Fountain of Light

Science. Nasty old science. It's such an embarrassment for us ignorant Bible-thumpers. The proven fact of the fact that is proven of Evolution - oh, how we gnash our yellow stubby teeth over it. Curses upon Darwin! If only there were some convincing lie we could delude ourselves with, and the world, to escape this fatal flaw to our superstition. And the Big Bang! How painful it is, to be shown for what we are - foolish, stupid obscurantists. Because everyone knows the universe is like millions of years old or something. It's a fact. And here we are stuck with the tribal folklore of some banished Hebrew ... urghh. I'm so frustrated.

But I suppose it is just barely possible that much of what we call science is based not so much on empirically gathered data, as upon the interpretation of data when filtered through untested assumptions. And if that's the case, what other conclusion might we reach, if we start with other assumptions? Hmm. That is a question. Let's consider - using, say, the age of the universe and the age of the earth.

The following is a brief passage from the first chapter of my The Pillars of Heaven, dealing with the physical sciences as they apply to a literal reading of the Bible.

-----

A black hole is an object that is so dense, so heavy, having so much gravity, that any light that gets too close to this mass cannot escape. The point of no return (outside of which light can travel on by, but inside which light is forever trapped), is called the event horizon. Black holes could be detected by astronomers only indirectly, by their utter darkness (they may emit certain radiations, but that is beyond our scope).

The idea of a white hole is a logical counterpart of black holes, but has not been as fully developed. Briefly, a white hole is a mass which expels matter, but into which nothing can enter. Again an event horizon would mark the boundary. “Matter cannot sit still inside an event horizon[1]. In a black hole, matter must move inward; in a white hole, matter must move outward.”[2] Inside a white hole, matter and energy would behave normally, and time would presumably be uniform. But any light or matter which fell out, past the event horizon, would be forever excluded from re-entering. The event horizon is always a one-way door.

While on the one hand a black hole will always grow, since it must always take matter in, a white hole will only shrink, since any matter which leaves its event horizon can never be replaced. And if the white hole loses mass, its event horizon shrinks inward, closer to the core. And as it shrinks, more matter is expelled, and thus a chain reaction is set up, so that the event horizon collapses faster and faster. Eventually, given a white hole of sufficient initial size, the event horizon would be traveling inward at many times the speed of light (since it is only matter which is limited by that speed). Could it reach the billion trillion times light speed of Big Bangism? Maybe. But if the event horizon travelled inward faster than the speed of light, then the space leaving the white hole would also be travelling — expanding, expelled — faster than the speed of light.

All this is relevant in that space, mass, gravity, the speed of light, and time are all related. Einstein's best known theory is the Special Theory of Relativity, which has to do with the speed of light and its curious relationship with time. His General Theory of Relativity deals with the relationship between gravity and time. As it turns out, the closer something is to the center of a gravitational field, the slower time moves for it, when compared with something further away from the effects of gravity. In practical terms, time moves slower, the closer down you are to sea level. This has been confirmed by comparing nuclear clocks located at sea-level and in high mountains: they start out synchronized, but then move at different rates. The different flow of time is virtually insignificant, on such a minor scale, but on a universal scale, the effect is dramatic.

Again, the further an object is from the center of a gravitational field, the faster time moves for it. So, in relation to more central objects: as matter exits the event ho­rizon, time speeds up for it. A theoretical observer stationed at the event horizon — with (if you will) one eye seeing inward, and the other seeing out — would see a certain clock moving very, very slowly at the center of the white hole, while a clock at the fur­thest limit of matter would be racing faster than the eye could follow — in fact, 2 or 3 million times faster. Both clocks would be accurate, and would keep the same time if located near each other. The point is that even though all matter started at the same time, matter fur­ther from the center would be old­er.m

Let's consider the following: [a] if God cre­ated the universe inside a white hole — that is, if God created a closed universe, with some sort of boundary or end, and [b] if Earth was at or near its center; and then [c] if the event hori­zon (which had been the bor­der of the universe, out­side of which nothing existed) started to col­lapse as matter was expelled (away from the ef­fect of gravity and causing the universe, in ef­fect, to expand); then [d] the universe can be fifteen billion years old, or any other vastly ancient age (determined by the requirements of theory), while Earth itself need be only thousands of years old. All the universe could thus have been created at the same time, while, paradoxi­cally, matter has different ages, depending on its location. Einsteinian relativity provides the answer.

A piece of evidence which is cited almost as proof of the standard Big Bang model is the uniform presence throughout the universe of background microwave radiation, which gives the universe its temperature of 2.73 K. This is supposed to represent residual energy left over from the Big Bang explosion, and the fact that it is universal is taken as proof that it was present at the beginning. Now, many people think that this radiation was predicted by the Big Bang theory, but this is another one of those masterful propaganda ploys which — along with such myths as continental drift and progression in the fossil record — have caused Evolutionism to become the dominant paradigm. The actual fact is that “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the back­ground radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the temperature of space produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.”[3]

Indeed, the very uniformity of this radiation is an embarrassment to Big Bangism, since such smoothness is “difficult to reconcile with the obvious clumping of matter into galaxies, clusters of galaxies and even larger features extending across vast regions of the universe, such as walls and bubbles.”[4] The tiny difference which great effort has uncovered, is on the order of less than one part in 10,000 — at the precision limit of the instruments used to gather the data. Furthermore, these differences occur over areas from 100 to 1000 times too broad to be related to Big Bang theory.[5]

However, there is another explanation, consistent with the white hole model. If we assume that before the Fall (which we will examine later), the universe was not the cold and monstrously barren place which it is now, but instead warm — that is, filled with infrared radiation (heat waves) — then as the universe passed through the event horizon, stretching out so dramatically as time became relative, the heat waves would also have stretched out, being transformed into microwaves. The “same stretching effect which caused the red shift of light waves will also red-shift the heat waves.”[6] We see that what is taken as proof for one model, is easily explained by the other.

-------------

---

[1]. L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, 4th revised English ed. (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1975), p. 311.

[2]. Humphreys, p. 108.

[3]. T. Van Flandern, "Did the Universe Have a Beginning?," Beta Research Bulletin (Vol. 3, Sept. 15, 1994), p. 33; in W. Brown (1995), p. 60.

[4]. I. Peterson, "Seeding the Universe," Science News (Vol. 137, March 24, 1990), p. 184.

[5]. W. Brown (1995), p. 60.

[6]. Humphreys, p. 122.