Big Bang cosmology insist that it is even, taken on a large enough scale. Look, I don’t know, and when I go to work tomorrow I will write software algorithms for communications systems. I won’t analyse the stellar distribution. But sometimes you need to know what you are looking for before you see it. However, there is a catch. ...I have proposed that there is both a Doppler and Relativistic component of redshift in the COI model. This is likely to require an adjustment to the redshift versus distance calibration. Oh well, if it was too easy you wouldn’t appreciate the prize.
Observations of an increasing density would act to confirm the idea of an initial shell of energy. But would this increase be in the size of the stars or the number of stars in the galaxies or in the number of galaxies? Probably the latter; which is good because we cannot easily measure the number and size of stars in distant galaxies. Suppose this increase towards the centre cannot be detected. Well, the next section covers that. Does that sound like I am cheating? Not really – I just don’t know. I have a new paradigm but not all the details, and I am looking for what works. That’s real science! What if the thickness of the shell changes as it contracts? There are a lot of second-order effects to be discovered.
I initially proposed a shell of energy because having the complete void before space time existed on the inside seemed right and gave me a boundary layer or shell where the magic could happen. But this shell of energy seems to yield an uneven distribution of galaxies. Now, the name of the game is to virtualize whatever gives the right answer, so what if I started with a ball of energy, or the potential for energy? To be more specific a volume of energy prior to time starting. Effectively I have a volume without the dimension of time. I’ll discuss where this ball came from in just a minute, but let’s see what it gives us...
Let time start (appear) at the outside of the ball, progressively consuming or transforming the ball of energy into space–time. We can imagine, (postulate to seem more technical), a potential barrier that releases the vacuum-energy needed for the formation of outer space a bit like quantum tunnelling. To keep things working we suppose that the energy density inside the ball is higher than that of vacuum-energy and so the surplus energy builds up inside this potential barrier. Bingo, we now have our shell of energy again, but this time it is being fed at a steady rate from inside and not exclusively via the compression effect. When the energy builds up, it spills over the potential barrier to form a galaxy. With this approach we would expect an even density of galaxies.
Effectively, everything is still happening in the shell at the outside of the ball of energy, so I’ll continue referring to a shell. We just imagine the energy build up via conversion of the ball’s energy rather than compression of the initial shell of energy. But where did the ball come from? OK, we are talking about something before the beginning of space–time, so a degree of latitude must be given. The answer is more theological than physical. For me personally, the answer is given in Appendix C3 and it is also briefly discussed in Appendix C4.
Perhaps we can salvage another answer from Big Bang theology. It proposed that everything, including time, exploded out of nothing, and almost immediately the laws of physics changed to start the expansion phase. No one knows why this would happen and it has been named “graceful entry”. Then, once the universe got big enough the expansion phase stopped. STOP there – that’s my ball of energy. Now the Big Bang theory would go on and say that the laws of physics, as we know them now, resumed when the expansion stopped, and not knowing why this would happen, it was called “graceful exit”. In my Big Ball (Bubble) explanation, all the grace starts at the outside of the ball when laws of physics, as we know them today, start to transform the ball into space–time. Of course my ball never expanded because time did not yet exist.
This virtualization of some pre-exiting state before space–time began gives a degree of justification to a steady flow of energy creating the universe with bursts that form the galaxies. It may yield some credibility by adding a little more mathematics, but it’s only when those flakes or bubbles of PTE start to release matter, under our laws of physics, that real measurable science can begin to test the COI model predictions. I hope you can see that the COI model has not conjured up anything more imaginative than the Big Bang theory. I found it quite surprising that by the time the imagination ceases and the laws of physics rule, the COI model has galaxies created and distributed in their current form just waiting for the matter to be released, and all this based on fairly intuitive processes.
When, for whatever reason, energy spills over into small bubbles of PTE(Note 1) at some place or places around the shell, I would expect some lateral flow of energy within the shell to equalise levels. This flow, most likely at the speed of light, would set up ripples that move around the sphere or circumference in 2D. This leads to oscillations and possible resonance conditions that contribute to the pattern of further spills at favoured radius values. So this impacts the bubbly distribution and quantized redshift.
I personally favour the idea that spills and the side-effects occur in local regions of the contracting shell. But as the shell gets smaller we could reasonably postulate that these local regions get in step, that is synchronised, and this leads to the observed redshift quantization. OK, so redshift quantization would be more obvious closer in. To get a handle on the physics involved in the synchronisation of coupled systems have a look at Huygens' clocks in:
On a personal note, I recall standing in some shallow pools of water at the beach, nearly cut off from the sea by a sand bar. Only shallow waves were coming in. My attention was captured by the beautiful patters of light on the sand as the ripples of waves passing over focused the light on the sand. But the ripples were being reflected from multiple directions. (“Supplement 3a” has further follow-up and pictures of these light patterns.) If these ripples represent peaks in the energy density and hence the trigger points for spills and the appearance of galaxies, then I am confident that the same physics will be able to account for the observed “bubbly distribution” of galaxies described in Appendix C4.
Up until now I have pictured waves flowing over water. There is no energy loss except when the wave spills. But what happens when the waves roll-up the beach over the sand; even over dry sand? These waves are quite different to waves flowing over water. The sand seems to suck water out of the wave and the wave diminishes in proportion to the area covered. The wave seems to tumble or roll-up the beach under these conditions. If there really is a “vacuum energy”, that is, energy required even to create a vacuum of space–time, then that is a continuous drain from the energy in the shell as it collapses inwards, and the maths now has another variable.
