Aligning Biblical Cosmology with Standard Cosmology
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00Good day viewers. In this episode, we are going to look at what's required to align
00:05biblical cosmology with standard cosmology. We achieve this by recognizing that redshift
00:10Z equals zero, often cited as the value for the present epoch, is in fact an arbitrarily
00:16defined value. The value of Z for the present epoch is a datum, and like any datum, can be
00:22defined or redefined at will. Z equals zero is not a measured value, and it is not derived,
00:28it is assigned. Redefining Z simply acts to scale the solution from Z equals zero to something
00:35else, hence billions of years becomes thousands of years etc. In order to align the biblical
00:41model of cosmology with the standard model of cosmology, we show that the following points
00:46require consideration. Number one. The standard model of cosmology is not always reliable at
00:53high values of redshift, as proven by the conflicting output utilizing two different
00:57cosmology calculators, which you will see. Number two. The standard model of cosmology
01:04disagrees with itself at high values of Z, i.e., there is no single, uniformly agreed
01:10and accepted version of events for a young universe. Number three. The value of Z in
01:15the present epoch is a datum, i.e., it is an arbitrary assignment. Number four. Although
01:21assigning a value of Z equals zero to the present epoch is entirely logical, there is
01:27no immutable physical reason why it must be Z equals zero. Number five. If the universe
01:33is young in a biblical model of cosmology, then a high value of redshift Z is required.
01:39Number six. If a non-zero value of redshift is assigned to the present epoch, then other
01:45physical parameters will also need to be rescaled. Number seven. Nature is non-linear. The non-linear
01:52relationship between the cosmic microwave background radiation temperature and cosmological
01:57expansion is articulated in the publications appearing on slide two. Please take the time
02:02to review these publications for more information. Number eight. The potential existence of multiverses
02:09as described by standard physics should also be considered. From the perspective of an
02:14observer residing outside our universe, God for example, a high value of redshift associated
02:20with our universe in the present epoch may be a relative measure with respect to the
02:25value of redshift associated with other universes. Therefore, aligning a biblical model of cosmology
02:32with a standard model of cosmology must commence with the assignment of a non-zero value of
02:37redshift Z in the present epoch. Well, that's enough introduction, let's get into it.
02:44To start our journey, we shall decompose the standard model of cosmology into some of its
02:49key components. That is, cosmological age, scale factor and cosmic microwave background
02:55radiation temperature. In the top half of the screen, you can see four equations. These are
03:02a general solution to cosmological age, an exact analytical solution to the present age of the
03:08universe, a cosmological scale factor solution and a cosmic microwave background radiation
03:13temperature solution. The reason these components are important to us is because they are all
03:19a function of redshift Z. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of redshift, please refer to the
03:25equation in the top right hand corner of the screen. In addition, please consult the appropriate
03:31resource and return to this video presentation afterwards. It is imperative from this point
03:37moving forward that all viewers comprehend the fundamental meaning of Z equals zero.
03:42That is, the value of redshift in the present epoch equals zero. The question you need to be
03:48asking is, why does Z equals zero? Well, the answer to this question is very simple. You can
03:55see from the redshift equation that Z equals zero when the change in emitted wavelength equals zero.
04:01The logic for the change in emitted wavelength equaling zero is that over small time increments,
04:07the effects of cosmological expansion are negligible and the emitted wavelength has
04:12not had the opportunity to stretch. Hence, the change in emitted wavelength equals zero,
04:18and therefore, Z equals zero. Nevertheless, the value of Z for the present epoch is a sign,
04:25it is not a derived value, nor is it an assumed value. Assumed values typically have some degree
04:31of foundation in experimental measurement. However, cosmological age is a calculation,
04:37it is not a measurement. There is no cosmological clock keeping track of cosmological time.
04:44Redshift Z is a metric for cosmological expansion, and the standard model of cosmology converts Z
04:50into a value of cosmological age, but what if the calculation is wrong? Since we do not have access
04:56to a cosmological clock to verify calculations of cosmological age, we inherently have an issue.
