Young universe cosmology


I created a new thread here but it was deleted due to forum rules that I cannot link to a blog. I do not maintain a blog but I did know of any other way to link 11 pages of a young universe model. To those who might have been interested, I am sorry you cannot view the details, nor can I view your potential comments. If there is another way for me to link 11 pages, I am not aware of it. In light of the fact that a young universe might be plausible, it would present problems for a Biologos point of view. Fortunately for your view, however, it seems that you may not have that to worry about that plausibility. Just be aware that if the 4th spacetime dimension we call time is more exotic in construct than first thought, leaving room for a very old accelerated frame to be viewed relative to a very young one - and still fall within the bounds of modern cosmological parameters - then it may be impossible to rule out the possibility that the universe was created about 6000 years ago.

R Spier's Young Universe Cosmology (take 2.5)
(Phil) #2

I really can’t eliminate the possibility the universe was created last Thursday, but the evidence says it wasn’t, just like the evidence says it was not created 6000 years ago. Do you lnow of any evidence to the contrary?


It is quite possible that relativistic reference frames would yield an age of a few days. Actually, it would be simple to observe for anyone with an oscillation overthruster wired through a flux capacitor. Only 1.21 gigawatts would be necessary to power the apparatus. That’s easily realizable with a small plutonium powered reactor or a strong lightning bolt.

(Christy Hemphill) #4

You can summarize the main points for discussion and then link to the article in case anyone is interested in a fuller account. But the idea is people should be able to participate in the discussion without having to go to the other article. Hope that makes sense. Also, things are slightly more flexible if the article you are linking to is not something you wrote. We just want to avoid people using this site mainly to promote their personal content elsewhere, so we have to be consistent in enforcing the guideline.

(Matthew Pevarnik) #5

Does this capture some of what you want to say?

BioLogos Irony (YEC/OEC) and the next few posts?

It seems to me that this is a completely ad hoc argument where you are trying to fit a particular interpretation of Scripture into modern Cosmology. Like, ‘it’s technically possible you guys.’ Maybe it is, I don’t know. I haven’t looked too deeply into your ideas, but one explanation for one aspect of one subject does nothing for science and isn’t the type of thinking that leads to much progress.

And it’s not that a young universe presents problems for a BioLogos point of view. It presents problems for the fields of…

  • astrophysics (despite what you claim)
  • cosmology
  • nuclear physics
  • electromagnetism
  • fluid mechanics
  • heat transfer
  • materials science
  • botany
  • evolution
  • genetics
  • geology
  • plate tectonics
  • stratigraphy
  • paleontology
  • meteorology
  • archaeology
  • etc.

When all of these fields and methods of knowing/observation work just fine without some (again ad hoc) explanation that’s technically maybe possible but does nothing useful for anyone or makes no unique predictions (i.e. like Jason Lisle’s technically possible ASC model). What should we do? At best it would have to be a pseudo-scientific claim that cannot be tested/falsified and does nothing for the existing body of scientific knowledge.

But I will say, I do applaud your efforts to integrate your interpretation of Genesis 1 with modern science; it’s definitely more elegant than many other attempts especially in that it requires the ability to comprehend some of the most complex mathematics in the world.

(James McKay) #6

Hi Christy,

I’ve a question about this one myself. It seems to me that @r_speir isn’t so much wanting to promote his content as to ask for feedback and peer review on it. I’ve got a blog of my own ( where I’d welcome some similar feedback myself, but with this guideline I’m not quite sure how to ask for it.

Anyway, I saw his paper before the link was taken down. The link is here: It seems to me that what he’s trying to argue is that the universe could be six thousand years old in the reference frame of the cosmic microwave background. His paper isn’t easy to read — he really needs to start by summarising his key points in an abstract before jumping straight into the maths.

The problem is that it doesn’t bring the age of the earth down in the earth’s reference frame. It also doesn’t account for features of the universe that show evidence of millions of years of history, such as colliding galaxies, galactic jets, or even light travel within just our galaxy.

Incidentally, here’s an illustration of what the distant starlight problem looks like in terms of the Milky Way. The red circle represents a distance of six thousand light years from the sun:


Do they sell them in Wal-Mart?


Yes, there it is. Thank you. Yes I am looking for feedback. Serious feedback. [quote=“jammycakes, post:6, topic:36597”]

he really needs to start by summarising his key points in an abstract before jumping straight into the maths.

Not at all. I already know how to write a scientific paper (and have written them) and I am avoiding that format on purpose. If you know what you are looking at, my approach is meant to take one straight to the meat of the proposal for more immediate assimilation and critique of the material.

Your perusal is not a review of the material, or a lazy one at best. Even the paper gives you very good reasons why this cosmology at least demands more than a causal glance. For example, it attempts answer flat spacetime, apparent acceleration of the universe, expanding space pushing matter/structures apart, the Planck epoch. Now if you really want to look at it and offer a serious critique, I am all ears.

(James McKay) #9

So … just to clarify, who exactly is your intended audience?

If it’s subject matter experts (i.e. cosmologists), then it should be in the format of a scientific paper.

