Creation and Relativity (E=mc2)

[TheMatmanReturns]

Einstein's theory of relativity teaches, in so many words, that matter, light and time are so intertwined that as an object approaches the speed of light, time will slow down for that object, and the object's mass will increase.

Let's assume that Einstein is correct.

In Genesis 1:1, God created the universe.
In Genesis 1:3, God created light.
In Genesis 1:5, God created time (i.e. day and night)

Given that there was no such thing as light when God created the universe in Genesis 1:1 (because He didn't create light until Genesis 1:3), there could have been no value for the speed of light. Right?

Assume that there was no speed of light at Creation. If a particle were to move, time would stop for that particle, and that particle's mass would increase infinitely.

This may explain how God might have created the Universe. By creating one single particle and moving it in the absense of light and time, God caused the particle's mass to increase, thus creating planets and stars and the like. Then by creating light in Genesis 1:3, God stopped the creation of matter, further allowing him to measure time in Genesis 1:5.

This would further explain how the Earth appears to be millions of years old. Even though the Earth was created in a time-light vacuum, the "wear and tear" of the creation process may have given the Earth an appearance of old-age.

Keep in mind that nowhere in Genesis 1 does it say that God created the Earth in seven days. It says that God shaped the Earth and created life on Earth in seven days. (Read the passage carefully.)

 

[JTM3]

Maybe you're terminology's wrong, but I don't see how a single particle could create an entire universe of PARTICLES.

Maybe a different kind of particle or substance altogether?

Although I like your theory(even though I tend to be old earth, this is not something extremely important, so I'm willing to change my mind on it[or at least say whatever ])

 

[TheMatmanReturns]

Maybe you're terminology's wrong, but I don't see how a single particle could create an entire universe of PARTICLES.

Maybe a different kind of particle or substance altogether?

Although I like your theory(even though I tend to be old earth, this is not something extremely important, so I'm willing to change my mind on it[or at least say whatever ])

Well, as a particle moves in the absense of time and light, its mass will increase at an infinite rate.

As matter increases, so does the gravitational pull of said matter. As the force of gravity approaches infinity, said force would be so strong that the rather massive particle would compress itself. As the particles core is compressed more and more, and as it feels the pressure of its own weight, BOOM You have an explosion.

That particle turns into millions of particles--millions of really, really old looking particles

Then as these particles grow, they too will increase in mass as light has yet to be created. And the cycle repeats over and over.... until God says, "Let there be light," and the stars emit their radiation, the speed of light is established, time speeds up to normal, and mass becomes conserved.

 

[JTM3]

Well, as a particle moves in the absense of time and light, its mass will increase at an infinite rate.

I dunno...maybe...

As matter increases, so does the gravitational pull of said matter. As the force of gravity approaches infinity, said force would be so strong that the rather massive particle would compress itself. As the particles core is compressed more and more, and as it feels the pressure of its own weight, BOOM You have an explosion.

OK, are we talking about a particle as we know it today...i.e., with a core of neutrons and protons, surrounded by an electron cloud, or some different kind of particle?

If it's a "particle" in the sense of an atom, then I don't see how more protons neutrons and electrons simply appear...

That particle turns into millions of particles--millions of really, really old looking particles

What makes them old looking again?

Then as these particles grow, they too will increase in mass as light has yet to be created. And the cycle repeats over and over.... until God says, "Let there be light," and the stars emit their radiation, the speed of light is established, time speeds up to normal, and mass becomes conserved.

So your saying that one particle expands till it explodes creating more particles which expand until they explode...is this more than one Big Bang then?

The "Mult-Bang" theory?
****************************************************
I have one problem with this; if this particle is formed in Genesis 1:1, how do we have stars by verse 3?

It's an interesting theory, but there's some holes that need plugging...

 

[TheMatmanReturns]

I dunno...maybe...



OK, are we talking about a particle as we know it today...i.e., with a core of neutrons and protons, surrounded by an electron cloud, or some different kind of particle?

If it's a "particle" in the sense of an atom, then I don't see how more protons neutrons and electrons simply appear...



What makes them old looking again?




