​​​​Germination of an Idea

I was on a Zoom call recently with the LW President Gordon and one of our US brethren, Frank. I was waxing lyrical on my discovery that scientists were beginning to take seriously the idea of the universe being a simulation. This was of particular interest to me in terms of my recent paper on Time in which I had already proposed the simulation concept. The main tell-tale sign of any simulation is some universal restriction imposed by the simulation platform. For a man-made simulation this would be the limiting factor of the processor power, e.g., 128 bit. Q: What is the limiting factor of God's universal processor? A: The speed of light! Why is this a constant and limiting factor in the build of the universe? I can think of no other reason than it’s being the tell-tale sign of a simulation platform, not a function of the simulation itself. It would seem that I am not alone in this thought: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/

So, there was I waxing lyrical when Frank innocently asked: ‘What about the changes in light speed as proposed by the Monrose Hypothesis?’. ‘What about it?’ I retorted thoughtlessly. The following morning, the first thing on my mind was that Frank had picked up on something important which I had failed to realise the night before. To my mind this was a clear case of the Holy Spirit talking through Frank and then influencing me in my sleep to start to take a serious look at Frank’s point. So, I went back over [234] A Brief History of Light - The Monrose Hypothesis, a LW paper I had not read for some considerable time. Previously I had read it and thought ‘Oh OK’ and then moved on rapidly. This time it carried far more meaning for me. If the LW understandings of the speed of light changes were correct then this would have to carry some meaning for the power of the simulation platform required for each of God’s creative days. So that set me off on my quest to study the creation account in somewhat more detail than I ever have previously. Needless to say, I apologised to Frank on our next Zoom call for my shortness on the previous one!

Also, on that second call I advised Frank and the LW President, Gordon, that I would be writing this paper as a result. Gordon remarked that this could have yet another greater meaning of the ‘first will be last’:

16 So the last shall be first, and the first last. (Matthew 20 ASV)

He suggested that it would be apposite that my further decoding of the ‘first’ verses of the bible would be carried out in the ‘last’ days of this system. 
 

The Elephant in the Room

Let me recreate my new research on this in the first verses of Genesis. As you will quickly see, this led me into, for me, an astounding revelation that I had never seen or considered previously in my reading of the creation account. 

Day 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;
2 and the earth being without form and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moving gently on the face of the waters,
3 then God said, Let light be! And there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good, and God separated between the light and darkness.
5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day. (Genesis 1 GLT)

So, in the first day God created the space-time continuum, i.e. the fabric of the known universe, to enable an environment in which physical light could exist. Oh yes, and together with the, as yet unformed, Earth.

Day 2:

6 And God said, Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be dividing between the waters [and] the waters.
7 And God made the expanse, and He separated between the waters which [were] under the expanse and the waters which [were] above the expanse. And it was so.
8 And God called the expanse, Heavens. And there was evening, and there was morning the second day. (Genesis 1 GLT)

The ‘simple’ literal physical explanation of the events of Day 2 is that the Earth started to take some form in terms of the water on the Earth’s surface, Earth’s atmosphere and the clouds. So far so good.

Day 3:

9 And God said, Let the water which is under the heaven be collected into one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so. And the water which was under the heaven was collected into its places, and the dry land appeared.
10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gatherings of the waters he called Seas, and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit-tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. (Genesis 1 LXXb)

Day 3 continues with the further forming of the Earth as we know it through the raising of the land above sea level to form the continents and the oceans. Plant life was also established on the land. And then we come to Day 4 for the beginnings of my personal revelation!

Day 4:

14 And God saith, 'Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years, (YLT)
14  וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה; וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים, וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים.  (MMT)
15 and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth:' and it is so. (YLT)
15 וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהָאִיר עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְהִי-כֵן. (MMT)
16 And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night; (YLT)
16  וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים:  אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל, לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם, וְאֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה, וְאֵת הַכּוֹכָבִים. (MMT)
17 and God giveth them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth, (YLT)
17 וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים, בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם, לְהָאִיר, עַל-הָאָרֶץ. (MMT)
18 and to rule over day and over night, and to make a separation between the light and the darkness; and God seeth that {it is} good; (YLT)
18 וְלִמְשֹׁל, בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, וּלְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. (MMT)
19 and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day fourth. (Genesis 1 YLT)
19 ויהי-ערב ויהי-בקר יום רביעי (Genesis 1 MMT)

