Re-examining the Big Bang

Time Before Time - the Big Bang

Click here to edit subtitle


The Muffin Theory

The theory is called The Muffin Theory because many years ago I used the idea of a baking muffin to explain the expansion of the universe. Since those days my theory of the formation of this universe has developed somewhat but the baking muffin remains the best demonstration I know of to illustrate how it formed, so I call it The Muffin Theory.

The Muffin Theory

Firstly why I have named it the Muffin Theory will become evident later. Secondly, I make no apologies for including God as a central element of the theory, simply because this theory, the BB and other theories do not work without that element being included.  Thirdly I have endeavoured to include as much of the concrete evidence that science has produced in relation to cosmology and astronomy, and such other disciplines as are required as a foundation.

Much of Albert Einstein’s theory on Relativity has now been supported by scientific experiment or has been refuted in the same way.  Some recent evidence has been published in the respected journal 'Science', in support of the relativity between speed and time has been produced by a team at National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado

Read more:

Have shown that:

Einstein's work famously showed that time is relative.  In 1907 his General Theory of Relativity showed that clocks run more quickly at higher altitudes because they experience a weaker gravitational force than clocks on the surface of the Earth.

The phenomenon - called gravitational time dilation - has been demonstrated by putting atomic clocks on jumbo jets and flying them at high altitudes.

Just as Einstein predicted, clocks flown at 30,000 feet run faster than those left behind on the ground.

Gravitational time dilation can be seen in global positioning satellites which need to have their clocks regularly adjusted.

Now whether this means that time is relative to the distance from our planet's centre, or to the relative speed gained by the Earth's rotation at higher altitudes or is relative to the gravitational force exerted by a body like the Earth, is unclear.  A considerable amount of research and testing will be needed to ascertain where the effect comes from, before it is confirmed as a law, however it does give us a definite indication that time is relative in some way.  More importantly, it tells us that time is not a constant in all conditions, which was always suspected and indeed expected.  In reality it may be that time is relative in all the above conditions and could be an accumulative effect of all three conditions.  No one would have guessed that the change in liner speed gained by increasing the radius of the earth's rotation by one foot would have such a large affect on time.  I suspect, therefore that the dilation achieved is the accumulative effect of altitude and speed.

We can see already that time is not a constant in all conditions, therefore the speed of light, always thought of as a rigid constant must also be a variable, simply because speed involves both time and distance elements (miles per second – distance and time).  If one element of this equation is variable so is the speed.  In all theories concerning the origin of the universe the speed of light is always a limiting factor, as we assume that the expansion of the super-dense particle is limited to a percentage of the speed of light.  Most calculations of the mathematical model of the universe base their calculations upon Einstein’s equation, E=Mc2  when it come to estimating the speed of the various bodies and therefore the age of the universe.  The equation  E=Mc2 uses the speed of light as a element of that equation as a whole number represented as 'c'.  If 'c' is variable then the equation cannot work as a limiting factor.  In reality the limiting factor is 'E' the energy required to push a mass ('M') through space.

It is generally accepted that the conditions that existed before the creation of the universe were very exotic, most cosmologists agree that nothing existed before the event-horizon of the creation event.  When I say 'nothing existed' I mean just that, no space, time or matter (other than the SDP).  The American physicist and adjunct professor of physics at Rockefeller University, describes this state by saying: "The nothingness 'before' the creation of the universe is the most complete void we can imagine. No space, time or matter existed. It is a world without place, without duration or eternity...It is a condition that few of us can even imagine, and one that we know, or could never know anything about.  We can only guess at how matter and particles like photons, would react within such an environment.  How could we ever be able to test how matter and particles would react within a void, as we could never create such an environment artificially in this world that is limited by both time and matter.  However, we can make some intelligent guesses as to the conditions a void would impose, or rather un-impose, on particles, light and matter.  We can guess that any restrictions on matter and light would be non-existent.

If these conditions prior to the BB were a true void then there would not have been, could not have been, any physical laws to restrict the actions of what ever matter happened to be placed in it.  It is likely then that any matter that found itself in this environment would have instantaneously expanded to fill the available void.  We need to remind ourselves that there would have been no physical laws where there was no physicality, so there would have been nothing to prevent light, gas or matter from filling the void.  A rough analogy to this would be the injection of a gas into a vacuum vessel, the gas will immediately fill the available volume expanding and thinning out to produce an even gaseous atmosphere (although this obviously would not be instantaneous as the gas and the vessel are subject to physical conditions).  Any instantaneous event like this would have generated incredible heat energy and rather like the theoretical energy generation potential using antimatter.  Indeed the matter antimatter reaction is another good analogy to use as a complete void could be regarded as antipathy of the physical. 

