Some (few) researchers have worked on making a new model to rival the contemporary cosmology and while their work is far from complete, they do offer a glimpse at a potential model that could be just as multifaceted as its rival and has far more explanatory power. These people are Russel D. Humphreys, Moshe Carmeli, John Hartnett, and they are the keepers of the new physics. Before going there, we need to lay some groundwork about how problems in contemporary cosmology present themselves.

If you want to find out about anything, you must first begin with what is known and then reason a way towards what is unknown. This involves equations. Let’s say, for example, that you have the equation M = *v(*^2)*R*/*G, *where M is the mass of the sun and any other given object (a *particle*), *v *is the speed of the particle, *G *is Newton’s gravitational constant, and *R *is the distance between the centre of the sun and the particle. If you *don’t* know any one of these terms, let’s say *v*, then you can determine what *v *is by solving the equation. This is a form of comparison, because you began by comparing what is on the left and right of the =.

Comparison might not be as formal as that. Perhaps you are merely comparing the known luminosity of a Ia supernova to another distant galaxy whose distance is unknown. By comparing the two, you can learn which one is closer according to the known brightness of the supernova by the inverse square law of illumination. This kind of supernova is what we would call a ‘standard candle’, simply because it is used as a standard.

One of the biggest problems that the contemporary model fails to address is actually the result of a comparison. The comparison is between two things that *should be equal, but are not*. These two things are the 1) mass of any galaxy or galaxy group determined by its dynamics (calculated through an equation like the one seen above) and 2) the amount of mass required by that *same *galaxy or galaxy group to produce the amount of luminosity observed. Put more simply, comparing the visible material to the material calculated by the rules of modern physics reveals that these two masses which *ought *to be the same are not in fact the same. The comparison between these two masses is put as a ratio, *M/L*, where *M *is the mass calculated through dynamics observed and *L *is the luminous material. And according to modern physics (this is an important qualification), these two things do not equal unity.

This is a massive problem and most physicists are now under the belief that there simply must be some unaccounted for, unseen, invisible dark matter. There is no evidence for this dark matter, *except *for the discrepancy shown above—and the discrepancy is so large, that the theoretical dark matter would have to account for 85% of the matter in the universe! Let us call the observed mass density Ω. If Ω=1, there would be no discrepancy between the two masses. If Ω>1, then we get a problem that can only be accounted for by inventing something like dark matter or a cosmological constant. If Ω<1, we get a low mass density universe that is expanding.

Keep in mind that anything equalling one is unity. Unity means that the amount is balanced, equalized. This is an algebraic term—another term for algebra is ‘analytic geometry’, which basically just means that it is math that has geometric equivalents. The perfect example of analytic geometry is an XY graph: there are both numbers and shapes associated with any given set. This is fundamentally important when trying to conceptualize how mathematical equations are ways of geometrically describing the universe. Unity, for example (anything equalling one) would mean a flat, open Euclidean space. Anything more than one is elliptical and closed (although that is hard to picture). Anything less than one would be hyperbolic and open.

**The Contemporary Cosmology **

** **In the 1920s, Hubble observed what is called a redshift in observations of space. Not only was he able to calculate the approximate distance of astral bodies through this redshift, he also reasoned by this redshift that the universe was expanding. The equation relating redshift to distances is called the Hubble Law. This expansion has been confirmed by many experiments over the decades, even though it has never been directly observed. Expansion was reasoned towards, not observed, and the Hubble Law does not apply locally. One of the reasons for this is that the constant used in the equation is highly variable and is calculated according to different redshifts. Redshifts, however, are only observed from very far distances. Therefore, the Hubble Law cannot be applied locally. What this means is that the expansion in the fabric of the universe deduced from the Hubble Law *does not appear to be happening locally*. This will be relevant later.