Did you spot the elephant? According to the creation account it looks like the Earth was created before the sun and the stars! Whilst I now know that this is not new news for many believers in the creation account, I had never myself perceived this before in the creation story so, as you may imagine, this was a gob-smacking experience for yours truly. My LW brothers have a different explanation that the luminaries only became visible as the mist lifted from the Earth ([300] Genesis 1: The Heavenly creations and the Earthly creations) but I do not believe that is what the scriptures are telling us. In verse 16 we are clearly told that God ‘maketh’ the luminaries by the use of Hebrew word ‘וַיַּעַשׂ’. They were 'made', not 'made visible'. This seems to be confirmed in verse 17 where the luminaries were then ‘giveth’ (וַיִּתֵּן) in the heavens. So, they were first made and then placed in the heavens on the fourth day.

Furthermore, my view is also that Earth was created before light on the first day. Again, this point disagrees with the Monrose Hypothesis which fully accepts the big bang and thereby light pre-existing the Earth’s creation. As far as I am concerned light was created on the 1st day not recreated, as per Monrose, since this is what the bible says.
 

Genesis According to Cosmological Understandings

Well, it looks like I am about to overturn the cosmologically established creation theories of the universe. Nothing new there then! Also, to attempt to prove what the Bible is telling me about the creation sequence, let us have a look at a few relevant web-sites to get a sense of the ages of the universe and its heavenly bodies.

Measurements such as those of the cosmic microwave background and the expansion rate of the universe seem to come up with a date of some 13.8 billion years since the big bang: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe. If correct (big ‘if’) then that would represent the start of God’s 1st Creative Day. The creation of the first stars would appear to be between 100-250 million years after the big bang: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-stars-in-the-un/. This would then equate to the start of God’s 4th Creative Day.

Now we come to the really interesting stuff. Firstly, what is the age of the sun? The scientific input to this has struck me as being flaky to put it mildly. There is an assumption that the sun and its planets (including Earth of course!) were both formed in the same time-frame based on the solar system’s formation from the compression of a gas cloud under its own gravity: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2kw7hv/revision/3. The age, in which this occurred, is estimated to be some 4.6 billion years ago based on a combination of radioactive dating of meteorites and oldest earth rocks (more on this shortly) and computer solar modelling: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qage.html. Frankly, none of these fills me with much confidence now that I have made a point of looking at the evidence.

Moving on and unsurprisingly, it looks like the age of the moon is slightly less than that of the sun at some 4.51 billion years old: https://www.space.com/35291-moon-age-pinned-down.html. The latest estimates for this come from more radioactive dating methods from rocks collected by the Apollo 14 mission. The mechanism by which it is considered to have been created, by some interplanetary impact, does not fit the Genesis creation story since the Earth would have been pretty much fully formed before God created the moon. The latest ‘evidence’ for the favoured impact theory identifies material in the moon that could not have come from the Earth: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/11138067/how-moon-was-formed-theia-impact/. There does seem to be some evidence of the potential of Earth-like rock found on the moon by the Apollo 14 astronauts but, I would have to say that, this is a bit thin and looks like a solution looking for its proof: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/ancient-earth-rock-found-moon. So as far as I am concerned there is still very little real knowledge about the date and method of formation of the moon. How God actually went about creating the moon I do not know, but it seems to me that the cosmologists’ views on the subject are just floundering around based on what they would like to believe. It does seem that the regularly changing scientific views on the formation of the moon have never really settled down very well. What a surprise!

Next let us have a look at the age of the Earth; this is estimated at 4.54 billion years old based on radioactive dating of meteorites: https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html. Why meteorites? Well, the Earth is quite unique in being made up of tectonic plates, which move about, with rocks constantly getting re-melted near the core and resurfacing. Radioactive dating of actual Earth rocks is apparently not possible! The Earth is unique in the solar system for its plate tectonics structure: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/shaping_the_planets/tectonism/. Well, God certainly knew what He was doing to confound the scientists’ view of the Earth’s age. This is no coincidence. From what I can see, nobody can prove to me that the Earth is not some 13 odd billion years old. To add fuel to my fire, a relatively recent discovery has determined that the water in our oceans is older than the sun! This determination is due to the Earth’s water containing a higher level of heavy hydrogen (deuterium) than would have been expected from the cosmologists’ theories of the Earth’s formation from the sun. The scientists’  explanation for this is that it must have come from interstellar ice. Hmmm! Check out this at: https://www.space.com/27256-earth-water-older-than-sun.html.