Do you want more problems? When a wave spills over, it’s because the crest runs faster than the trough. It’s actually because the trough is slowed down by contact with the underlying surface. Didn’t I just suggest the underlying surface is the vacuum of space–time? So if local spills alter the speed of the shell or wave in that region, then that creates some jitter in the speed of the wavefront or shell, and that tends to blur the redshift quantization.
I first discussed quantized redshift in Appendix C4 where galaxies are seen to form bands or rings at regular steps. The banding suggested by the redshift quantization does not initially tie in well with the bubbly universe that I now suggest as being a strong confirmation of the COI model. I have also noticed claims from some of the literature that the quantization is not observed at greater distances. I also note that the bubbly distribution of galaxies requires a very broad-scale picture of the universe and in the previous paragraphs I have hinted at a range of factors that mitigate quantisation at greater distances. So I no longer feel any conflict between these observations.
I have proposed the energy spill will often create vortices which pass this initial distribution to the small PTE bubbles(Note 1) in a spiral galaxy. I have described this behaviour as something to be expected. I sure would like to see some experimental physics where releases of a turbulent fluid under pressure through a brief aperture could create the sort of distributions that might be needed for different galactic types. I would just love to see real pictures from some comparable present day system rather than theoretical predictions. But let’s remind ourselves of what the real system is doing.
I have a wave of energy moving at the speed of light between the vacuum of outer space and the void before space–time appears. The energy in this wave is moving laterally to equalise density and this gives rise to oscillations and ripples of energy. There is a continual feed-in of energy due to the compression as the shell reduces and there may be a continual bleed-off of energy to feed vacuum energy requirements. Time is starting up as the wave passes over and this start-up is not instantaneous as experienced around black hole event horizons.
I imagine that both the slow start-up of time and the bleed of energy could represent some sort of viscous drag, especially when you imagine the energy spills out of a wave at the speed of light but the resultant galaxies have much lower speeds. So I have turbulent flow in the wave; ejection perpendicular to this; and things that look equivalent to viscous drag.
I also have smallish apertures compared to the scale of the wave or shell. Do these open up in a circular manner or nearly instantly when the energy reaches some peak in a local region? Would a ripple of energy flowing across some region close to the peak cause a sort of sliding aperture to open across the region and so make a progressive release?
It just seems like the aerospace industry must have research that relates to scenarios like this. Whatever, I feel like I need to polish up my arguments about how elliptical galaxies form because the conditions for a vortex and hence spiral galaxies seem too probable. But as long as it’s just a probability, I can have both and even mixtures to account for the irregular galaxies.
In Appendix C4 I offered two analogies: one of a pressure cooker releasing a burst of small PTE bubbles and the second, of a wave spilling its energy. Both seemed to evoke the likely hood of vortex formation. That remains plausible. But in this article I also suggested that as the shell of energy gets thicker, bits might break off—like dandruff. These flakes in turn disintegrate into the smaller bubbles that form stars.
This concept of flakes makes it possible to postulate other aspects of galactic structure. First of all, the flakes can easily be imagined on average as somewhat round and flat. Hence we explain the most common aspect of galaxies, namely their disc shape. If the flake starts out thicker in the middle than at the edges then we can offer an explanation of the dense cluster of stars near the centre, the galactic bulge. The rest is story-telling, that is, you just imagine different shapes and profiles of the flakes to account for the bars and spirals that we see in common galaxies.
Now, I am not averse to a bit of story-telling if it can offer an explanation. But it really needs to have some predictive component that we can test. Vortex formation is still on the cards, but I also like flakes that can break off, tumble and pick up a spin at the level of a galaxy. Do you recall how the bubbly distribution was accounted for as ripples of energy, flowing around the shell, triggered the release of galaxies? So the same mechanism is at work here, when using flakes. These ripples would create some variability in the way flakes break off. Virtually at the same time as a flake breaks away, it would start to disintegrate into its myriad of stars. Now, there seems to be considerable latitude to explain the features even in irregular galaxies. “Supplement 3a” contains further support.
So, now I have a backup plan for the vortex option. This plan seems to have the potential to explain many features just from simple geometric considerations of the flake profiles and how they tear away from the shell and disintegrate. And remember the rules—if the story sounds good, then it’s correct until proven wrong.
The preceding section on Vortex formation showed that the turbulence in the energy within the shell imparts the initial velocity and distribution of PTE bubbles(Note 1) (stars) within a galaxy, and so logically any net outward flow of energy would impart an outward velocity. If vacuum energy is real, and other sources discussed later, then there is a constant outflow of energy per unit surface area of the shell to account for the constant volume of space being created as the shell moves inward at the speed of light.
OK, so far I have proposed a constant drain of energy per unit surface area and hence a constant outward velocity. But the shell contracts in surface area as it moves in and this concentrates the energy. I have already demonstrated that this concentration is faster as the shell gets closer to the centre of the universe. Thus the increase in the energy density per unit surface area accelerates as the centre is approached and so the net outflow per unit surface area decreases. This means that the outward velocity imparted by this outflow decreases as we approach the centre of the universe, exactly as required for a Doppler explanation for the observed redshift.