The contemporary cosmology was formed on this foundation of expansion and also on Einstein’s general relativity—solid ground. Here is what it looks like. Picture the surface of a balloon. Imagine that the surface of the balloon is space itself and there are dots marked all over the surface, representing galaxies or galaxy groups. Now picture the balloon being slowly blown up—this is the expansion. As the balloon is blown up, the surface of the balloon itself expands and the dots on the surface radiate out from one another. This balloon represents what is called the *hypersphere *and it is a model of the universe that assumes space is curved, without a centre, and is homogenous all throughout. This means that there should be no large-scale heterogeneous structures observed in the universe and no preference given to any one particular observer. It should seem like all space is radiating outwards. Is this what we observe?

**The Carmelian Cosmology **

** **Moshe Carmeli, an Israeli physicist working especially in the 1990s, proposed a new theory for the cosmos. It was called cosmological general relativity (CGR) and it supposed a fifth dimension to the universe as a solution to dark matter and as a better description of the known universe. Some have argued that a fifth dimension is just as unobservable as dark matter. Yet, this fifth dimension is based on the idea that the universe is expanding. The fifth dimension proposed is that of *spacevelocity *and, although it might be hard to picture, has the Hubble Law as a fundamental principle. The Hubble Law is a fundamental principle to this CGR, because it is the Hubble Law that establishes the redshifts related to distance. Redshifts and distance are important, *because the expansion deduced from them can be quantified as velocity*. Carmeli is essentially just better describing that velocity of expansion as a fifth dimension, something that no one before him had done.

Without getting too much into the math, because I can’t, Carmeli adapted the Hubble Law to fit this new model by having his constant (unlike Hubble’s) be unvariable. The Carmeli constant is a true constant, which means that velocity can be described at any point in the universe regardless of location. This means that velocity is a fundamental property of the universe and could be referred to as a dimension of the universe. By describing all of the universe equally in his velocity measurements, Carmeli also excluded the need for dark matter. Again, without getting into the math, he described the vacuum of space not as vacuum, but as full of velocity. Dark matter was a failed attempt at describing space necessitated by equations that *did not take into account the velocity of space*. By better describing space, Carmeli revealed that space was not filled with unseen matter but rather unseen velocity. This velocity makes sense in light of the expansion of the universe.

These equations predict the low matter density universe that we observe. This is shown as Ω<1, which means that space has a low matter density. If Ω<1, then the universe is *accelerating. *The universe is accelerating, because velocity is related to redshift and redshift gets higher the farther the observation is made. Since redshifts are lower nearby, it implies a change in velocity. Carmeli did in fact predict this in 1996 and was shown to be right based on observations done in 1998. The theory also implies a universe that is spherically symmetrical and isotropic. It is spherically symmetrical, because Ω<1 produces an open and hyperbolic situation. The isotropic prediction seems to fit quite well with known maps of the universe which reveal galaxy distributions that form concentric rings in an orderly fashion radiating away from where we are currently observing the universe. These maps only show a small portion of the known universe, but they strongly suggest that we are at the center of the universe. This would mean that the universe is *not *homogenous as contemporary cosmology tells us, but that it is perhaps flat and open.

**Cosmological General Relativity Applied to Creationist Cosmology **

The mathematics is essential to proving these claims, but the mathematics can be overwhelming and difficult to conceptualize. Furthermore, it leads to some conclusions that produce a lot of questions. For example, what does it mean for space to be *flat *as opposed to curved, yet be based upon a general relativity that works on certain scales? Additionally, why does the addition of velocity into the equations get rid of the need for dark matter? This question can only really be answered by looking at the mathematics. And maybe I am the only one left asking it, because I’m dumb. What *can* be explained without the mathematics, however, is why CGR is so significant and such a drastic change from contemporary cosmology. Hopefully I can make it quite clear why CGR is so significant for a creationist cosmology by staying in the big picture. So, here is the big picture of CGR and why it matters for a Creationist Cosmology:

Contemporary cosmology depends on a physics that fails to accurately describe the vacuum of space. This can clearly be seen with the invention of dark matter. Dark matter has to be invented, because something has been left unaccounted for in the description of space. They have failed to account for the velocity of space. The velocity of space is a fundamental quality of space, because space itself is expanding. The velocity of space is a fundamental quality of space; therefore, it is a dimension of space—a fifth dimension. The failure to account for velocity leads to the failure in accounting for how the redshift is really an acceleration of space. The redshift and its relation to acceleration can be explained with an analogy. Imagine you are looking at a seashell that has growth rings. Assume that the growth rings are annual. The first growth ring, let’s say, is one inch long, the second is two, the third is four, and the fourth ring is eight inches. This information would demonstrate to you that the speed at which the creature grew its shell accelerated annually. Even though this is not what is really happening with the redshift, we do observe a *shift of red light* that looks like this and it is up to us in figuring out what that shift is telling us. We know from the Hubble Law that it can be related to distance. What Carmeli did is relate the redshift with a velocity as well as a distance. The Hubble Law relates the observed shift in red light with distance—Carmeli related it also with velocity. Why? Because velocity is a fundamental quality of the thing shifting! If velocity is related to distance, then it must also be related to the redshift. If the velocity is related to the redshift, then the redshift *must *be revealing an acceleration of that *spacevelocity*. If space (*velocity*) is accelerating, then time must also have accelerated along with it. Why? Because that is what Einstein’s relativity tells us—and CGR and all cosmologies depend upon this relativity to make accurate predictions. If time accelerated along with space, that means that both space and time were stretched together. God stretched out the heavens—and as he did it, time stretched, too. If time dilated with the acceleration of space, then more time passed in some parts of the universe than others.

This relativity is difficult to imagine and goes against any kind of common sense, but God did not construct the universe to fall in line with our common sense. He constructed the universe to fall in line with our curiosity. God wants us to understand his creation and he made it user-friendly, but he did not make it easily release its surprises. And we are quite surprised to discover that while ~13.5 billion light-years might have passed at the horizon of the observable universe, only 6,000 thousand years passed on Earth. This does not require the speed of light to ever change: the speed of light is constant and there is no reason to think otherwise. What is not constant is time. Time is not absolute: general relativity has taught us that. This is *relative* to Earth time, which is the whole reason why it is a theory of general relativity: it is relative to the observer. This means that Earth is at a special place in the cosmos (which it is) to observe all the expansion. The fifth dimension that Carmeli proposes is a description of what happened when God stretched out the heavens.

There is one final note. If Carmeli is right about the acceleration of the universe, then his theory requires some sort of particle production. The reason for why is beyond the reach of this paper. Let it be known, however, that there needs to be a production of matter not *ex nihilo*, but produced from preexisting energy sources. From a certain perspective, this is less a requirement and more a prediction of the theory. There is strong evidence to support that there is the kind of particle production needed for the theory to work. Many active galaxies (like 0313-192, M82, and M87) have very bright spots in them called *quasars*. Quasars were previously thought to be behind galaxies, but an observation proved that some are within galaxies and even *ejected from them *within these enormous jet emissions of gas coming from the center of the galaxies. Astronomers like Halton Arp have written books on how this must be a kind of galaxy production. Galaxies begetting galaxies. If we are indeed observing this particle production as predicted by Carmeli, what are we really seeing?

When we look out, we are looking back in time. If God stretched out the heavens, he is stretching them out no more—otherwise, time would still be dilating. Space is no longer expanding. The expansion we observe is really just the 6,000 year old remnants of when God stretched out the heavens. The ejections from galaxies we are observing happened at the same time. Maybe the evidence from quasars is evidence for what it looked like for God to make the stars and the heavenly bodies. The universe we see beyond our local region is the fossil record of Creation, Day Four etched in light, buried underneath vast expanses of space that accelerated away from us—standing at the center, marveling at the way of a God with the stars.

**Reference**:

Jartnett, John, P.h.d. *Starlight, Time, and the New Physics*. Australia: Creation Ministries

International, 2007.