The Problem with Day 3

And now for a necessary but, hopefully, short diversion before launching into a greater demolition of man’s theories and dating of the universe. 

The Genesis creation account certainly provides challenges for the believer. In particular, I have a problem with the account for Day 3 which suggests that plant growth was possible before the sun shone on the Earth and the daily and seasonal cycles began. The LW position is that the background radiation and ‘waters above’ were enough to enable photosynthesis to take place ([300] Genesis 1: The Heavenly creations and the Earthly creations). I am not sure about this; plant life requires the largely visible spectrum to survive: https://www.2hraquarist.com/blogs/light-3pillars/light-wavelength-indepth. The only electromagnetic waves around, before the stars began to shine, would appear to be cosmic rays as seen in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Check out: https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_background.html and http://www.bigbangcentral.com/microwave_page.html. Microwave wavelengths are too long to support plant life. Visible light would not have appeared until the first stars appeared on Day 4, so I think we need to look at a different meaning in the scriptures for Day 3. Also, if the CMB would support plant life why would God have created the sun?

We also need to consider the scriptures regarding the 6th and 7th Days:

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every plant seeding seed which [is] on the face of all the earth, and every tree in which [is] the fruit of a tree seeding seed; it shall be food for you.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to all birds of the heavens, and to every creeper on the earth which [has] in it a living soul, every green plant [is] for food. And it was so.
31 And God saw everything that He had made and behold, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning the sixth day. (Genesis 1 GLT)

1 And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their host.
2 And on the seventh day God completed His work which He had made. And He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because He rested from all His work on it, which God had created to make.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that Jehovah God was making earth and heavens.
5 And every shrub of the field was not yet on the earth, and every plant of the field had not yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not sent rain on the earth, and [there was] no man to till the ground.
6 And mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. (Genesis 2 GLT)

Here we are being told that plants did not grow until after the final creative day and that it was dependent on God’s watering of the ground with rain. So let us have a somewhat closer look at Day 3:

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit-tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. (Genesis 1 LXXb)

I have used the Septuagint translation for these verses since I think they portray a more accurate view of what was actually created on Day 3. Reading these verses carefully, it seems that it was in God’s mind to create plant life so He put seeds in the ground on the 3rd Day that would later be watered and thereby grow at the start of the 7th Day.

Now, let us also have a further look at the 4th Day:

14 And God saith, 'Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years, (Genesis 1 YLT)

While scripture does not explicitly mention the orbiting of the earth round the sun and its rotation around its own tilted axis (I do not imagine the Israelites would have understood this), we know today that these features are necessary for plant life on the earth by providing the daily and seasonal variations.  So, I think this also supports the thesis that plant life could only have been in planted seed form on Day 3.


Variable Speed of Light (VSL)

Now back to the main plot!

Similarly for my Time paper, which I only wrote once scientists came up with the Time Block theory of the universe, so this section of this paper I decided to write once I realised that some scientists were starting to take the theory of a variable speed of light (VSL) seriously in the cosmological creation story. Prior to this, cosmologists would have considered the LW Monrose Hypothesis to be preposterous.

I found the following web-pages a good place to start to check out the current state of VSL cosmology theories: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322078540_Variable_speed_of_light_VSL_theory_Will_The_James_Webb_telescope_falsify_Big_Bang_and_Dark_Energym and  https://www.vice.com/en/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed.

I have to say that much of the deeper cosmological theorising inevitably comes with some heavy mathematics associated with it. Consequently, I have deliberately chosen a couple of links that do not require a doctorate in mathematics to understand. My own mathematics is not powerful enough to comprehend the highly complex and most of the text in the above links is understandable to this lay cosmologist. Hopefully this will also be the case for my esteemed reader.