The COI universe is closed. Once the gravitational tide reaches the outer most stars they will start to be drawn in. It occurred to me that they would have a tremendous amount of potential energy. Where does this energy come from? I found it hard to picture the mechanism for this energy but I know one thing for sure in this universe – there are no free lunches! If those outer stars have potential energy something gave it to them! If you glide down a hill on your bike then for sure someone or something pushed you up the hill. This energy must have come from the energy shell as it laid out space–time.
OK, I’m sure that I have now established a reason for a continuous outflow of energy that I wanted to back up the previous section on Doppler velocities, but I am having trouble with a physical mechanism. I suspect that the energy is taken up in the curvature of space–time but I find that very hard to picture. So I will lay down a more easily grasped picture, but acknowledge that it is only approximate.
The creation wave is on average, dropping matter at a constant rate and then moving away from that matter, and its gravity, as the wave surges inwards. This implies that the wave is going up-hill all the way in to the centre. The creation wave has now ended. The gravitational tide is reversing and the curvature of space–time is reversing. The energy expended during the inward creation now becomes the potential energy of the outer galaxies.
Is this flow of potential energy constant? If so, it supports the Doppler velocity profile proposed in the previous section even if the vacuum energy concepts prove wishful. What if this flow is greater per unit surface area at the outer parts of the universe? That would further contribute to the expected Doppler velocity profile.
I have proposed that galaxies grow from a cluster of small PTE bubbles(Note 1) released from the creation wave with an initial size and structure at least close to what we see today. I would expect these small bubbles to be spread out over distances of the order of 100,000 light years, much like our own galaxy. But at the time of release, these are not gravitationally linked. It might take 100,000 odd years or more before some steady state gravitational attraction to be in place. Now I would like to ask the question: “Could we anticipate some structural features of a galaxy formed like this?” This is something a bit different, and I would expect some observations of the stars in our galaxy to be consistent with this.
Well folks, problems abound with the current gravitational collapse model. It has been band-aided for decades. Prizes will be awarded to anyone who can better predict things under the COI model. My input here is minor. I read how some stars seem to have a velocity sufficient for them to escape from the galaxy and I just assume that this is quite acceptable when a somewhat chaotic vortex sets the initial conditions. Similarly, the velocity profile of our galaxy is quite unexpected, being pretty straight. I would be really impressed if this could be predicted from understandings of the behaviour of a vortex.
A vortex has a tail or funnel where it tapers out, a bit like the funnel on a tornado. But once released, the gravitational pull from the other stars in the galaxy would tend to bring the stars in a relatively short funnel, into the centre of the disk. This seems a likely explanation for the bulge common to many spiral galaxies. It would explain why the orbits of stars in this bulge are so different to the plane of the galaxy.
It would be really interesting to see a computer simulation to predict whether some initial distributions derived from a vortex would take on more detailed galactic features like bars and clumping commonly seen in galaxies as growth and gravitational effects are applied.
I don’t know whether my postulated PTE bubbles(Note 1) should be attributed the full gravitational pull, equivalent to all the matter that they generate, right from moment they are released from the shell. I think not because gravity does not exist until the PTE disintegrates into matter. What this means is that the mass of a star, or resultant solar system, appears later. Of course, with the bubbles shrinking at the speed of light, this delay will be small compared to the 100,000 light-years over which the stars of a galaxy are scattered. Its effect would then only be significant where stars are closer together.
Initially I had imagined that the Big Ball of PTE released a galaxy of smaller bubbles of PTE. Each of these bubbles was pictured as something like white holes which emit matter. By the way, white holes are not real but are a known theoretical concept. Having seen rings in many different structures in nature, it was then easy to imagine that this matter would form rings that in turn would coalesce into planets and moons. That remains an option; but it requires a lot of ‘just right’ behaviour that I have removed from this discussion. (Note 1)
However, everything became simpler when I pictured the smaller bubbles of PTE behaving just like the initial Big Bubble. That is, as they shrink or progressively disintegrate, they release still smaller bubbles of PTE with a predictable periodicity. Now we have another ‘bingo’ moment — do you see the planets forming?
If you look at table listing the orbit radius of each planet from Pluto down to Mercury, then roughly speaking, each planet’s orbit radius is somewhere from two thirds to a half the radius of the next planet out. Try http://nineplanets.org/data.html and http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/charchart.cfm. There is also an asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars that many people suspect should have been a planet. That probably accounts for the bigger than expected gap there. So there is a periodicity and you can imagine the bubble of PTE that formed our solar system releasing smaller bubbles as it shrinks, each of which accounts for a planet. For now, I don’t know if multiple bubbles might have been released to also account for moons or whether the single planetary bubble released still smaller bubbles as it continued to shrink.
I like it! Now it is even simpler. Though it sounds like a ‘just so’ story, what I have actually done is to follow my initial concept, namely shrinking spheres of PTE, as the mechanism behind solar systems as well as galaxies. You can also imagine that these smaller bubbles could be swallowed up to give rise to a single plain star that may become a red giant, or that these smaller bubbles along with the star itself, disintegrate into a cloud of dust and gas. This is discussed later, but planetary formation has become simpler and even quicker.
