Supplement 9.

The Transforming Universe

This universe is continuously changing. Our understanding is continuously changing. One paradigm will rule our understanding for a while, often for an entire generation. The history of science is littered with scientists who clung to wrong paradigms even when new views were being proposed. This history is worthy of an article in its own right because it would really surprise a lot of people, but this article tries to side-step the dogmas that entrench our thinking by treating it as a game.


Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, let’s play a game! You don’t need any special qualifications—letters after your name or big muscles—you just need imagination. The letters won’t help because that just means you think you know the rules. That’s the fun thing about this game, namely, the rules don’t take effect until the game is nearly over.

Like all games there will be a start and an end, and there will be winners and losers. This game is a mystery story where the prize is hidden. The winners will be the ones who value that prize. The losers will be losers because they don’t want the prize, even when it is revealed.

OK, I’ve just tried to be a bit funny and intriguing, hoping to entice you into playing my game. I don’t want to carry this too far and look deceptive, but I cannot simply tell you the definitive truth because that truth, that absolute knowledge, lies outside this universe and is probably beyond our, or at least my, comprehension. But that won’t stop me trying.

The prize is to answer these two questions:

The rules are the known immutable laws of physics that apply through the universe. The problem is that these laws do not allow highly structured universes to pop-up out of nothing.

The game is to supplement the rules with some virtualisation of a non-natural process that would establish the initial state of the universe.

In this game the start of the universe is a non-natural process because the process must break the known laws of physics since energy and matter must somehow be created. So, by definition it is super-natural. I call it a virtualisation because, while we are outside the known laws of physics, we cannot really picture the exact nature of what is going on. Rather we must picture something we can imagine, in order to describe what we cannot imagine.

The concept of a virtualisation also makes it possible to consider the process before our limited and sometimes misdirected understanding cuts in and spoils things. What makes a virtualisation exciting and different from a straight fairy tale, is when it is based on a real known and understood physical process. This is called an analogue. For example an electric current in a wire can be likened to water flowing down a pipe. A thinner pipe is analogous to more electrical resistance and increased water pressure in the pipe acts like increased voltage over the wire.

The merit of the virtualisation is not merely whether it can conjure up a universe, but whether the current known and tested laws of physics can take that initial state and account for what we see today. Many times, ideas are proposed but then there is some show-stopper. That is, some observation is made that is quite inconsistent with the proposal. Then it’s back to the drawing board. Either some arbitrary fudge factors are changed; or further unsubstantiated, just right, assumptions are added; or it is scrapped.

As far as I can tell, no good descriptions of the early universe exist. They all have band-aides. They all fall out of similar preconceptions. The official Big Bang Theory should be scrapped by now, yet it lives on only because nothing better exists. It cannot explain the most obvious attribute of the universe, namely the clumping of matter into galaxies; the galaxies are spinning too fast to exist is their current form; some 94% of the universe is supposed to now be made out of dark matter and dark energy which cannot be detected.

Motivation and adjudication

Who plays without a reason for playing? What drives you? Just about everyone wants to know where we came from and why, so everyone should be able to play. But, do you recall those letters after your name—PhD’s in physics, chemistry, mathematics, theology and philosophy. These indicate a thirst and aptitude for knowledge. That is good motive to play but sometimes it just gets in the way because they mean you have studied all the paradigms that have gone before and failed. Sadly, it means you have blinkers on. But worst of all, new ideas threaten your reputation as a leader and teacher of knowledge.

So, are you qualified to play this game? Perhaps that is the wrong question to ask. Perhaps I should ask whether you want to play the game or umpire the game. Some people don’t want to play the game but to tell everyone else how to play. Sorry, that is not allowed. When you brainstorm a problem, all solutions are considered. Only then do you judge or adjudicate the merit of the solutions. The adjudication must assess how well the virtualisation leads to the currently observed state of the universe. Merit is awarded to solutions that derive physical plausibility as analogues to known real processes.

Bias is the greatest problem in adjudication. Some people want to defend their personal solutions. I call these people defenders of faith. Another way to look at such people is that they have over-arching, rigid prerequisite assumptions or demands about what is acceptable. The trick is, some of their assumptions may be correct!

I need to remind you that I have offered up my own solution, the COI universe model. I really like it because it seems to match the requirements of the physical laws governing matter and my own faith in the God of the Bible.

What are the biases?

