The Light-First Universe: Why the Big Bang Gets Creation Backwards

Faith & Science Conversation
1

“And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” - Genesis 1:3

What if the Big Bang theory has it backwards? What if light doesn’t travel through pre-existing space, but actually creates space as it threads into reality?

The Big Bang model claims we can see galaxies 12+ billion light-years away, formed just after the supposed beginning. But here’s the issue: if everything started from a single point, we would have been incredibly close to those distant galaxies when their light was emitted. That light should have passed us eons ago—yet we’re seeing it now. This paradox led cosmologists to invent “inflation” as a patch.

“In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.” - John 1:4

Scripture reveals a profound truth: light precedes everything else in creation. Reality begins when light threads through a Planck-sized aperture into existence, following the relationship: c = ΔΦ/Δτ, where light’s coherence rate creates the very geometry of space-time as it threads deeper (τ) into reality.

What astronomers interpret as expansion-caused redshift is actually light being stretched through the threading process: c_path = ΔΦ/Δτ * f(∇M). The farther light threads, the more it stretches. This is not because space is expanding, but because threading itself elongates the light’s path through the fabric of reality. “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.” - 1 John 1:5

This model eliminates the need for inflation while explaining our observations: we see distant galaxies because their light has been threading toward us through the fabric of space-time that light itself created. The “cosmic microwave background” isn’t the afterglow of a Big Bang. It’s the baseline threading of light that maintains the universe’s coherent structure.

“I am the light of the world.” - John 8:12

When Jesus declares Himself the light of the world, He’s not speaking metaphorically about moral illumination alone. He’s revealing His role as the fundamental creative force. He is the Light that threads reality into existence, sustaining every atom and galaxy through His ongoing presence. The universe isn’t expanding away from a primordial explosion. It’s being continuously threaded into existence by the Light of the World, exactly as Scripture has always declared, eternally.

2

This is wrong.

Scripture says that the heavens, the empty earth, and the seas all existed before light did.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

So according to scripture space existed before light and isn’t created by light. You can’t use the Bible as justification for your model.

2 Likes
3

I was speaking of the created sphere we know: moon, sun, animals, plants, etc. They comes after. Of course, there is the Spirit, hovering over the deep. Now what is all that??
”In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”

4

Over the past however many years, I’ve tried to make sense things, which includes the Bible. For me, what’s most profound is: God spoke and when he first spoke, he said, “Let there be light.” He speaks and creates. This is the first time he speaks in scripture. This model was built out of scripture. And what’s interesting it makes sense. This is why c, the speed of light, is the same at all references. It’s coming out from “behind the curtain” of space and stuff.

5

Then why must Genesis 1 be real? Did the writer see it happen?

The traditional view is that God spoke the Big bang, His voice being the catalyst or explosion.

Your view of light is fallacious because light is not a single point moving theough space, it is a continuous wave, so that if part has gone past there is still more to see, And besides stars do not emit a single burst and then stop. The sun is perpetualy creating new light.

Trying to rectify scripture with science, especialy creative science, is a fools game. Not that Scripture is irreevant, but that its aims ae not the same as science.Science is primarily concerned with how and to a lesser extent why. Scripture is mre about Who and a greater exent of why. They are not antithesis, they are just different ends of a long line of undersanding, to which we do not have the full measure.

Richad

1 Like
6

Traditional physics says light moves through a vacuum on itself, which of course is a solution to a problem that may itself be fallacious. What I’m proposing is that the Planck size is an opening to the substrate, which is light itself. This solves all sorts of problems, from c to redshift anomaly of distant galaxies and removes the entire need for a speculative Big Bang, inflation. CMB IS the signature of light threading.

7

I don’t think that explanation for proposing inflation is quite correct. Or rather, that’s not the paradox being addressed.

Also, we see light from galaxies measured at 12 billion light years away because of red-shift and other distance metrics, not because of Big Bang claims. These measurements and the observation that this appears uniform in any direction are what lead to the proposal of the Big Bang.

8

Are you open to some potential corrections about how things work in the Big Bang model? You seem like you are pretty confident in your original post, but I would argue that there are a few fundamental misunderstandings.