Please let me add a little more pseudo-science to the plot… In the universe, size does matter! We see that suns behave differently in the late stages of their life depending on their size. Will it become a red giant and then a white dwarf, or will it go super-nova and then collapse into a black hole? It tends to depend on the initial size. In the microscopic quantum world size also makes a big difference. Some things happen only at a small scale that won’t happen at a macroscopic level. What I am suggesting is that my proposed bubbles of PTE tend to break into smaller bubbles until some threshold effect cuts in and they finally release matter. Plausible? I think so, but more importantly, self-consistent.
Recall that all this shrinking is going on at the speed of light. Once you get down to the bubbles that form planets, they may start out as a guess, 10 to 100 times the radius of the final planet. But it will now only take seconds for the process to complete as the planetary bubble shrinks, divides and effectively disintegrates. Perhaps this disintegration proceeds until they get down to the quantum level where magical things can happen because things are no longer deterministic, but probabilistic. The PTE finally transitions into matter, not bursting out from a single point source, but appearing as a cloud of particles. The final result is that in the blink of an eye, a cloud of matter is released and it would be gravitationally bound. How long would it take this cloud to collapse into a recognisable planet? Well, depending on spin, you could perhaps time it with a stop-watch, not a calendar.
The gravitational potential energy alone released during this collapse would cause a massive heating effect and that would delay the collapse. Initial cooling of a black body radiator would be quick, but as a mantle and/or clouds start to blanket the planet, the process slows. I know that scientists already have models to calculate planetary cooling. Some models are a bit embarrassing because it is hard to explain why some planets and moons have not frozen solid and so lost their magnetism and volcanic activity. See Enceladus description in http://creation.com/young-saturn. Try out CMI’s search engine for more applications. Since the COI model predicts a younger universe, you would be well advised to search out technical sources that have not hidden this embarrassing data. If you really want to estimate the age of a galaxy or solar system under the COI model, then here is one predictable mechanism, but it will surely be hard to factor in the effect of the Sun also firing up during this process. I wonder what other predictions might be made and how they would compare with each other.
Perhaps you have noticed how many times I have described new concepts in this book, as exciting. I get excited when the self-consistency of it all – science as well as God’s word, reveals a new simplicity. During a re-read, I noticed that I have said this so many times that I wonder if I sound like one of those TV salesmen who is really excited about the wonderful features of his new vacuum cleaner or food processor… And if you call in the next 20 minutes, there is always a wonderful bonus offer. My bonus offer is eternal salvation through Jesus and the twist is that He has already paid the price.
About a month after penning the last section, I was browsing an article where Dr Jim Mason Ph.D. was describing the Higgs Boson particle. This sub-sub-atomic particle had been predicted for many years but was very difficult to detect. Because of this it had been nick-named the ‘God particle’. Recently it was experimentally verified. As Dr Mason continued he explained how this now completes a suite of 5 boson particles that explain all the observed forces: electromagnetic; strong and weak nuclear; and now gravity via the Higgs Boson particle. It effectively imparts the property of mass. The other 12 particles, called Quarks and Leptons, form protons, neutrons and electrons from which all types of matter are formed. All the physical forces are derived from the 5 bosons.
So, enough of the physics lesson. Have a look at creation.com/creation-tv/, episode 3-22 and you’ll know as much as me. What makes this exciting in relation to the COI model? The first thing is that I had just proposed that the bubbles of PTE Shrink, (recede at the speed of light), Divide, (release other bubbles), and finally Disintegrate, (transform into matter). It’s easier to use the SDD acronym. I have been able to picture this dividing progressing right down to quantum levels and now I suddenly read about these particles that yield the mass attribute. So, at an intuitive, conjectural level, it’s easy to imagine these bubbles, dividing down into a cloud of small, quantum level bubbles. Then, with nowhere to go, they transform into these particles that assemble into all matter.
Well, that was good, but what made it special was that the Higgs Boson would not have appeared until the final disintegration phase. Hence gravity appeared on the scene at the same time as the cloud of microscopic bubbles finally transformed into matter. Do you see it? The bubbles, starting with the initial Big Bubble, and now the solar system bubble and planetary bubbles are not interacting gravitationally because they don’t have the Higgs Boson particles. But once they disintegrate into matter, there is immediate gravitational attraction to hold the clouds of matter together. Yet, there is no gravitational attraction from the receding Big Bubble to distort the formation of galaxies. Indeed, though the Big Bubble fills the centre of the universe it presents no gravitational attraction.
The bubbles all shrink at the speed of light as space–time appears. This has nothing to do with gravity. But it was always a concern that the energy in the bubbles may have had a mass equivalent that would then interact with the galaxies being released. That would change everything, so I simply assumed that there was no such gravitational attraction. Now I feel a sense of completion because I have a framework to justify that assumption.
I had hardly finished the above sections where I added a new twist and saw the impact of the Higgs Boson particle, and then I received my Creation magazine Vol 32 No 3, June 2014. It contained an article by David Coppedge about “Extrasolar Planets”. These are planets that have been detected in orbit around stars other than our sun. The surprise to everyone was the discovery of an extraordinary number of ‘hot Jupiters’. These are gas giants like our Jupiter but located very close to the sun, even closer than Mercury. This is totally at odds with the current ‘nebular hypothesis’ for how a solar system might form. The thing that stood out was David’s observation that even current theories require rapid planet formation. Well, you can’t get faster planet formation than under the COI Model!