Is there a God? If you say “yes” then your bias is that God created the universe and your solution or virtualisation will look for some tell-tale sign that it was God. If you say “no” then you are an atheist and your solution must involve an all by accident process that is guided by natural mechanisms at all times. Of course, this position is impossible to hold because it is blatantly obvious to everyone today that non-natural mechanisms were involved in the ‘early universe’, if only because everything cannot appear out of nothing. So the atheistic solutions are pushing against a head-wind right from the start because the start of the universe itself implies something beyond the natural occurred. Of course, this super-natural virtualisation or start-up is part of the game rules, but what we need to be careful about, is to define the place where reality cuts in!

The COI universe model does not of itself demand a God. This model does not consider the start of the universe, namely where the matter—space universe came from and how time started from the outside. All that this model examines is how the subsequent process could produce the universe we see today.

In the Big Bang model, the virtualisation seemed to end with the end of the expansion phase. But it fails to explain the most obvious aspect of the universe—the clumping of matter into galaxies. Even more so, as we learned about the things like the great voids and the galaxy windup-dilemma. However, it is the popularly accepted model with relatively few people aware of its gross inconsistencies, so as the ruling paradigm in a world that hates to admit its ignorance, it holds the high ground for now.

Another great bias in the general public is the assumption about how old the universe is. We have good techniques for measuring distance and we understand the speed of light, so, for a long time, the observation of distant galaxies hundreds of millions of light years away implied the universe was at least hundreds of millions of years old. Now billions of years old. This logical assumption also undergirds the atheist solutions because the mechanisms proposed to form galaxies all require unimaginably long periods of time. It’s not just that processes are slow, for example the gravitational collapse of gaseous clouds, but it’s because these processes are so physically improbable, if at all possible, that they could not be considered under shorter time scales. Then, once the planet was formed you need more unimaginably long periods of time for living creatures to evolve.

The COI Universe model provides a rapid time-frame for the appearance of the universe that is actually in keeping with the speed of light as the ultimate speed of propagation and recognises the unique attributes of the dimension of time. It does away with the assumption that time started everywhere at once. It says that time started last of all at the centre of the universe. There is already a solution to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity that supports time stopping at the centre of the universe (see Supplement 4, Reference 1). The maths and physics is not the problem. The only problem is that our Milky Way galaxy seems to be at or very close to the centre of the universe. That smacks too loudly of ‘God’ to be tolerated by atheists. There is further support for a Milky Way centred universe from other astronomical observations. The quantised red shifts described in Appendix C4, is one such observation, but the most obvious indicator is that the universe looks the same in all directions from the earth with all galaxies speeding away from us.

The COI Universe model allows an entire galaxy and its constituent stars and solar systems to form rapidly. The actual rate and mechanism is still highly speculative. At first I suggested planets and stars contract and cool into their present (normal) chemistry in perhaps 1 million years. After completing the COI simulator I was able to predict the current age of galaxies at 800 million to 1.3 billion years. Whether you are talking about one million years to form or a current age of one billion years, this is way too short for life to evolve. Unfortunately it seems to be way too long for most people to accept this as biblically consistent, but they need to read the subtle twists I have added in Supplement 4.

OK, most defenders of faith, atheist or biblical will be unhappy with the rapid formation of solar systems. Too fast for atheists and too slow for biblical models, but here is the reality... The COI Model allows for the possibility that the earth was formed last of all; after the rest of the universe. In the beginning God created the heavens and [then] the earth. The first day then starts when the earth is established. The earth, the home of His children is the frame of reference God choses to describe all things. This is when the stop watch starts and biblical consistency is still possible. The COI model does not say how old the Milky Way galaxy was when this solar system was established. However, when you look at carbon 14 decay rates, erosion rates, magnetic field strengths, lunar orbit changes and a variety of other indicators, the earth looks young.

So, we will be sympathetic to atheist adjudicators who will hate to acknowledge these challenges to the things that they hold by faith, in contravention to the observed data. But we must not allow them to down score the COI model. Biblical adjudicators may also be unhappy. I have done as much as is possible to calm their concerns in the supplements.

Whether its atheist or biblical concerns, in the end, the rules only require a match between the virtualisation phase and present reality, with bonus points if the virtualisation has some real physical analogue. Of course, I think the COI Universe model is a winner. But which world view will you then adopt? Will you go atheist or biblical. Will you notice what the atheists have sought to keep hidden, namely that the Milky Way galaxy is at the centre of the universe; that it was created last; and is quite young. Does that make you feel special and privileged? It is supposed to!

Have I said enough?

I have probably made my point by now. I have used the game concept of evaluation to highlight the need for unbiased assessment of the early universe models. Really, I have challenged some paradigms about deep time, to see if we can think outside of the box. That is, can we break science free from the chains of the Big Bang Theory? Equally importantly, I have sought to distinguish verifiable science from the imagined philosophical assumptions of the scientists.