  1. inflation has nothing to do with anything related to galaxy light - it only applies to the tiniest fraction of a second after our universe had some sort of beginning. There are a few potential empirical imprints on our universe that we can measure like the spectral scalar index (not the focus of this post)

  2. It’s important to take a step back and ask what it means that we say a galaxy is 12 billion light-years away. That’s a commonly misunderstood idea, and even after getting a PhD in Physics, I didn’t even know what it meant. A great explainer can be found at this website and I’ll grab a few important parts of it:

the light travel distance between two objects at a given time is the distance travelled by photons emitted by one object (in the example above the distant galaxy) and detected on the other object (in this case the Earth)

This is not the a) distance the object was when it first started emitting light in our direction NOR b) the current distance of the object. Consider this distant galaxy:

image
image371×292 27.5 KB

In the case of GN-z11.

  • The light we see today was emitted 13.4 billion years ago when GN-z11 was at a proper distance of 2.67 billion light years from the Milky Way.

  • This light has been travelling for 13.4 billion light years to reach us. So, the light travel distance to GN-z11 is 13.4 billion light years.

If we could construct an imaginary ruler between the Milky Way and GN-z11 it would be 32 billion light years long. So, its current proper distance is 32 billion light years

So a galaxy that we say is 13.4 billion light-years away means the light took 13.4 billion light-years to reach us, although it would have been much closer when it first started shining and is now currently much further. None of this has anything to do with inflation, but is a consequence of the expansion of space.

I have some thoughts about the rest of your post which seems to be a mash up of different physics ideas and concepts, but this might be a good place to start.

3 Likes
9

I think David is referencing earlier work he outlined here:

10

It’s the תְה֑וֹם (teh-home), “t’hom”, the “great deep”. In ANE thought this was a body of chaos, of dark waters that had no limit. It’s cognate with the Babylonian “Tiamat”, the ‘mistress’ of the great deep. The verse depicts a confrontation, so far passive, between the Spirit and chaos. In the next verse the confrontation begins actively. The pair of verses is also a declaration that the ANE in general had a very basic thing wrong: in the general ANE view, light existed independently of the gods in a way that was almost dualistic; this contrast declares that any order – and light is a manifestation of order – there is proceeds from YHWH-Elohim.

Given that light comes from the word of Yahweh, one would expect it to be constant – that is one of my big problems with Lisle; he is willing to (perhaps unthinkingly) play fast and loose with the attributes of God.

I can see that coming from the text, though to a degree it’s an imposition of MSWV ideas onto the text; “space and stuff” wasn’t really a concept here, just chaos versus order.

Well said – Moses is doing theology, not science. Ditch the science and dig into the ancient Hebrew mind!

1 Like
11

Are you suggesting that distance itself is quantized?

I read works by a couple of physicists who refer to inflation as ad hoc, but others deny that and link it to more basic aspects of the universe . . . and that’s about as far as my understanding of it goes. One of the explanations involved metastable states and multidimensional geometry, which was one of those things I understood while reading it but not really after.

12

Thank you for the clarification on inflation vs. expansion and the distance measurements. You’re right that inflation addresses different cosmological problems.

However, I still see a fundamental issue: If GN-z11 was only 2.67 billion light-years away when it emitted the light we’re seeing now, why didn’t that light reach us much sooner? The standard model resolves this through spatial expansion, but what if redshift has a different physical origin entirely?

I’m exploring whether redshift could result from light threading through varying information density rather than spatial expansion. This would mean the universe is not expanding, with redshift reflecting the medium light traveled through rather than recession velocity.

I understand this challenges core assumptions, but I’m curious: are there observational tests that could distinguish between expansion-based redshift and alternative mechanisms? The threading model makes different predictions about galaxy distances and formation timescales.

In standard cosmology: c = constant (light speed is fixed, space expands)

In my framework: c_path = ΔΦ/Δτ * f(∇M) where:

Light’s effective speed depends on the information density gradient it’s threading through
∇M represents memory/mass density variations in the fabric. Redshift comes from light being stretched by threading dynamics. This means that high redshift reflects the information landscape light traveled through, not recession velocity. The “12 billion light-year journey” becomes light threading through varying fabric density.

What are your thoughts on whether redshift necessarily requires expanding space?