David suggested that under a nebular model, the components of these gas giants would spiral into the star in just a few thousand years. I started to think about the actual timescales of events at a cosmic level. We know that when a star goes super-nova it is blindingly quick and the subsequent black hole formation would be sudden. The transition from a normal star to a red giant seems to be a threshold effect that might also be ‘quick’. The final collapse to a white dwarf would seem to be sudden. All these events are associated with the end of a star’s life-cycle. It just makes you wonder why the start has always been assumed to be slow.
The COI model offers very rapid sun formation. The solar system bubble finally disintegrates into a cloud of matter that is gravitationally bound and this follows right after the planets have similarly formed. The funny thing about rapid events is that they can rapidly go wrong...
It is popular to suggest that nebulae are the birth place of stars under the Big Bang Theory. OK, so let’s look at the pictures and make up our mind what story is being told. The HubbleSite.org > Gallery > Image Tours, gives some beautiful examples of nebulae within our galaxy that are of the order of 2 to 10 thousand light years away and around 10 light years in size. It offers a lot of close up views of the different features within these nebulae. The Eagle and Orion nebula are particularly dramatic.
After having looked around, who sees collapsing clouds and who sees regions where some earlier concentrations are spreading out and diffusing, shaped by solar winds and perhaps some explosions? Isn’t science fun? A fundamental shift just requires a new spin on the story. It’s going on all the time. So let me summarise it in one neat little box:
There is a new paradigm and a new story to be told!
Like all good preachers, even preachers of supposed unchallengeable god-less science, you need some colourful interlude. For me, it is Guy Fawkes Night, where we would buy all sorts of fireworks. I knew exactly how much mum and dad would let me spend and I visited all the shops to work out how to get the maximum bang for my buck, literally. We have long ago banned fireworks in this state because of the danger to children, but I feel a little disappointed that I cannot share the fun I had with my children. But what I recall was that some crackers were just ‘fizzers’. Rather than a bang they became more like a sky rocket. OK, the wrapping was probably not tight enough or the fuse did not properly ignite the main body of gun powder. Whatever, the ignition sequence was not quite right. And so, what happens if the ignition sequence of a star is not quite right? Do you really need me to propose a mechanism? OK, suppose that before the cloud fully collapses, a small core of the material has a mini-supernova. Will that suffice? Can you now picture a nebula resulting from a bubble that turns into a fizzer?
However, it was clear that a mini-supernova would not explain all the different features in nebulae. Well, neither does the Big Bang theory. But again, physical experience prompted another solution... So, who has not blown bubbles through a ring dipped in soapy water? Sometimes I have seen 2 to 5 bubbles join together and float away. I have proposed that a galaxy is created when a burst of bubbles were released from the initial Big Bubble, typically influenced by a vortex. It is not hard to imagine that some of the bubbles, that normally give rise to isolated stars or solar systems, were so joined together at release. But being joined together they no longer have a centralised point about which the final release of a cloud of matter can occur. Hence we see the release over a region.
I learned something from this little exercise. Science is not a creative process – it is a tool for analysis. The scientist is the one who takes the creative initiative. If it is something that you can repeatedly test in the lab, then science is what you apply. If it is something that has happened in the past and cannot be repeatedly tested, then sometimes all we have left is story-telling. If the story is consistent with a few observations then it is accepted. Do you like my story?
While I was scanning the many images of nebulae in the preceding section, I noticed a group called hourglass nebulae, more precisely defined as bipolar planetary nebulae. A quite recent discovery, announced in Sept 2013, is detailed in:
and also mentioned in:
Basically, when looking at these structures in the central bulge of our galaxy, the axis of the hour-glass shape is pointing in the same direction for over 100 stars. It happens that this direction is the plane of our galaxy. This result was described as bizarre because it is so unexpected under chaotic Big Bang assumptions. However, in the COI model, where a physical process rapidly released the initial bubbles, it is not surprising that in the dense central region, they had a common spin axis, even the same as the axis of the galactic plane.
Angular momentum and spin is everywhere in our solar system and galaxy, however I have brushed it aside in most of the previous discussions. In regard to a galaxy I simply assumed that the vortex inspired initial distribution and speed accounted for spiral galaxies. I was quite satisfied with that, but if you are going to have a theory of everything, as it has been commonly named, you need to handle everything.
My problem is that I have now chosen to see a solar system as being formed from a single bubble. I have no way to attribute spin to this bubble since I have proposed that it is not yet acting under gravitational forces because the Higgs-Boson particle has not yet manifest. But I observe planets and moons spinning on their axis and in orbits around the sun or other plants. The sun itself has a very slow rotation. The hour-glass nebulae discussed in the previous section suggest spin in other solar systems and implies that the same axis of spin is present throughout the centre of the galaxy, and actually, it is the same as the galactic plane.
Now, I am writing this at May 2015, perhaps 10 months after the previous section. It’s great to use this common axis of rotation to attack other models that predict totally random axes in different solar systems, but now I need to consider it within the COI Model. So, like all good scientists, I will postulate something and hope it’s good enough to explain spin. Are you ready?
A tempoary rupture of the initial Big Bubble releases a myriad of smaller bubbles. These bubbles may well have an outward velocity as well as the vortex inspired distribution. If these bubbles were perfectly spherical then I would expect spherical symmetry in the subsequent solar system. That is, I would expect planets in all sorts of orbits and with different axes of spin. But in our solar system, the planets orbit in roughly the same plane — a disk, but I cannot find a way to attribute spin to the bubble that formed this solar system.