Logically under the conditions of a absolute void there would be no such condition as speed. As we have seen speed has two components, space and time, e.g. distance completed in a pre determined time (MPH KPH CPS etc.), if neither time or space exist then to all intent and purpose the SDP could well have initially expanded instantaneously.  Inside the universe, the laws apply, outside the universe, no laws (as we know them) apply.  The expansion would only stop or slow, when matter reached it's point of normalisation under the conditions within the universe, just as gas will expand quickly to form a cloud, which will then slowly dissipate. 

We can now see that we have two entirely different and opposite sets of physical laws, those within the universe (the ones we use, measure and observe), and those that may exist outside of the universe.  At this point we must refer to our muffin, when we make a chocolate chip muffin we combine all the elements needed into a dough, a fairly high density medium.  The mixture is then placed in an oven and the relative small amount of mixture rises, or expands on the application of heat.  Let us imagine that our muffin is the size of the universe, and let us also imagine that each chocolate chip represents the heavenly bodies (planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc.) and the sponge is the fabric of space.  As the universal muffin rises (expands), each of those chocolate chips retains line of sight with every other chocolate chip (stars).  The fabric expands (not necessarily in a uniform way) almost instantaneously but each star and body leaves in it's wake the trail of photons from each point of sight, so at all times, from any point in space the bodies are always visible no matter how fast the expansion happens.

What about the bodies and galaxies that are so feint that we can view them only with sophisticated equipment like the HST (Hubble Space Telescope) or even one that may be outside of our reach with today's technology?  In fact nothing changes from the current theories and extremely distant bodies remain feint or invisible for the same reasons.  By the time that their initially brilliant light gets to Earth they appear very faint and small. Furthermore, this dim light falls mostly in the infrared part of the spectrum because its wavelength has been stretched by the expansion of the Universe -- an effect known as redshift.  If the speed of expansion were great then the light frequency would be shifted into the far red range or infrared.


The illustration [2] below is a visual representation of the current theory of the creation of the universe, which uses the known laws of physics and cosmology. which is where the problems start.  Illustration 3 is my alternative, not too different, but explains the problems that cosmology has with the current model. 

Because the event horizon may have been instantaneous, it explains why (based upon the speed of light) the universe seems so old. 

In creationist terms the Muffin theory encompasses both the 'Young Earth hypothesis and the 'Gap Theorists' and the standard model of the universe. 

Who knows what conditions exist outside of the bubble of this universe, and I suspect we shall never know, but whatever it may be will possibly be outside of time and space.  Whether we could find God the creator out there, I don't know, but where ever heaven exists, that too may be outside of time. 

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. .  "   [2 Peter 3:8]

Tick tock: The atomic clock calculated that for every 12 inches of elevation, 90 billionths of a second are added to a lifetime

One of the sticking points for many Christians and creationists is the huge difference between the apparent age of the universe and the text of the Bible in Genesis 1.  Much of this discussion revolves around the length of the creation day, was God's day truly twenty-four hours (or thereabouts) or was it a longer length of time, as the Theistic Evolutionists claim?

Time is not something that is fully understood, despite people like Stephen Hawking writing books on the subject, the books actually ask more questions than they answer.  If we ask the question, what is time? most people would answer in terms of hours, minutes and days.  However this is just man's means of measuring the period between one event and another.  Man decided to split the period between one midnight and the next into twenty-four equal parts, and this was based upon the number of degrees in a circle.  It was the Babylonians who decided to split the circle into three-hundred and sixty degrees because their counting system was based on the base-sixty.  Russia experimented with a ten hour day, so the twenty-four day is arbitrary.

However our time keeping is based upon the 'day' period, one revolution of the Earth on its axis. As we are talking about the creation days as described in Genesis, we should see what how God defines time. There are no hours defined in Genesis 1 for the day, but the day-period is used. In fact the 'day' was created during Day One, the third verse of the Bible tells us:

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

So the first day started during the first day, and God called the day, from evening (sundown) to evening, a period of time equal to one period of dark and one period of light. So this is God's own definition of a day-period, one period each of light and dark, so the first day started when He created light (or let light be), but we still do not know for certain how long that period lasted. To extend this we also do not know the actual specific lengths of the first three days, as God only reveals the Sun on the fourth day, and our day is governed by the light from the Sun (or the sidereal day with reference to the stars- also revealed on day four).

I have no doubt that the days from day-four onward were of a twenty-four hour period (or thereabouts), and it is also acceptable that days two and three were also of that length, but we cannot be dogmatic about day one when we have no reference point, no dawn, just evening.