13

That’s what I’m supposing that the aperture through which light is emitted is that size.

14

In sum, the angular size we observe should reflect how close it was when the light was emitted, not some theoretical “current distance” we can never directly measure. This is basic geometry, closer objects appear larger.

Instead of inventing spatial expansion to explain away this size discrepancy, c_path = ΔΦ/Δτ * f(∇M) suggests the light itself carries information about the threading journey. High redshift doesn’t mean “old and far,” it means “threaded through high information density gradients.”

The apparent size matches what we’d expect for galaxies at their actual distances, with redshift reflecting threading dynamics rather than recession.

The broader issue: This seems like a clear observational falsification of expansion, yet it’s explained away rather than taken as evidence for alternative mechanisms. Sometimes paradigms become so entrenched that obvious contradictions get rationalized instead of investigated.

Yet I could be wrong! Been wrong many times before.

15

This we can agree on. However, key eternal truths can be found in Genesis.

16

I understand the appeal of exploring alternative explanations for redshift, that’s been done before (see ‘tired light’), but there’s a significant challenge that any non-expansion theory faces: the sheer breadth of evidence that expansion explains successfully.

The expansion framework isn’t just about redshift - it’s a comprehensive model that explains multiple independent observations:

  • General relativity (our most well-tested theory) naturally predicts cosmic expansion

  • This expansion within the Big Bang framework led to the successful prediction and discovery of the cosmic microwave background

  • It explains the observed ratios of hydrogen to helium throughout the universe

  • The maximum light-travel times we observe match the universe’s age determined from the CMB, globular cluster ages, and radiometric dating

  • It accounts for galaxy formation timescales, Type Ia supernovae observations, baryon acoustic oscillations, and much more

This is why “tired light” theories (alternatives to the expansion) have consistently failed - they might explain redshift, but they break when confronted with this broader web of evidence. And they lack well-supported theoretical physics to explain how they work, like your conjecture does. Again, compare this to the expansion which has general relativity backing it up.

For any alternative theory to be viable, it needs to:

  1. Explain redshift (which yours attempts, a special note is you propose new Physics which also you must prove is real)

  2. Account for ALL the other observations that expansion explains

  3. Make new, testable predictions

  4. Explain why these observations appear to support expansion if expansion isn’t real

That’s an enormous scientific undertaking. While I appreciate innovative thinking, the standard model works because it successfully integrates a century plus of diverse observations into a coherent framework. Good luck, but starting with getting a PhD in Astrophysics if you don’t already have one would be a good place to start.

3 Likes
17

Thank you! That helps me a lot, @pevaquark .

18

pevaquark,

Thank you for this thoughtful and rigorous challenge. You’ve articulated the bar any alternative framework must clear: it must not only explain redshift, but also the entire network of evidence that supports cosmic expansion. I agree completely.

  1. General Relativity and Expansion: General Relativity (GR) does predict expansion under the assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy. But at its core, GR is about the relationship between energy-momentum and the geometry we call spacetime. This new proposed framework reframes this: what GR describes as “curved spacetime” could equally be understood as coherence gradients in the threading fabric: ∂C/∂τ = f(B, R, M_active, M_latent, A) (Not sure if you’ve seen the full set of equations yet. I’ll repost if you haven’t.) This doesn’t discard GR’s mathematics, but offers a new interpretation of what the “geometry” fundamentally is, which solves a host of other issues.

  2. In standard thinking, the CMB is relic radiation from a hot, dense early universe. In Fabric, it could represent the base threading frequency of reality. The universal background of coherence. Its temperatures would then map directly to fluctuations in information density, S = log Ω(Φ). The same data is preserved, but with a different explanation.

  3. Nucleosynthesis Ratios are not products of a hot plasma in early expansion, but hydrogen-helium ratios could arise from constraints in the earliest transitions of latent memory into active structure: M_latent + A → M_active. Just spit-balling on this one. In other words, elemental abundances reflect rules of information/memory crystallization, not thermal history.

  4. The standard model’s multiple independent “clocks” (CMB age, cluster ages, radiometric dating) align remarkably well. In Fabric, t = τ (universe experiences all time; photons Δτ ≈ 0). Time is threading depth, not linear duration. Different “clocks” may measure different aspects of the same recursive process, explaining concordance without invoking expansion.