First rule — don’t panic. Look for some band aide. Sorry, I could not find one and I hate it when the teacher sets a question I cannot answer. I recalled that just because our solar system is a disk, it does not mean that that is the default — not convincing! Then a possible and consistent answer popped up out of the eather… Why am I assuming that the bubbles that form solar systems are spherical? Suppose you squeeze a soft round ball between your fingers and thumb. It will flatten at the top and bottom, and bulge a little in the middle. Now, when this distorted bubble starts to shrink, there is a bias about the central bulge or plane that might well cause the release of smaller bubbles in that plane.
So, how was that? I was not comfortable assigning spin to the initial bubble, but given that I was happy to assign it speed and distribution created by a vortex, along with outward speed, surely the interplay of all these factors could create some flattening of the bubbles? Then better still, these factors could well be common across regions of the galaxy. OK, I certainly have a bit of conjecture, but is seems consistent. I am happy that I can answer the teacher’s question.
It always helps to have some further confirmation. I was reading the following article that I had noted many years ago. It’s an excellent summary by Jonathan Sarfati, of many issues related to our solar system…
“The sun: our special star” at creation.com.
It has some cool insights about the unique nature of our sun. But when I re-read it, I took note of how gravitational collapse was a possible initial source of heat that has subsequently been replaced by fusion. Yes, I proposed that. It also mentions a probable much younger age than the popularly accepted 4.5 billion years. OK, me too. But in the section on “Problems with evolutionary theories of the sun”, Jonathan points out that the popular nebular hypothesis would cause the sun to be spinning very fast while it is actually spinning very slowly. In the light of this section on spin in the solar system, the last phase of the collapse of the bubble is when the sun forms. The bubble has no spin and so the sun has virtually no spin. I say ‘virtually no spin’ because I expect that subsequent interaction with the planets also appearing and being captured in the sun’s gravitation, would impart some spin.
A red giant is a star that is thought to have consumed most of its initial hydrogen and formed heavier elements that concentrate at its core. A new phase in its life cycle begins as it starts to burn helium rather than hydrogen. This releases energy much faster and the increased radiation pressure causes the star to expand. Although releasing more energy, the much greater surface area means less energy per unit surface area and hence the temperature drops, which causes the redder appearance.
This phase of its life cycle or stellar evolution is not thought to happen until some 10 billion odd years have expired because it is assumed the star started as mostly hydrogen and took a long time to form the heavier elements. But guess what – my PTE bubbles(Note 1) do not assume a purely hydrogen cloud as the initial conditions for a star. Just as the initial attributes of the small PTE bubbles can give rise to nebulae that just result in dust clouds, so too, the initial conditions could give rise to a high heavy element concentration in the star itself.
All this means that the star created by a PTE bubble could start its life as a red giant. Of course the red giant is a precursor to a supernova and/or dwarf stars. I am quite comfortable with explanations of how this transition can suddenly occur. But the bottom line is that when you see these different types of stars, it is no longer an indication of immense age. It is just a result of the initial conditions in the small PTE bubble which were in turn imparted from the turbulent energy flow in the collapsing shell.
Does it seem unreasonable that I simply attribute the variability in initial conditions for the diversity we see in star types? Many aspects of stellar evolution reveal complex insights about how stars burn different chemicals. However, the implied suggestions of how they change in time in order to account for a plethora of different types, is what starts to sound improbable to me. I have become very happy to let all the different types simply come from slightly random different initial conditions.
In the preceding section on “Growing solar systems”, I proposed that the small PTE bubbles releases still smaller bubbles that form planets. I was unsure whether moons were released from those planetary bubbles or from the initial PTE bubble itself. I suspect the former. Our solar system has many quirks in the orbits of various planets and moons that are quite inconsistent with the nebular accretion process normally assumed. To account for these abnormalities, all manner of bizarrely improbable planetary interactions have been recently proposed. However, I suspect that the rapid formation of relatively close spaced moons and planets under the COI model can account for that variety of moons and asteroid orbits that we see.
First, the rapidity of the final collapse allows distinct objects of dramatically different size to form relatively close to each other. The accretion process would not seem to support this. The second key element is that the planets and moons sizes objects would cool more quickly than the central sun. Only after the sun has cooled would it then compress and start its fusion chemistry—flame on! The planets not protected by a strong magnetic field will then lose components of their atmosphere to the solar wind. That in turn alters their mass and hence their orbits. Now you can have interactions between planets and moons without having to invoke bizarre improbabilities.
For example, imagine that the earth and its moon formed as two distinct objects orbiting the sun. When the sun fires up, the moon with its lesser gravity and weaker magnetic field loses its atmosphere and surface water. This will slightly changes its orbit and as the story goes, it then comes close enough to the earth to be captured by its gravity. Now I could tell the story and have the moon captured before the sun ignited but I have technical and biblical reasons to suggest that this happened after the sun ignited. Well this is a success story. In fact it was just right and Supplement 4 expands on that.
Now let’s look at what happens when this process fails. You see, once the objects become fairly large they will become rigid and spin or rotate on their axis. Each object will be spinning in the same direction so that when orbital changes bring them into close contact, at the point of contact, the surfaces of the two objects will be travelling in the opposite direction. Try and picture what would happen if the front and back wheels of a car came close enough to touch while still driving along. Maybe it’s easier to picture the rear wheels of a semi-trailer. The back of the leading tyre is going up and the front of the trailing tyre is going down at the point of contact. They would abrade each other. Now imagine two similar sized planets coming together. They will chew each other up. If one planet is very much bigger, it would survive and may even have gravity strong enough to capture the debris, but not for two similar sized planets.