If it’s science students, or non-subject-matter experts, then it needs to be made more readable anyway. You need a summary and headings so that we can speed-read it and extract the salient points before deciding whether it has any merit or not. In fact, for non-experts, a PowerPoint presentation might be more appropriate.

Sorry if this sounds like “style over substance,” but readability is important. Reading things like this takes time, and in my case I would have to mug up on general relativity and space-time metrics as well to follow the argument properly. First impressions count the most, and my first impressions on reading it were, “I thought this was about the age of the universe. Why is he starting off by talking about black body radiation?” Yes, I know, cosmic microwave background, but I very nearly didn’t read past the first couple of paragraphs at all.

Either way, you need to add a summary and some headings.

(Christy Hemphill) #10

There are several ways to go about this:

To clarify, if something you have written about relates to a discussion in progress and you would like to link to it as part of a response to an OP, you are welcome to do so.

Also, you are welcome to start a discussion about the ideas you have written about elsewhere, and you are welcome to summarize or cut and paste from your article/post in an OP. (Being aware that OPs that are really long or don’t have a clear question or point to engage on generally don’t generate that much discussion) If you want to provide a link, just do so further down in the discussion, not in the OP. We really just wanted a rule that allowed us to delete the kind of content that we were getting too much of where some yahoo with a blog signs up for an account just to say: “Come to my blog and read my article. Here’s a link.” Or “I wrote a book. Please buy it.” And we want to avoid essentially becoming comment boards for outside content because that makes moderation more of a burden.

However, we understand that networking with people you “know” from the community here is a valuable thing that participation in this forum offers. So, if you don’t want to start a discussion, but would simply like people to read something of yours and give you critiques or feedback, you are welcome to use the PM feature and personally invite everyone you think might be interested, helpful, or otherwise willing to comment.

Hope that helps.

(Phil) #11

Christy did a great job of explaining all that. The sometimes grey area for me goes to intent. If you are posting with the intent of stimulating discussion, there may be a little more latitude than if you are posting with the intent of promoting an agenda.


The real question is what evidence is there that allows us to rule it in.

We can all dream up fantastic possibilities that no one can rule out. The real trick is finding evidence to support such possibilities.


I would like to see critiques of the idea. That should qualify as discussion. However, to be true, I am not interested in this kind of discussion for example[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:12, topic:36597”]

The real question is what evidence is there that allows us to rule it in.

We could go back and forth about that all day long and wear each other out.

Look, I have presented a modified Friedmann spacetime metric and an accelerated Hubble frame that I think may work for a young universe belief. I emphasized “think”. I welcome substantive positive or negative comments about the plausibility of the idea.


I can help. All of this stuff is coded cosmology kind of talk.

ds2 = dT2 - a(T)2dr2,

where geometrized units of c = 1 are used and dr2 is the interval square of the three spatial dimensions, namely, + dx2 + dy2 + dz2.

It only means that we looking at length, width, height, and time and taking a measurement basically using the Pythagorean approach of adding the squares of each term (l,w,h,t) and taking the square root to find a real distance of separation in space between two points. All I did was take a sphere - ignore the interior - and ask myself: How would someone evaluate the growth of a sphere over time if all they had was the surface area of the sphere? That is, with no radius. That led me to equation 3. Then, for the same sphere I used the standard radial equation for surface area (Eq. 4) and laid the equations side by side. I found two distinct - but inextricably related - timepieces. I saw that the clocks were oriented orthogonally, meaning I was probably looking at the SINGLE Minkowski spacetime term we call time - the 4th dimension - broken out into two distinct time zones.

The clocks were ticking off time in step with one another but with very different values. For every movement of the “surface” clock I saw the squared exponent move on the “radial” clock. After investigating their scale factors in Eq. 7, I said “That is strange. The only variables in Eq.7 are a) the opening surface area size Sp of the sphere, and b) the two clocks.”

What if I naively inserted today’s Hubble value on the radial clock - 13.7 billion years - to describe a vast universe and then inserted only 6000 years on the “surface” clock? What would Sp look like? Well, it turned out to be about the size of a grapefruit.

The bonuses were that 1) the metric remained Friedmann in style and so standard cosmology was not upset, and general relativity was upheld, 2) if I made the surface clock precisely the cosmic microwave background expansion and temperature, everything fit like a glove, 3) the Hubble expansion was vast.

And 4) a point I had missed in 2008 in the original paper --> if the Hubble frame is an accelerated frame (which it very much seemed to be, remember the squared exponent), and the CMB frame was the rest frame of the universe, then it may be very well impossible to rule out a 6000 year old universe by simply saying “Today’s cosmology does not allow for a system that young”. On the contrary, everything I was finding said “Wrong. It could very well be that young and I have just used today’s modern cosmology to demonstrate it”.

(Phil) #15

Seems as though we are going in circles. @r_speir, perhaps there is a forum that would be more appropriate for imaginative musings regarding time, and if you wish to focus on an topic with broader appeal we can revisit it with the addition of the evidence supporting it and outside references
I think we can close this topic until that time.

(Phil) #16