I think it important to say that VSL cosmology is in its infancy as it is only at the stage of a theoretical model at the time of writing this paper. The proof of the pudding will be in the astronomical measurements that will be capable of being made by the new James Webb Space Telescope which is not currently scheduled to come on-line until late 2021 according to current estimates. The exciting point here is that VSL is capable of being proven one way or the other through practical experimentation. The end of 2021 could prove to be the undoing of the current big bang model of the universe including the elusive dark energy  and inflation theory which latter this writer has always considered to be a fudge factor to support current conventional cosmological thinking.

The current space-time inflation theory (for the interested reader, it is well worth reviewing this primer on inflation theory: https://physics.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/physicsatmit_02_cosmology.pdf) at least demonstrates that creationists should not be unduly faulted for postulating that God supernaturally ‘inflated’ the universe by His ‘stretching out’ of the heavens:

5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: (Isaiah 42 KJV)

12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. (Isaiah 45 KJV)

13 And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where [is] the fury of the oppressor? (Isaiah 51 KJV)

However, if VSL theory is proven to replace inflation then, I think, that a very much higher speed of light in the early universe is not a bad alternative biblical interpretation of ‘stretching the heavens’. Towards the end of the original version  of this paper, in the 'Boiling...' section, I thought a section identifying the problems with the Big Bang and Cosmological Inflation would be helpful. This now appears in Addendum 1 below.

Let us now draw some comparisons between current VSL cosmology and the Monrose Hypothesis. The Monrose Hypothesis paper has 360,000c as the speed of light in the first half-day of creation. This certainly matches with the VSL view of an almost infinite light speed in the early universe. VSL would then have a reducing exponential curve running forwards in time from the start of the universe to the present day. Clearly VSL and Monrose do not agree when it comes to the later changes during the remaining creative days. Monrose gives a series of step changes whereas VSL looks for a smoothly reducing exponential curve through time. Given the current infant state of VSL cosmology, I do not think it reasonable to have expected there to be such a match at this stage of its development. So, for the time being, I am content that the match for the first creative day is there to, at least partially, support the Monrose Hypothesis.

Now, with VSL, the universe is much larger and older than the current cosmological model indicates. The ages stated in the previous section, based on the currently accepted model, are therefore much younger than VSL would predict at something potentially much older than the currently predicted age of nearly 14 billion years. However, if we look at the Monrose Hypothesis this comes up with an age of a mere 92K years in ‘real time’. Well, this is a little disconcerting and I found it to be very confusing. However, some understanding of the different time measures are required here.

In relativistic terms, the VSL or currently accepted cosmological ages of billions of years are calculated from the point of view of an observer, since mankind is such a (stationary) observer. The Monrose calculated ‘real time’ represents the time passed by the travelling light which would be passing much more slowly than the observers’ time. I found it very helpful to read this LW paper:  ‘Special Relativity and The Lorentzian Ether’ to understand the difference. Clearly, I am not the first Lords’ Witness to stumble upon the problem of time dilation. One way I have found to help in the proposed simulation model of the universe is that observable time is that which we humans experience as the passage of time whilst living within the confines of that simulation. The ‘real time’ expressed in the Monrose Hypothesis could be equated to the passage of time of the simulation platform’s processor equating to what we might recognise as its CPU time. As you can tell from the example at https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/c/clockcyc.htm, a computer clock cycle can run at billions of time units faster than the time experienced by its human user. Therefore it can achieve much more in one human experienced second than could be achieved without the use of the computer. From this stems the difference between the passage of real time or CPU simulation time compared with the universe’s observed age. This is a must-read for those that are interested in time dilation in a variable light speed context: https://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf.

So, what are the cosmological implications of VSL? Magueijo and Afshordi’s cosmological model, with an extremely high light speed in the early universe, would completely do away with the current cosmological inflationary period. Uniformity in the temperature of the CMB requires inflation or VSL. It is suggested that the VSL light speed could be at least 32 orders of magnitude faster than 300KKPS. Now whilst this order of magnitude is significantly higher compared with that of the Monrose 1st evening light speed, the latter is still an extremely high speed compared with today's light speed, so I am not unduly concerned by that difference since we are still in the theoretical model stage of VSL cosmology. Much will depend on the actual measured value of the red-shift factor z described in the VSL theory paper above.