In an early version of this article(Note 1) I described how an accretion process might assimilate tiny particles using crystalline and surface tension forces. But the huge chunks of rock thrown off by this encounter will not join up unless there is yet another large object in the orbit. Further, the energy of this crunch will dislodge debris into a wide range of orbits. This would seem to be the story behind the asteroid belt located between Mars and Jupiter. With a little imagination you might also come up with something special for Saturn’s rings. Some of the debris will result in meteor impacts on the other planets and moons, and this may also be responsible for the changes in orbit that brought our moon into the earth’s gravitational field.
One very significant point worth mentioning is that this process does not work with billions of years. For example, the moon is receding from the earth at about 4 centimetres per year. If you go back about one billion years, the earth and the moon would be touching, or at least close enough that the earth’s gravity would pull the moon apart because the pull on the near side would be so much greater than the pull on the far side. In a similar way, we can estimate the amount of mass lost to comets each time they orbit the sun. This happens because the solar wind erodes them as they come close to the sun. It means that comets don’t live that long. Because the COI model establishes a solar system quickly, there are no problems, but it surely requires some exotic conjecture to explain these observations while preserving a 4.5 billion year old solar system.
There are many follow-up issues here. Do the ice rings around Saturn support the accretion process or do they exemplify another failed moon acquisition? Many moons in our solar system provide further fascinating evidence that demand a rapid solar system formation, not that long ago. Try entering the following topics into the search engine at Creation.com: “moon recession”, “comet orbits”, “magnetic field decay”, “Saturn’s rings and moons”; “Jupiter’s moons”. Basically, there is plenty of data that demands a recent, rapid formation and the COI model provides an explanation. Hands up anyone else with a better recent rapid formation model.
While researching redshift I noted one questionable but possibly exciting observation, namely, that some very close galaxies show a slight blue shift. I wondered if this is consistent with my prediction that the gravitational tide is switching from flowing in, to flowing out, and only these nearby galaxies are starting to see that impact. There are lots of factors to be considered and this might not pan out. I have always wondered if this change in gravitational tides might not generate some lens effect on the way we see the universe.
More recently, I was reading an article about the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (http://creation.com/the-big-bang-fails-another-test). The CMB is a nearly constant and uniform level of microwave radiation seen in every direction. Under the Big Bang Theory, this was thought to be the “after glow” of the initial explosion and so it is the oldest and most distant radiation source. But if distant, then we expected it to be masked or shadowed if we look through a cluster of galaxies. Now you have to be really clever to do that, but when they did, they found no shadow. This is just one more in a plethora of unexplained things that is inconsistent with the Big Bang Theory.
The article prompted me to wonder how the COI Model could explain the CMB. It was a hot night and I got up about 3 am to sit on the veranda and enjoy a slight breeze that had come up. (I just wanted to let you know that diligent scientific endeavour was not involved.) Then I recalled that I had already proposed a gravitational tide flowing outwards into the universe at the speed of light. Could this be exciting the low density charged particles in outer space, to generate the CMB? Like I said, it’s just speculation.
The real fame will go to someone who can sell the mathematics to the general public. I think that was a key to the success of the Big Bang Theory. In the COI model we started with the Big Ball or Shell of energy, however it’s much more visual to describe this shell as a bubble. Everyone can picture bubbles. It is a membrane that can be pictured shrinking. You can imagine diffusion through the elastic surface and there is a surface tension that intuitively accounts for a tendency to shrink. Who has not seen a cluster of small and big bubbles in the bath tub, or blown bubbles through a ring dipped in detergent. So, the initial bubble or shell can easily be pictured releasing a burst of small bubbles that give rise to a galaxy.
But how can we picture the contents of these bubbles? I cannot picture it but I thought a catchy name may suffice — let’s call it Pre-Time Energy or PTE. We can also call the volume in the bubble Pre-Time Space (PTS). The surface of the initial ball of PTE converts into a shell of fluid PTE – the Big Bubble. Some of this PTE diffuses through the Big Bubble, providing the energy for space–time to be created, but as the pressure continues to build up in the shrinking bubble, bursts of PTE break through. These bursts form a galaxy of smaller bubbles each of which are now totally embedded in space–time. They effectively have nowhere to go or shrink, so they now release their PTE as matter.
So guys, the computer animation team can intuitively picture the process. It’s before space–time began so we have a license to be imaginative. The begining of time transforms these bubbles into space–time and matter. Fame awaits the man who can write some equations like:
In the last section I did something really smart. I simply said that I cannot picture PTE. Now, about 6 months later, I thought I would have a go. Remember, it can’t exist in our universe with its known laws of physics, but that turns out to be the beauty of it. Further, it no longer exits, unlike dark energy proposed by the Big Bang model.
The unit of Energy is the Joule. It is equivalent to the unit of Force, a Newton, acting over a Distance of one metre. Energy is the result of a Force acting over a Distance. My suggestion is that PTE is like a force. So, as time moves inwards into the PTE bubble by some distance D, then the PTE or Force is converted to Energy. Now, I failed to mention that the force acts on mass, but have you got the main ingredients? Force acting over distance and Time penetrating into the PTE, both yield energy. It’s not simple Newtonian physics yet but we are adding a new dimension of time.