05:03To make this calculation process convenient, the standard model of cosmology utilizes Z
05:09equals zero as a boundary condition. Hence, Z equals zero cannot be an assumed value because
05:15it has no foundation in experimental measurement of cosmological age. Remember, there is no
05:21cosmological clock keeping cosmological time. Please note the fact that I have referred to
05:27cosmological age, not cosmological expansion. Moreover, there is no explicit, rigorous or
05:34inflexible reason why Z equals zero is indisputably required to be a boundary condition.
05:40Cosmological age is not an undisputed metric. In fact, University of Ottawa adjunct professor
05:47Rajendra Gupta, in July 2023, estimated cosmological age to be 26.7 billion years,
05:55that is, almost twice the standard model of cosmology estimate of 13.8 billion years.
06:01Thus, Z equals zero can only be an assigned value. An assigned value is often termed a datum.
06:09For example, the freezing point of water on the Celsius scale. Thus, utilizing this datum,
06:15the standard model of cosmology makes direct measurements of various phenomena and indirectly
06:21infers a cosmological age via calculations. One of those direct measurements is the cosmic
06:26microwave background radiation temperature. From this, we indirectly infer a cosmological
06:32age of approximately 13.8 billion years via computation. Hence, the next metric we will
06:39discuss is cosmic microwave background radiation temperature. The equation for this appears next
06:45to scale factor and is a contrivance biasing Z equals zero. We can see that it is a contrivance
06:52because it does not contain any association with the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant is a
06:57measure of the rate of cosmological expansion and the rate of cosmological expansion is coupled to
07:03cosmic microwave background radiation temperature. Therefore, to express CMBR temperature without
07:10directly referencing the Hubble constant is evidence of an incomplete solution.
07:15The standard model of cosmology version of CMBR temperature does not contain any connection to
07:20the rate of cosmological expansion. Thus, the standard model of cosmology version of cosmic
07:27microwave background radiation temperature is an obvious contrivance. However, if we look at
07:33the electrogravimagnetic construct, we can see that the cosmic microwave background radiation
07:39temperature equation contains the Hubble constant as it should. Moreover, utilizing this connectivity
07:46to the rate of cosmological expansion, STORTI is able to predict that the true cosmological age is
07:52actually the Hubble age. This adds approximately 800 million years to the standard model of
07:57cosmology estimate and explains the additional time required for the formation of large-scale
08:03galactic structures as observed by the James Webb Space Telescope. The James Webb Space Telescope
08:10has invoked controversy in recent times due to the fact that large-scale galactic structures
08:15appear to have formed much earlier than expected by the standard model of cosmology. However,
08:21adding approximately 800 million years to the age of the universe means that the formation of
08:26large-scale galactic structures is no surprise. In a manner of speaking, the electrogravimagnetic
08:33construct rescues the standard model of cosmology in this regard. In order to numerically evaluate
08:39the indefinite integral T sub z within the Mathcad 8 professional computational environment,
08:45the limit z sub infinity must be numerically defined. The z sub infinity limit represents
08:51effective computational infinity, or in other words, effective infinite redshift. This should
08:57not be taken literally, this is just a practical limit of the Mathcad 8 professional computational
09:03environment. At any rate, it does not really matter too much because we also compute the
09:09associated error. We can see from the information on screen that the difference between the general
09:15solution T sub z and the exact analytical solution T sub 0 is less than 1359 years.
09:23This is a negligible difference considering that the age of the universe according to both solutions
09:29is approximately 13.797 billion years. Moreover, we can also see that the error between T sub z
09:36and T sub 0 is less than 10 to the minus 5 percent. Hence, we have mathematically proven that the
09:43difference between T sub z and T sub 0 is negligible. This negligible difference means
09:50that our value of effective computational infinity is acceptable and does not need to be modified.
09:56Thus, we can utilize this value going forward in order to align our biblical model of cosmology
10:02with the standard model of cosmology. Okay, now that we have established the validity of z sub
10:08infinity, let's move on. The way we are going to align our biblical model of cosmology with
10:14the standard model of cosmology involves two steps. The first step demonstrates the method we utilize
10:21but yields the standard model of cosmology result we expect. What actually makes this first step
10:28biblical, so to speak, is cosmological age. According to the YouTube link shown,
10:34the presenter asserts that the universe is only 6,000 years old, not the 13.8 billion years that
10:40the standard model of cosmology states. This means that we can interpret our results as relating to
10:466,000 years ago or if the universe was only 6,000 years old. At this stage, which one it is,
10:53is not important. What is important is the method we are utilizing. However, if we put a conventional
11:00hat on, for the sake of argument, we can see from the outputs on screen that our results are
11:05entirely sensible and supportive of the standard model of cosmology. So, step one validates the
11:12biblical model of cosmology methodology, but the results endorse the standard model of cosmology.