Observations from the JWST will be capable of identifying galaxies close to the edge of the CMB. If these are found, it will demonstrate that the CMB only represents the edge of the observable universe. The unobservable universe could spread out way beyond that, thereby demonstrating an older and larger universe than is currently envisaged. Also, the effect of the change in speed of light could be an explanation of dark energy, the redshift we observe from distant galaxies being a consequence of a much larger speed of light in the past instead of the usual interpretation of expanding space.

One final point is worth raising in regard to radioactive dating. If the VSL proposition proves to be correct, then this would throw any existing radioactive dating methods into complete disarray given that one of the radioactive decay time-dependent factors is the  speed of light: https://www.icr.org/article/consequences-time-dependent-nuclear-decay-indices-. I rest my case!

As an aside, the cyclic universe theory described in my Dark Matters paper would also correlate with a much older universe than current conventional cosmology would allow: https://www.space.com/2372-recycled-universe-theory-solve-cosmic-mystery.html. Disappointingly, however, I have been unable to draw together VSL and m-brane cosmology as co-existent theories of cosmological history. Obviously, I would be very happy if this were the case but I have been unable to find any such evidence at this time. Mind you, I have not found any evidence to suggest that both cannot represent different elements of the true history of the cosmos. If any interested reader knows otherwise, I should be extremely pleased to hear about it. One potentially serious fly in the particular pot of ointment of a theory of a cyclic universe is that there is now some considerable doubt about the validity of string theory which is a necessary ingredient. Since this would provide a significant issue for my Dark Matters paper, this is an area for my further research. Watch this space!
 

The Power of God’s Creative Process

Now I finally come to the main objective of this paper. Below I partially recreate the main light speed table from the Monrose Hypothesis and add a new column containing the products of each creative day. Here I attempt to match the speed/power of God’s creative process to the size and complexity of each day’s products:

The evening light speed is that associated with that creative day. The morning light speed is the changed speed at the end of the creative day being made ready for the following creative day. So, first off it would appear that the formation of the Earth’s atmosphere was a relatively simple task of creation, only requiring a speed of light equivalent to that of today.

No real surprise there I think, however, I must confess my initial surprise that living sea creatures and birds were less of a task than the inanimate universal and planetary creations. Furthermore, the land animals and mankind seem to be even lower on the scale of God’s processor power. Perhaps this is a case of ‘size matters’ with the physically large masses taking a lengthy build time?

The complexity of living creatures perhaps was not the challenge that we think in that God had already created the angels and, no doubt, other heavenly creatures. In symbolic terms, the LWs understand that the angels were represented as the stars and were created on Day 4 if not before:

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38 KJV)

The blueprints for man and the physical living creatures were therefore largely already in place making Days 5 and 6 relatively less consuming of God’s resources than we might otherwise have expected.

Oh yes, and at the end of the current creative day, the Sabbath, we will return to the original speed of light. This will occur after the 1,000-year Kingdom of God has sorted out the evil-doers and will thereby free man to travel to the stars to our hearts’ content! Hopefully, by that time, we will have learned our lessons to love our fellow beings and to look after God’s whole creation.

 

Synopsis

1. The Earth was created before light was created and before the sun and the stars
2. Geologists and cosmologists cannot directly determine the age of the Earth so science cannot, thereby, disprove the biblical creation sequence.
   
3. God only provided plant seeds on creation Day 3; plant life did not start to grow until Creation Day 7.
   
4. VSL cosmology is beginning to be taken more seriously by the scientific community. Whilst it is still only a theoretical concept at the time of writing, it is hoped to be proven or otherwise from deep space measurements by the JWST in late 2021.
   
5. Whilst the light speed profiles of VSL and Monrose are different, a much higher speed of light than today on Creation Day 1 is a principle shared by both. Hopefully another example of good science finding itself in some agreement with the LW understanding of the biblical creation account.
   
6. If proven, VSL will prove the universe is much older and larger than the current traditional estimates.
   
7. VSL has the benefit of doing away with cosmological inflation and provides an explanation for dark energy.
   
8. I provide an analysis of the complexity of each creative day in terms of the simulation processor power required, as represented by the speed of light according to the Monrose Hypothesis, at the commencement of each day.