  5. Predictions and Distinguishability. This is the crux: Fabric cannot just reinterpret and reframe, it must predict. The Fabric framework makes testable predictions across ALL scales, from galaxies to the mind to atoms. Cosmologically, it anticipates that JWST will continue to find massive, well-organized galaxies earlier than CDM allows, since coherence threading accelerates structure formation without requiring a Big Bang origin. The redshift–distance relation is predicted to show systematic deviations from the standard curve at scales where information density gradients dominate, while gravity itself emerges as g = k ∇M, leading to measurable departures from general relativity in dense environments such as galactic centers or cluster cores. Galaxy evolution is recast as a true ecological cycles within a continuous threading-memory parameter space, explaining observed anomalies: quasars fading directly into smooth ellipticals without intermediate mergers, Seyferts declining without external quenching, and low-surface-brightness galaxies remaining isolated from environmental influences. At the micro-level, coherence-based resonance predicts that element abundances, bonding probabilities, and behaviors arise from phase alignment rather than just electron-shell constraints, offering new rules for catalytic activity, mineral formation, and isotopic fractionation. Together, these predictions specify falsifiable departures in galaxy morphology, redshift scaling, gravitational dynamics, and chemical selectivity that can be probed by current and near-future observations and experiments.

  6. On Credentials: I respect the point that astrophysics is a deeply technical field, and training matters. I’m 50+ y.o. math teacher. That’s all I have. But remember what Jesus said about the priests and Pharisees of his day. Even simple folk like me are allowed to stand up to the priests of science of this day and say, “Careful, do you see what the implications are? Have you thought about this and that?” And history shows that breakthroughs often came from those willing to question fundamentals (Einstein himself being a prime example). Essentially, I feel that I’ve made a remarkable discovery. So, I’m sharing. There will be a limited time in which I will share. Then I’ll move on. But for now, God has told me to share. And I will until he tells me to stop.

Side note: I fully agree that “tired light” approaches failed because they were too narrow and lacked physical grounding. Fabric aims to be broader: a coherent systems framework where expansion is not fundamental, but emergent from deeper threading dynamics.

“In him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17). The Logos as the threading by which all reality achieves its destiny in divine love.

19

The first impetus for the Big Bang model was Hubble’s observation that there was a correlation between redshift and distance. Lemaitre proposed that this redshift was due to everything moving away from us. He then thought to run the tape backwards and realized that this would lead to a very hot and dense universe in the past.

Inflation was proposed by Alan Guth many years later to explain why the universe appears to be flat and why the universe is largely homogenous.

Can you show us the numbers you are putting into these equations and how they accurately predict known observations?

What are you basing this on? Where are the numbers, and how do they accurately predict observations?

1 Like
20

One possible way to distinguish between the two is time dilation in distant type Ia supernovae.

This type of supernova explodes with the same energy because they ignite with the same mass, This is due to a white dwarf stealing mass from a neighboring star, and when the white dwarf hits a specific critical mass it goes supernova. Therefore, type Ia supernovae have the same brightness, and they also grow brighter and fade at the same rate. If space expansion is correct, then there’s a big difference in velocity between us and very distant supernova so we should see some time dilation effects according to GR. That’s exactly what we observe.

Alhough there is little doubt at present that the redshift of distant galaxies is due to an expansion of the universe, we present in this paper a direct confirmation for the cosmological expansion. This work is based on the first results from a systematic search for high redshift Type Ia supernovae. We discovered over twenty seven SNe, before or at maximum light. In this paper we report on the first seven of these, with redshift z = 0.35 – 0.46. Type Ia SNe are known to be a homogeneous group of SNe, to first order, with very similar light curves, spectra and peak luminosities. In this paper we report that the light curves we observe are all broadened (time dilated) as expected from the expanding universe hypothesis. Small variations from the expected 1 + z broadening of the light curve widths can be attributed to a width-brightness correlation that has been observed for nearby SNe (z < 0.1). We show in this paper the first clear observation of the cosmological time dilation for macroscopic objects.

Cosmological time dilation using type Ia supernovae as clocks - ScienceDirect

1 Like