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

Faith & Science Conversation
21

The redshift z-values we observe are indeed correlated with what we interpret as distance, but this correlation doesn’t require expanding space. In the threading framework, higher z-values indicate light that has threaded through more complex information density landscapes.

Addressing the numbers challenge: You’re asking for specific numerical predictions, which is fair. However, consider that when Einstein proposed relativity, he didn’t initially have all the numbers. He had a framework that reinterpreted existing observations. The threading model reinterprets the same data: Hubble’s z-distance relationship: z ∝ ∫f(∇M)dτ (redshift proportional to integrated information density gradients). CMB temperature variations: Information density fluctuations in the base fabric.

The deeper issue is that standard cosmology retrofits observations to expansion theory. When JWST found mature galaxies at high redshift (supposedly early times), they invented “rapid galaxy formation.” When galaxy rotation curves didn’t match, they invented dark matter. The threading framework suggests these aren’t separate problems requiring separate solutions. They’re all manifestations of information threading dynamics.

“In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1) - reality begins with (Logos), not matter. Light threading through the fabric carries this fundamental information structure, creating what we observe as physical reality.

22

He had some of the numbers.

Where are yours?

2 Likes
23

In Fabric, both redshift and time dilation emerge from the same threading process. As Scripture reveals: “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). Time itself is relative to the observer’s position (and threading depth) in God’s created order. t = τ (universe experiences all time; photons Δτ ≈ 0)

When light threads through information density gradients (c_path = ΔΦ/Δτ × f(∇M)), both frequency and temporal structure dilate together. The supernova’s light curve and spectral features are encoded in the same coherence packet. When threading stretches the signal, it affects all temporal aspects proportionally.

In the standard expansion picture, every supernova’s “ticking clock” slows down by exactly the same factor, 1 + the redshift, because space itself is stretching evenly everywhere.

In Fabric, the clock still slows by about the same amount, but not perfectly. The amount of stretching depends on the “texture” of the cosmic fabric the light has to pass through. Near big structures like galaxy clusters, cosmic filaments, or the edges of voids, the slowdown could be slightly more or less than expected. And this would provide us a prediction, as our measurements get more precise, we should find tiny departures.

“He has made everything beautiful in its time” (Ecclesiastes 3:11)

24

Einstein did have the numbers. His equations were able to accurately predict the precession in Mercury’s orbit, something that Newton’s equations were unable to do. The numbers continue to come in, and Einstein’s equations continue to accurately predict observations. Einstein’s equations also predicted bent space around massive objects, and that was verified during a solar eclipse. Many experiments since then (e.g. Hafele-Keating experiment) have further verified the predictions from those equations using real measurements.

You have proposed threading this-or-that with no indication of how it can be measured, much less how they fit into your equations and produce predictions. No offense, but it looks like a bunch of stuff that is made up. How do you measure the density of threading? What units is it in?

How galaxies form is not part of expansion theory. What they are changing is their models of how early galaxies formed. Nothing in the Big Bang model needs to change.

Yes, they proposed dark matter because the amount of mass they detected fell short of the luminous matter they observed in galaxies. They are proposing that much of the mass in galaxies doesn’t emit light. Not only that, but this dark matter also doesn’t interact with luminous matter, or at least very little.

This idea was put to the test with the Bullet cluster. This is a case of two galaxy clusters running into each other. This would mean the luminous matter would interact and slow down, but the dark matter from each galaxy cluster should move right through the collision without being slowed. When they measured the distribution of mass they saw exactly what was predicted by the theory of dark matter:

image
image940×394 46.1 KB

They saw 4 distinct areas of matter. Two are from the interacting luminous matter (red) and two are from the non-interacting dark matter (blue). If you are going to come up with a different explanation, then you are going to have to explain this observation.