Now I really need to leave this in the hands of the adjudicators. The history of science and the Bible tells me that many will persist clinging to their existing paradigm—it’s just too painful to change. My little ploy in this article to bypass their prejudice won’t trick them. I write this at a time when relatively little verification of the COI model has been attempted. It would be really embarrassing if it does not score well. But perhaps it just needs to be challenging enough to act as a stepping stone to something better.

The transforms

A transforming universe sounds a little strange to our imagination, but actually, all universe models effectively describe a sequence of changes or transformations. I would just like to draw attention to these transformations by another name so that the COI model is not demeaned by the new concept.

The start implies a change. Is it from nothing to something or was it a transformation from something else? Big Bang style models start with nothing or some infinitely small singularity that suddenly explodes for no apparent reason. Of course, the ‘explosion’ is just an emotive word but it surely describes a dramatic transformation. But this explosion only lasts for some unimaginably small time when it was deemed that a different process was needed to evenly spread out all the matter in the universe. This was the expansion phase where the universe seemed to expand as if gravity was in reverse and pushing everything apart. OK, there is another dramatic transformation of the state of the universe and it requires a different set of the laws of physics.

Well, all good things come to an end and for some reason the expansion phase ended. It was thought that the current laws of physics then cut in and nuclear and gravitational forces started to clump the universe together. Notwithstanding my extreme prejudice that such a process could happen under the known laws of physics, this is another dramatic transformation. In fact, this transformation was so complete that we cannot find any traces of the original early universe.

What about the state today? Current models require that new space is appearing between the galaxies to account for redshift. Some models that seek to describe an eternal universe, see new matter magically appearing in this new space. But most models see all the stars in the universe burning up all their fuel until all the lights go out. This is heat death and it is yet another transformation, but at least this one we understand within the known laws of physics.

I hope that by now, the COI model, that transforms a matter–space universe into this space–time universe in one self-consistent process, right down to solar system formation, does not sound so exotic. The existing models have several transformations with different laws applying at different stages and requiring massive fudge factors and the insertion of undetectable invisible dark matter and energy even in the present day.

The original transformation stages

Despite having tried to take a sort of neutral stance between different faith positions, and probably not done that well, I must mention the Biblically listed transformations. It’s my website and I don’t have to please an editor or publisher or reviewer by pandering to their faith position.

Chapter 1 of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, lists six stages or transformations during the creation of this world. The COI model fits mostly within the first stage that established this water covered planet and the fourth stage that sees the stars light up. The other transformations were of the atmosphere, the land, plants, fish, birds and animals.

A garden paradise was created (transformed) for the first man Adam, who was himself transformed from a handful of earth. However man was not just made of earth but, unique in this universe, man was given an eternal spirit. Tragically, man rejected God and the rest of the Bible is a sequence of steps that God initiated to reinstate mankind as His children. Let me walk you through the major steps which look very much like transformations...

The entire face of the earth was transformed during the global flood in Noah’s day because of man’s evil. At the Tower of Babel, the descendants of Noah were transformed into all the nations of the world because of man’s pride. Then one man, Abraham, was made into the nation of Israel. This nation saw dramatic wonders under Moses to establish it; the most dramatic being the transformation of the river Nile into blood. Yet Israel, on the whole, remained stubborn. Finally, God transformed His son Jesus into the likeness of mortal man in order to reveal Himself fully to mankind. Jesus performed many miracles. Food was miraculously multiplied. Healings and resurrection from the dead involved dramatic transformations of the human body.

At the end of time there will be a new heaven and earth. Some people read this as a renewed heaven and earth. Whether it’s brand new or rejuvenated, this will be the most glorious transformation of them all. Then everyone, all men and women, because all have an eternal spirit handed down from Adam, will be raised, transformed and given an eternal body. Where you spend eternity depends on whether you have rejected God. If you reject God’s son Jesus then you have rejected God and you will be unable to enter His paradise—not good!

Please hold this truth close to your heart... You are way more than a collection of atoms. You have an eternal spirit. This universe was created so that you could get to know and embrace God as Father and so spend eternity in His paradise. You will be transformed and stand before Him. We can only know God through His son Jesus. Seek Jesus. Perhaps my articles in The Way Back will help. When you accept Him, you are inwardly transformed by the receiving of His Holy Spirit.

What next?

For more info on a young earth data please search the earth website. For another universe creation model resolving the distant star-light dilemma, see “Starlight, Time and the New Physics” by Dr John Hartnett at physics.

If somehow you got here without first seeing the COI Universe Model supplements then please look at The COI Universe Overview.

–› COI Overview, Supplements