11:18Let's now take a look at what happens when we do not assign a value of redshift for the present
11:23epoch, but we actually calculate one instead, constrained within a biblical time scale.
11:30The second step involves determining the value of redshift for the present epoch,
11:34when constrained by a biblical time scale. If we insist that the universe is only 6,000 years old,
11:41what does the value of redshift need to be? Well, utilizing the same methodology from the
11:47previous slide, the required redshift is approximately 17,634. Remember, as discussed
11:55extensively on slide 2, a redshift value of 0 is an assignment, it is not a derived value,
12:01nor is it an assumed value. But does it make sense to use anything other than 0 as a boundary
12:07condition? Well, yes is the short answer, and we shall circle back to this for discussion a bit
12:12later in the presentation. However for now, let's have a look at the value of redshift predicted by
12:19two standard model of cosmology calculators, when the universe was only 6,000 years old.
12:26This is the output produced by Ned Wright's cosmology calculator. Ned Wright is a research
12:31professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. We can see that the results displayed
12:37in the blue box, are consistent with the standard model of cosmology and the
12:42electrogravimagnetic construct. However, the results in the purple box display a value of
12:48redshift when the universe is 6,000 years old, which is significantly different from our redshift
12:53result of 17,634. In fact, if we examine the black box, we can see that our redshift result
13:01yields a cosmological age of 2,293 years, according to Ned Wright's cosmology calculator.
13:09So, which one is correct? Ned Wright's cosmology calculator, or the standard model of cosmology
13:16equation we started with on slide 2? Well, to answer this question, we need to examine the
13:22output from another cosmology calculator so that we can execute a more comprehensive analysis.
13:29This is the output produced by Nick Nedden's cosmology calculator. Nick is a professor at the
13:35University of Chicago. We can see that the results displayed in the blue box, are consistent with the
13:41standard model of cosmology and the electrogravimagnetic construct, just like Ned Wright's
13:46cosmology calculator. However, this is where the agreement ends. The results in the purple box
13:53display a value of redshift when the universe is 16,000 years old, which is significantly different
13:59from the result presented by Ned Wright's cosmology calculator at the same redshift, that is, a
14:05cosmological age of 6,000 years. Moreover and quite astonishingly, Nick Nedden's cosmology
14:12calculator associates a redshift value of 20,194 with a cosmological age of 6,000 years. Hence,
14:20our redshift value of 17,634 sits between the outputs produced by the cosmology calculators.
14:29Okay, let's now do a side-by-side comparison of both calculators at a redshift value of 17,634.
14:38At a redshift value of 17,634, Nick Nedden's cosmology calculator yields a cosmological age
14:46of 7,352 years, as opposed to Ned Wright's cosmology calculator value of 2,293 years.
14:54In fact, Nick Nedden's cosmology calculator yields a cosmological age of 6,000 years when
15:00the redshift value is 20,194. So, as we can see, significant difference exists between the outputs
15:08of these cosmology calculators. The obvious question now becomes, why are the results
15:14generated by these cosmology calculators so different when the universe is very young?
15:20Well, unfortunately, to answer this question definitively, we would need access to their
15:25source code. The logical conclusion is that they make different assumptions about the cosmos,
15:31hence, they produce different results as they approach the Big Bang. However, what their
15:36conflict tells us is that a redshift value, which yields a cosmological age of 6,000 years,
15:43is scientifically acceptable. So then, the big question in this video presentation is,
15:49why is it okay to assign the value of redshift for the present epoch as being 17,634,
15:56instead of 0, in accordance with the standard model of cosmology?
16:00Firstly, let's recall that the value of redshift equaling 0 in the present epoch
16:06is an assigned value, it is not derived or assumed. We covered this point extensively
16:12in the opening slides. Z equals 0 is a datum and like all datums, it is an arbitrary assignment.