4 Likes
25

David, I appreciate your passion, but I need to address several serious issues with this response…

On the physics: You’re still using mathematical notation without defining what your symbols mean. I’ve looked at your Unified Fabric Paradigm and the ‘key’ you post into AI to solve any physics problem. What exactly is “threading fabric”? What are the units of ∂C/∂τ? How do you measure “information density”? Real physics requires precise, measurable definitions. Without them, your equations are just mathematical-looking arrangements of symbols. When you write: “Matter = remembering (crystallization, persistence, accumulation). Antimatter = forgetting (dissolution, erasure, return to light)”… that is um… not a real physics statement and contradictory to experiments and measurements and well beyond the realm of actual physics.

On falsifiability: You list many predictions, but they’re all vague (“systematic deviations,” “measurable departures”). Science requires specific, quantitative predictions. For example: “JWST will find galaxies with mass X at redshift Y, which standard cosmology predicts should be impossible.” That’s testable. “Coherence threading accelerates structure formation” is not.

On the broader evidence: You’ve proposed alternative explanations for individual phenomena, but haven’t shown how they work together quantitatively. The power of the standard model isn’t just that it explains each observation, but that it explains them all with the same underlying physics and parameters. That was my point before. I assumed you would confidently come in and provide many post-hoc separate explanations for everything I proposed and you did.

On credentials and revelation: While breakthroughs can come from unexpected sources, they still must meet scientific standards. Einstein’s work succeeded because it made precise, testable predictions that were confirmed by experiment - not because he claimed divine inspiration. Science doesn’t care about the messenger, but it absolutely cares about rigorous methodology.

The bottom line: If you truly believe you’ve made a fundamental discovery, the path forward is clear: write up your quantitative predictions, submit them to peer review, and let the data decide. Claims of revolutionary physics require revolutionary evidence.

I wish you well in your explorations, but I won’t be able to continue this discussion without seeing concrete, testable predictions with specific numbers.

7 Likes
26

Doesn’t it also predict collapse if there’s no expansion?

Like a con man does – lots of show, no substance.

27

I don’t think @SkyReflections is trying to con anyone. Instead, I would classify it more in the vein of being a non-scientist which often results in a lot of rhetoric but little data. He seems to be honestly curious and energetic which isn’t a bad thing.

What I find is that non-scientists may not know of all the data that a given theory explains in a given field. I often get a feeling that some people think scientists just choose to accept a theory because it’s in fashion, or something. Instead, scientists start with the data, with the measurements. If your theory can’t explain the data then it’s not worth considering until it can explain the data. Worse yet, if your theory can’t even predict what observations we should see then it really needs some work. For example, why would the idea described in the opening post predict a CMB that resembles black body radiation? Even asking what units the variables are in seems to draw a blank response.

If you introduce a variable you should be able to give the units it is in and at least have a hypothetical method for measuring it. If you want to replace an existing theory then you need to show how your theory is also able to explain the same data set, and do so in a way that is intelligible.

1 Like
28

Let’s talk data then. I’ve run actual data in our solar system looking for the dark matter.

First, imagine you’re watching a whirlpool. Common sense says the inner part should spin faster, and the outer edge should slow down. And it does. Gravity should work the same way in galaxies. Take galaxy NGC 3198, what Newton + Einstein predict: inner stars orbit about 200 km/s, but by the outskirts (~ 30,000 light-years), stars should have slowed to about 120 km/s. What we observe: inner stars orbit about 200 km/s, and the outer stars still orbit about 200 km/s. That “flat” curve extends right out to the galaxy’s edge.

Astronomers explain this away by adding 5–6 times more mass than we can see. In fact, standard cosmology says ~85% of the universe’s matter is dark matter. This data is proof enough that there’s a problem. If dark matter is everywhere, where is it in our backyard? We track spacecraft like Pioneer, Voyager, and New Horizons across billions of miles. No unexplained pull. I’ve run the actual data on NH. Perfect. Almost no deviation.

The Earth-Mars distance is measured to within ~10 cm using radar and laser ranging. No deviations. Planetary orbits are known with precision better than one part in 10¹¹. Again, no extra gravity.

If our galaxy is saturated with dark matter, the solar system should be swimming in it. Yet we detect none locally. That’s like claiming the ocean is 95% “dark water,” but every time you dip a bucket, you only get normal water.