Perhaps now you can imagine the initial bubble of PTE as a bit like a tennis ball or soccer ball pumped to a very high pressure, close to bursting. But it does not burst. It just sits there waiting. And what is it waiting for? It is waiting for time to start. Because time starts from the outside in, and is constrained by the speed of light, the ball does not go flat but rather the outer layers of the pressurised ball are progressively converted to energy. Now we have an image that we can all relate to and that was my initial goal for this section. But, a little more than I expected unfolded…
Think of all the energy sources you can in this universe: thermal, kinetic, gravitational potential, chemical, nuclear, radiation as in photons. Every manifestation of energy is associated with matter and ultimately matter and energy are interchangeable via E=mc². The very dimensions of Energy involve Mass and Time, namely:
Energy = Mass x (Length /
Mass = Energy x (Time / Length)²
PTE is still a bit of a mystery, and that’s OK because it is never part of this universe and its laws. But when the Energy released by the start of time overflows into the space–time of this universe, the equations demand that it manifest as some form of matter. All I have done is to postulate a process by which this could happen that would account for the distribution of matter we actually see!
I rewrote the following paragraphs perhaps 5 times in a week. It seemed that I had made my main points above, but for some reason I was looking for something more. It seemed that the dimensions of PTE should be those of Energy, less Time, which is just Mass x Length². Well, that seems OK. It seems to line up with suggestions made in Appendix C3 and Supplement S4.
In our universe we have space–time, while this PTE bubble seems to have space–matter. Probably someone smarter than me can abstract this problem mathematically to create a venire of technical approval, but the secret for me was to better grasp time. For example, time does not start and suddenly everything begins to age. Time is built into the fabric of this universe. The lessons of relativity is that we live in an elastic space–time where time may speed up away from massive objects or slow down with speed. Matter and length itself are elastic; and time, though reversible in all the equations, only moves forward.
What I came to see is that the PTE bubble is not being transformed by time; though for simplicity I continue to say that in many places. Rather, the PTE totally disintegrates to provide the energy to feed the creation of space–time and matter in this universe. Our space–time is not the space of the initial PTE bubble plus time, but something entirely different. Ultimately, the PTE bubble is just conjecture to picture how energy may have fed the creation process from the outside in. Perhaps other mechanisms can be postulated to feed essentially the same process, but I like this one. In this model, the PTE is a bland lump of something that appears simply to fuel a process that generates the exquisite structure of space–time and matter in this universe.
The Big Bang postulated an explosion that everyone could relate to. However, it did not work and had to be supplemented by an impossible expansion phase. Perhaps that’s its bland lump of evenly distributed matter. But still it did not work without undetectable dark matter and dark energy — undetectable, yet accounting for about 94% of the universe. I’d sure like to see those physicists deny the plausibility of my PTE bubble! The funny thing is that multi-verses, or multiple universes, are fashionable at the moment. So who can imagine a matter–space universe melting into a space–time universe?
Is the COI Model correct? For the moment let’s leave that right/wrong decision and look at what has happened. The COI Model has placed a serious challenge to the conventional paradigm of everything unfolding over unimaginably long periods of time. I hope that this article reaches a lot of scientists and I would like to make a request... Many scientists have been so confident of their understanding that they feel they can dictate that understanding to everyone; even to censor alternatives. Whether provably correct or not, the COI model challenges the arrogance of such men. When you come across such arrogance, I don’t demand that you challenge it, but simply guard yourself from falling into that trap.
What you choose to believe will always be your choice. I did a B.Sc. with honours, majoring in Physics and Theoretical Physics. Then I went on to work professionally in engineering and communication systems. But I loved the maths and physics subjects above everything else and I excelled. Now I am old, but I still remember the excitement of it all as the maths and physics seemed to yield so many answers. However they will always remain simply as tools to me. What you and I build with our tools is dictated by our desires and beliefs. My beliefs are effectively on the public record though this book. They are as rigorously and experientially tested as any physics theorem. My faith is not blind but my experience is that the blind declare by faith that there is no god. The COI model is not the challenge — my God is the challenge!
It’s March 2013, well June 2014 now. (Then some small tweaks in Dec 2014 with the S6 supplement, the an update to remove white holes in Jan 2016.) I have said all I have to say for now. Perhaps I will see something more later on, but don’t hold your breath. Check out other issues on this website. If anyone has something, I would hope that “COI Universe Model” in a web search will be able to find it. Perhaps add the keyword “confirm” or “reject” to indicate the flavour. If Google cannot find it, then you can send me the link, but actually, I have trouble getting Google to index my own articles. I’ll probably add a selection on the positive and negative feedback later.
Unfortunately, at the moment I don’t have time to create or moderate a blog. I have tuned in to a few blogs and I often find a series of exchanges between diametrically opposed viewpoints. The side I might see as wrong never seems to read or respond as if they ever really read what the other had said.
I have not tried to be more than I am, or to suggest I have anything like all the answers. I know to whom I belong and have offered everything that I have seen with all the support that I can muster, whether physical, Biblical, or from my personal experience. I doubt that I can give anything more except to repeat the same things in different words. Why don’t you read what I have written and maybe you will find the answer.
Surprise, surprise! ...It’s Mar 2016 and some new things have developed. See Supplement 3a, “The COI Universe: Technical Inspirations”.