So your saying that one particle expands till it explodes creating more particles which expand until they explode...is this more than one Big Bang then?

The "Mult-Bang" theory?
****************************************************
I have one problem with this; if this particle is formed in Genesis 1:1, how do we have stars by verse 3?

It's an interesting theory, but there's some holes that need plugging...

When I say "particle," I mean a small amount of matter. I don't necessarily mean an atom. As this piece of matter moves in a time-light vacuum, its mass will increase--in the same way that mass will increase now if the speed of light is approached.

As to your question about stars.... remember that there is no time between 1:1 and 1:3 because there is no light. Thus as matter explodes, grows and reexplodes in a light-time vacuum, the elements forming the stars would be created and positioned in space during the process.

As for why the particles would be "old looking," think of it like this. Even without time or light, there would be wear and tear as the matter would increase in mass and then contract as a result of its strong gravitational pull. (By analogy, if you were to gain 300 pounds and then lose it, wouldn't your skin look wrinkled? Same here.) Moreover, because this work is done in the absence of time, millions of years worth of work could be done instantaneously.

 

[JTM3]

When I say "particle," I mean a small amount of matter. I don't necessarily mean an atom. As this piece of matter moves in a time-light vacuum, its mass will increase--in the same way that mass will increase now if the speed of light is approached.

As to your question about stars.... remember that there is no time between 1:1 and 1:3 because there is no light. Thus as matter explodes, grows and reexplodes in a light-time vacuum, the elements forming the stars would be created and positioned in space during the process.

As for why the particles would be "old looking," think of it like this. Even without time or light, there would be wear and tear as the matter would increase in mass and then contract as a result of its strong gravitational pull. (By analogy, if you were to gain 300 pounds and then lose it, wouldn't your skin look wrinkled? Same here.) Moreover, because this work is done in the absence of time, millions of years worth of work could be done instantaneously.

Interesting. I like your theory.

Do you know any physics or is this just, no offense, random musing?

[Not that I'm any physics expert ]

BTW, are you suggesting that there was not one, but multiple big bangs?

As far as the Big Bang theory, I've never had a problem with it, as I've always looked at it from a wof perspective; the explosion was God's faith colliding with His Word. IMO

 

[God_Owned]

Einstein's theory of relativity teaches, in so many words, that matter, light and time are so intertwined that as an object approaches the speed of light, time will slow down for that object, and the object's mass will increase.

Let's assume that Einstein is correct.

In Genesis 1:1, God created the universe.
In Genesis 1:3, God created light.
In Genesis 1:5, God created time (i.e. day and night)

Given that there was no such thing as light when God created the universe in Genesis 1:1 (because He didn't create light until Genesis 1:3), there could have been no value for the speed of light. Right?

Assume that there was no speed of light at Creation. If a particle were to move, time would stop for that particle, and that particle's mass would increase infinitely.

This may explain how God might have created the Universe. By creating one single particle and moving it in the absense of light and time, God caused the particle's mass to increase, thus creating planets and stars and the like. Then by creating light in Genesis 1:3, God stopped the creation of matter, further allowing him to measure time in Genesis 1:5.

This would further explain how the Earth appears to be millions of years old. Even though the Earth was created in a time-light vacuum, the "wear and tear" of the creation process may have given the Earth an appearance of old-age.

Keep in mind that nowhere in Genesis 1 does it say that God created the Earth in seven days. It says that God shaped the Earth and created life on Earth in seven days. (Read the passage carefully.)

I had a spare monkey wrench laying around so I thought I'd throw it into your theory.

The Bible doesn't say God created light during the creation, rather God said, "Let there be light." Light existed before the creation of the Earth in Genesis. God was just speaking His light into his work in Genesis. God is light. What we call light would be light sold under sin, which would be a degraded form of God's light. Remember how Moses hid Himself in a cloud from Mosses and what happened to Moses when he caught but a glimpse of the intensity of God's true light?

I always thought the elemental matter in the our Universe came from the water (assuming it was salt water) which filled the Universe prior to the creation in Genesis. Salt water contains all of the elements found in nature and needed for the Genesis creation. Water minus the elementals in it could equal space (Universe). It would take a lot of sea water, in terms of volume, to contain the amount of elemental building materiel required to form a planet.