 

Boiling the Ocean (or Universe)

As usual, my musings on this paper started to exceed the original bounds that I set myself for its content. Whilst I would normally allow this to occur to enable a fuller coverage of the subject matter to be provided I found that, in this case, I was beginning to boil the ocean or, in this case the universe. I found that some of the additional content represented a potentially much larger topic than the original intention. As a practical matter, I have decided to cut my cloth to enable me to publish this paper sooner rather than later with the original subject matter intact. This would then enable me to produce new papers or addenda to this or other existing papers in their own good time on the residual material if appropriate.

To give you the flavour of the shape of things to come, I provide potential future paper topics below to whet your appetite (and mine!). The numerical sequence merely relates to my original thought processes and does not necessarily indicate any order of priority. I am sure the Holy Spirit will advise me as to when I am ready to commence each topic area or not as the case may be:

1. Gravity, a new subsequently published paper.
2. What’s wrong with the Big Bang/Inflation theories? This topic now appears in Addendum 1 below.
   
3. Subquantum kinetics? Having now spent a little time on this topic, it seems to me to be something of a fringe view of creation invoking the 'cosmic ether'. Many of the websites on the topic contain articles from a small set of committed 'scientists'. Many of the websites on the subject were identified as suspect by my virus software or were published by the Flat Earth Society. On these bases, I intend to take this topic no further. If any of my readers think it worthy of further investigation please let me know and with a full explanation as to why it would be worth my while. 
   
4. The similarity between the galactic filament structure and that of the human brain’s neuronal structure. I have now included this as a final small, but important, paragraph in my Spirit v Brain paper
   
5. The electric/plasma universe. This falls into the same category as Subquantum Kinetics in point 3 above with a similar set of comments to be applied. A rather more comprehensive rebuttal is to be found at: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4651
6. No evidence has been found for supersymmetry thereby prospectively putting string theory to the sword, together with my Dark Matters paper. I comment on this in my subsequent Gravity paper under the sub-section entitled 'Time and Black Holes'. 

Addendum 1 - What’s Wrong with the Big Bang/Inflation Theories?

It is probably worth starting by looking at a couple of websites that clearly define the problems with inflation first: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/05/11/what-if-cosmic-inflation-is-wrong/?sh=36a3ba038e50. and https://astronomy.com/magazine/news/2021/01/the-beginning-to-the-end-of-the-universe-inflating-the-universe. So inflation was a device that solved the main problems associated with the Big Bang theory, namely the uniformity of the temperature throughout the universe, the spatially flat universe and the absence of monopoles left over from the early universe.

Going through the above websites, it is beginning to look as if there is nothing that actually disproves inflation. In fact, it is looking like inflation solves the acknowledged problems with the big bang theory and for which there is adequate evidence.  However, nowhere have I seen an explanation of what caused that inflation or indeed why it ended, which still puts the theory into the ‘more work to do’ category as far as I am concerned. However inflation, or something like it - VSL perhaps, is necessary for us to live in the universe that we inhabit if the overall view of a Big Bang is correct. Alternatively, the cyclical model of the universe as described in:  https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw115.html and covered in my (much) earlier Dark Matters paper, would be another option instead of the inflationary Big Bang theory. This, however, is still awaiting evidence of supersymmetry to substantiate string theory as a proven model of our universe: https://www.space.com/putting-string-theory-to-test.html.

Just to muddy the waters somewhat, I love this article from a young iconoclastic physicist by the name of Sabine Hossenfelder: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/. Here she throws cold water over much of cosmological thinking across the board. Once again, I find myself asking the question ‘How much do we really know about the universe and its origin?’. I am left thinking that the Word of God is a constant whereas the noise from cosmological circles appears endless and in complete disarray! I think my point is more than adequately amplified by another iconoclastic blast from Bjørn Ekeberg: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/.

And, just in case we are still fans of big bang cosmology, I think this paper throws much cold water on the theory: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/bigbang/. It suggests that the red-shifts of light from distant galaxies is due to interactions with the matter in the universe rather than the galaxies’ flying away from us. It thereby proposes a static rather than an expanding universe and, whilst not explicitly stated, in the process presumably does away with the need to invent dark energy.

And just to confound things further: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/.

So, where does all this leave us? As I intimated a little earlier, I think trusting in God’s word on His cosmological creation is looking more and more appropriate whereas mankind’s views seem to change like the wind and are starting to present themselves as little more than Vanity.

Date of Publication of Addendum 1: 17th August 2021

Jewish Lords' Witness

The Variable Speed of Light