16:19Moreover, the standard model of cosmology has issues, one being the relationship between
16:25redshift and cosmic microwave background radiation temperature, which we described
16:29on an earlier slide as being a contrivance, here's why. On screen, we can see the relationship
16:36between cosmic microwave background radiation temperature and redshift as presented in Ned
16:41Wright's lecture notes, by a red line. The significance of this graph is that the relationship
16:47is linear. However, nature is non-linear and we can immediately understand that the representation
16:52of cosmic microwave background radiation temperature in the Z-domain is only linear
16:57at low values of Z. At higher values of Z, the relationship appearing on screen collapses
17:04because competing cosmology calculators produce significantly conflicting values of redshift
17:09as they approach the Big Bang. Thus, as we stated on slide 2, the standard model of cosmology
17:16version of cosmic microwave background radiation temperature is an obvious contrivance. What
17:22this means is that, with respect to redshift, the standard model of cosmology is not always
17:27reliable at high values of Z. As mentioned a few moments ago, nature is non-linear. The
17:34non-linear relationship between the cosmic microwave background radiation temperature
17:39and cosmological expansion is articulated in the publications appearing on slide 2.
17:44Please take the time to review these publications for more information.
17:49So, if the standard model of cosmology is not always reliable at high values of redshift,
17:55as proven by the conflicting output utilizing two different cosmology calculators,
18:00what does this mean for a biblical model of cosmology? In fact, a more surgical question
18:06to ask is, what is the justification for assigning a high value of Z in the present epoch,
18:11rather than the standard model of cosmology value of Z equals 0? Well, there are two main
18:17justifications. Number 1. The standard model of cosmology disagrees with itself at high values of
18:24Z, i.e., there is no single, uniformly agreed and accepted version of events for a young universe.
18:31Number 2. The value of Z in the present epoch is a datum, i.e., it is an arbitrary assignment.
18:38There is no immutable physical reason why the present epoch must be assigned the redshift
18:43value of Z equals 0. Moreover, the potential existence of multiverses as described by
18:50standard physics, may also be a justification. From the perspective of an observer residing
18:55outside our universe, God for example, a high value of redshift associated with our universe
19:01in the present epoch, may be a relative measure with respect to the value of redshift associated
19:06with other universes. Of course, this is purely speculative, but nevertheless, it is worth
19:13considering if we seek to align the biblical model of cosmology with the standard model of cosmology.
19:19In addition, should a non-zero value of redshift be assigned to the present epoch,
19:24then other physical parameters will also need to be rescaled.
19:28Please refer to the biblical CMBR scaling factor appearing on slide 5 as an example.
19:35Okay, let's now summarize what we have learned. In order to align the biblical model of cosmology
19:41with the standard model of cosmology, the following points require consideration.
19:46Number 1. The standard model of cosmology is not always reliable at high values of redshift,
19:53as proven by the conflicting output utilizing two different cosmology calculators.
19:58Number 2. The standard model of cosmology disagrees with itself at high values of Z,
20:04i.e., there is no single, uniformly agreed and accepted version of events for a young universe.
20:10Number 3. The value of Z in the present epoch is a datum, i.e., it is an arbitrary assignment.
20:17Number 4. Although assigning a value of Z equals zero to the present epoch is entirely logical,
20:23there is no immutable physical reason why it must be Z equals zero.
20:28Number 5. If the universe is 6,000 years old in a biblical model of cosmology construct,
20:34then a high value of redshift Z is required. We have estimated this to be Z equals 17,634.
20:43Number 6. If a non-zero value of redshift is assigned to the present epoch,
20:48then other physical parameters will also need to be rescaled.
20:52Please refer to the biblical CMBR scaling factor appearing on slide 5 as an example.
20:58Number 7. Nature is non-linear. The non-linear relationship between the cosmic microwave
21:04background radiation temperature and cosmological expansion is articulated in the publications
21:10appearing on slide 2. Please take the time to review these publications for more information.
21:16Number 8. The potential existence of multiverses as described by standard physics should also be
21:22considered. From the perspective of an observer residing outside our universe, God for example,
21:28a high value of redshift associated with our universe in the present epoch,
21:33may be a relative measure with respect to the value of redshift associated with other universes.
21:39Therefore, aligning a biblical model of cosmology with a standard model of cosmology,
21:44must commence with the assignment of a non-zero value of redshift Z in the present epoch.