Alternative: maybe gravity itself changes at galactic scales. In the Fabric framework, gravity isn’t mass pulling on mass. It emerges from memory density gradients (think of winds blowing from high to low pressure). Equation: g = k ∇M (gravity = coupling constant × gradient of memory density).

In the inner galaxy: high mass, low gradient. In the outer galaxy: low mass, but strong gradients from spiral arms and coherence channels > enhanced coupling. Result: flat rotation curves without invisible matter.

Key test: Dark matter predicts galaxies of similar mass should all have the same kind of rotation curves, no matter their geometry. Fabric predicts galaxies with strong bars/spiral coherence will show the flattest outer curves, because bars sustain ∇M. But it seems that we already see that. Highly structured galaxies like spirals (and barreds) have flat rotations, while “blurred” rotators such as large ellipticals have differential rotation. This shows that geometry helps to hold cohesion and geometry could be a proxy for what I’m describing as M_latent.

If you need to invent 5× more invisible matter than what’s visible, and it never shows up in our most precise solar system measurements, maybe it’s time to question the model. Fabric offers a testable alternative: gravity that strengthens in complex, high-gradient structures.

Am I being honest, polite and data-driven enough with my responses for this forum? As a math teacher who’s a nobody, I have no inroad to any peer reviewed forum. I’ve tried to get one of my papers published in arXiv and I can’t even get an endorsement. But Jesus loves me. And my desire to come to this forum, was because Christians need to know that, well, the priests of Science can sometimes get it wrong. Am I wrong? Maybe. But it’s important to question the science. Science is a process. It’s certainly not a consensus.

29

No need to resort to insults.

30

What is a scientist? The beginning to all understanding is intuition. Then we refine that into questions and into observable facts. When falsified, we start the process over. What makes you a scientist and me a non-scientist? Yikes. Now isn’t this forum, “Let your conversation be always full of grace”?

As noted above, I’ve fun the data on New Horizons. Gathered, collected, wrote the scripts and processed them. No dark matter in our solar system.

God is a good God. And thankfully, he gave me observing eyes and a sharp noggin.

31

What is the concentration of dark matter in our solar system, as proposed by astronomers, and what calculations have you done to see how much influence it would have on orbits within our solar system?

That doesn’t explain the Bullet cluster.

Where is a reference for this claim?

Why? How does Fabric explain the observations in the Bullet cluster?

Dark matter does show up in the orbital mechanics of galaxies and in the gravitational lensing data.

Priests of science??

There are certainly consensus positions in science. It’s also important to question science with data and testable mechanisms.

2 Likes
32

Someone who does science.

Intuition can also be the beginning of misunderstanding. The reason we have science is that our intuitions are often wrong, so we rely on data to tell us which intuitions are correct.

I do science for a living.

Then show us what the concentration of dark matter in our solar system is supposed to be and how it would have shown up in the New Horizons data, including the required calculations.

Green and Belbruno predict that dark matter’s gravity ever so slightly interacts with all of the spacecraft that NASA has sent on paths that lead out of the solar system, according to the new study.

“If spacecraft move through the dark matter long enough, their trajectories are changed, and this is important to take into consideration for mission planning for certain future missions,” Belbruno said.

Such spacecraft may include the retired Pioneer 10 and 11 probes that launched in 1972 and 1973, respectively; the Voyager 1 and 2 probes that have been exploring for more than 40 years and have entered interstellar space; and the New Horizons spacecraft that has flown by Pluto and Arrokoth in the Kuiper Belt.

But it’s a tiny effect. After traveling billions of miles, the path of a spacecraft like Pioneer 10 would only deviate by about 5 feet (1.6 meters) due to the influence of dark matter. “They do feel the effect of dark matter, but it’s so small, we can’t measure it,” Green said.

How Dark Matter Could Be Measured in the Solar System - NASA

2 Likes
33

To wade through your post, at this point, seems more trouble than its worth on my end. Your post indicates to me, someone who teaches Cosmology, that you have no clue what you are talking about. But none of the details really matter.

David, your posts were never even in the realm of scientific speculation and are pure pseudoscience, and I need to be brutally honest about that.

Your “equations” are complete nonsense. g = k ∇M and ∂C/∂τ = f(B, R, M_active, M_latent, A) aren’t physics - they’re random symbols arranged to look impressive. You haven’t defined what any of these variables represent, what units they have, or how to measure them. “Memory density gradients,” “threading fabric,” and “coherence channels” aren’t real physical concepts - they’re science fiction buzzwords you’ve invented.

Your “predictions” are unfalsifiable nonsense. “Systematic deviations,” “enhanced coupling,” “coherence channels” - these could mean literally anything. Real scientific predictions require specific numbers: exactly what deviation, measured how, under what conditions. You can’t test vague hand-waving.

You’re exhibiting classic crankery behavior: Throwing around impressive-sounding terminology while completely ignoring that you need to actually define your terms, do the math, and make precise predictions that can be confirmed or refuted. This is exactly what physics cranks have done for over a century.

Your religious appeals are particularly problematic. Science doesn’t work by divine revelation or persecution narratives. When you invoke Jesus and claim you’re being suppressed by “science priests,” you’re not doing science - you’re doing apologetics dressed up with equations. Real breakthroughs succeed because they make testable predictions that work, not because someone claims God told them the answer.

Your dismissal of peer review reveals fundamental misunderstanding. ArXiv won’t endorse you not because of some conspiracy, but because your work doesn’t meet the minimum standards of coherence required for scientific discourse. You literally cannot define your basic terms.

Here’s the reality: You’ve presented zero actual physics, zero quantitative predictions, zero testable hypotheses, and zero mathematical rigor. What you have is elaborate fantasy dressed up in scientific-sounding language, backed by claims of divine inspiration and persecution by the scientific establishment.

This isn’t science. It’s not even wrong - it’s not coherent enough to be wrong.

Stop pretending you’re the next Einstein. Einstein succeeded because he did rigorous mathematics that made precise, testable predictions. You’re doing the opposite.

7 Likes
34

Instead of character attack (aren’t you supposed to be a moderator), just explain how I’m false.

Just this one. Why do we not see dark matter in our solar system. Explain that simple one.

35

Um. I guess I was wrong. I thought this forum was about bringing faith and science together. So, far, it’s been generally about a variety of atheists coming in for the kill.

If the natural and the supernatural are actually connected, then, well, so must our theories about nature. My attempts have been honestly set from the POV of providing a merger. Honestly. Please stop the attacks and show me where I’m incorrect. People tend to attack others when they don’t have a good reply.

Should I not be including scripture when it relates?

36

Never said I was Einstein. I think I’ve made it clear, I’m a nobody who teaches HS math and loves Jesus.

I have spent a good deal of time explaining testable predictions. Just in the last post. I’ll reiterate.

  1. High structured galaxies will have flat rotations. Low structured galaxies will not. This is observational fact. Data confirms.

  2. If dark matter exists, we should see it in our solar system. Please refute.

37

Here were the results for my test for New Horizon. It showed that there was essentially zero deviation in the path.

Where am I in error?

===== from my python script======

Starting New Horizons G-variation analysis…

✓ Loaded: data/naif0012.tls

✓ Loaded: data/pck00010.tpc

✓ Loaded: data/de418.bsp

✓ Loaded: data/jup365.bsp

✓ Loaded: data/sat453.bsp

✓ Loaded: data/nh_de433_od161.bsp

✓ Loaded: data/nh_nep081.bsp

✓ Loaded: data/nh_ura111.bsp

✓ Loaded: data/nh_recon_pluto_od122_v01.bsp

✓ Loaded: data/nh_recon_arrokoth_od147_v01.bsp

Collecting spacecraft data…

Successfully processed 171 epochs, failed: 0

Saved 171 entries to new_horizons_g_analysis.csv

============================================================

GRAVITATIONAL PARAMETER VARIATION ANALYSIS

============================================================

Standard G: 6.674300e-11 m³/kg/s²

Effective G Statistics:

Mean: 6.674300e-11 m³/kg/s²

Std Dev: 4.205641e-27 m³/kg/s²

Min: 6.674300e-11 m³/kg/s²

Max: 6.674300e-11 m³/kg/s²

Deviation from Standard G (%):

Mean: -0.000000%

Std Dev: 0.000000%

Range: -0.000000% to 0.000000%

Correlation between distance and G deviation: 0.021636

One-sample t-test (H0: deviation = 0):

t-statistic: -4.472136

p-value: 1.411635e-05

Significant: Yes

Trend analysis:

Slope: 2.602618e-18 %/day

R²: 0.000467

p-value: 7.789815e-01

Creating visualizations…

============================================================

INTERPRETATION & INSIGHTS

============================================================

• Deviations are extremely small (< 10⁻⁶%), suggesting:

  • SPICE ephemeris data is highly consistent with standard gravity

  • No significant gravitational anomalies detected

Analysis complete. Cleared 10 SPICE kernels.

G deviations: < 10⁻⁶% (essentially zero)

Standard deviation: 4.2 × 10⁻²⁷ m³/kg/s² (incredibly tiny)

No significant gravitational anomalies across New Horizons’ trajectory

============end output============

This analysis shows we can detect gravitational variations to parts per million precision. This is far more sensitive than needed to detect the predicted dark matter effects.

Local dark matter density: ~0.3 GeV/cm³ ≈ 5 × 10⁻²² kg/m³

Over New Horizons’ multi-billion mile journey, this should create detectable gravitational perturbations. This precision (10⁻⁶%) is more than sufficient to see these effects.

If dark matter comprises 85% of galactic mass and creates the dramatic effects seen in galaxy rotation curves, why is it completely absent from your high-precision New Horizons tracking?

You might say, “Dark matter is smoothly distributed, so it wouldn’t create detectable perturbations.”

If it’s smooth enough to be undetectable locally, how does it create the dramatic, structured effects needed for galaxy rotation curves? You can’t have it both ways, either it has gravitational effects or it doesn’t.

But you might say, “The local dark matter density is just too low.”

But we’re supposedly embedded in a dark matter halo that dominates our galaxy’s mass. The distribution that explains galactic effects should be detectable with our precision.

If you really want the python code, I could put it on my GitHub.

38

Sounds to me like that makes the Bible wrong on that point as well, as it is on so many other things like saying flowering plants came before animals. And thus this is another reason why Genesis 1 should not be read as a scientific text explaining how the universe came into existence. Otherwise you end up with an absurd comedy like “Good Omens.”

According to our current understanding the content of the universe which came first was a form of particulate energy without any distinction between light and matter. The current division between the two is a result of spontaneous symmetry breaking as the universe cooled due to expansion.

As for what came first even before this, space-time and vacuum energy came first, and the stuff from which light and matter came is a product of a vacuum decay. And BTW both of these events (vacuum decay and symmetry breaking) happened in a small fraction of the first second.

So if you are going to indulge in the foolish effort to make the Bible line up with scientific findings, you will have to equate “heavens and earth” as including the space-time and vacuum energy of the physical universe or something like that (likely ignoring some of the details).

No. It is about the compatibility of science with religion in general – with some religion, not all religion obviously.

Nonsense. It has been scientists (one of whom happens to be an atheist) correcting your misunderstandings of science.

39

Genesis provides us many GOOD things. Clearly, it’s teaches us core ideas. We learn that it is good and not evil. This refutes dualism of the day. God designs his forms. There is an order. Light is a key feature. John 1 reiterates that. Days are metaphors of his good order and plan.

1 Like
40

Just what is my misunderstanding of science? Are we not allowed to question the narrative with data? There’s some notion out there that believes that science is consensus. When did science ever become consensus? Thankfully, Kepler (a Christian too) didn’t believe that.