...just musing!

 

[IMajor]

Hey guys,

I must say that as I've been studying Genesis lately and looking into some recent physics discoveries, I think I might be able to throw one or two more, "monkey wrenches" into the mix.

Originally Posted by Godown
I always thought the elemental matter in the our Universe came from the water (assuming it was salt water) which filled the Universe prior to the creation in Genesis. Salt water contains all of the elements found in nature and needed for the Genesis creation. Water minus the elementals in it could equal space (Universe). It would take a lot of sea water, in terms of volume, to contain the amount of elemental building materiel required to form a planet.

First of all, if we believe the Bible that God created the world with His words, then do we have to provide Him with the "building blocks" of a universe before we believe that He could create something out of nothing? There didn't need to be sea water, paticles, nurons, or anything else for that matter before God would be able to create Ex Nihilo (out of nothing).

Given that there was no such thing as light when God created the universe in Genesis 1:1 (because He didn't create light until Genesis 1:3), there could have been no value for the speed of light. Right?

Originally Posted by TheMatmanReturns
Assume that there was no speed of light at Creation. If a particle were to move, time would stop for that particle, and that particle's mass would increase infinitely.

Now, perhaps you have an answer to this one, but I see a fundamental flaw in your entire argument from a science perspective. At the time of creation, there was the speed of light, just no light to fly that fast. See, the speed of light is just a measurement of something traveling as fast as light. Therefore, the speed of light has always existed just as 55 MPH has always existed (before there were cars).

So, just because there was no light doesn't prove that particles reacted to Einstein's formula as if the value for the speed of light was 0. Any particles that God created at whatever time He created them would react to any universal laws that have not changed since the beginning of time (like the first law of thermodynamics--matter can be neither created nor destroyed--at some point in the history of the universe, matter was created. But since then, this law has held true as far as we know...).

Therefore, I admire your close reading of the scripture and application to science to seek out a further understanding of how God created our universe, but I think that this theory missed one important distinction. Please give me any feedback you might have and, as Albert Einstein himself said, "Never lose a holy curiosity."

 

[MARK777]

Has anyone ever concidered this, my pastor taught this as the gap theory.

This was an unknown period of time.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I beleive something happened between the inital creation of the earth, like the angelic rebellion, this scripture is very fitting.

Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Jer 4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved to and fro.

Which matches the genesis 1:2 scripture, something happened that caused the earth to become formless and void, it would'nt make sense for God to create the Earth formless and void.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The bible clearly teaches there was an angelic rebellion before the creation of mankind, and some were sealed in the abyss, I beleive this may have been that action, as it says angels are made of light so I presume they cannot function in darkness, once they were sealed, Gen 1:3 follows.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And time.

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

 

[TheMatmanReturns]

Interesting. I like your theory.

Do you know any physics or is this just, no offense, random musing?

[Not that I'm any physics expert ]

BTW, are you suggesting that there was not one, but multiple big bangs?

As far as the Big Bang theory, I've never had a problem with it, as I've always looked at it from a wof perspective; the explosion was God's faith colliding with His Word. IMO

Although I am presently an attorney, I have a degree in engineering.

 

[TheMatmanReturns]

I had a spare monkey wrench laying around so I thought I'd throw it into your theory.

The Bible doesn't say God created light during the creation, rather God said, "Let there be light." Light existed before the creation of the Earth in Genesis. God was just speaking His light into his work in Genesis. God is light. What we call light would be light sold under sin, which would be a degraded form of God's light. Remember how Moses hid Himself in a cloud from Mosses and what happened to Moses when he caught but a glimpse of the intensity of God's true light?

I always thought the elemental matter in the our Universe came from the water (assuming it was salt water) which filled the Universe prior to the creation in Genesis. Salt water contains all of the elements found in nature and needed for the Genesis creation. Water minus the elementals in it could equal space (Universe). It would take a lot of sea water, in terms of volume, to contain the amount of elemental building materiel required to form a planet.

...just musing!

Your are right about God being light, but I seriously doubt that his light travels at precisely 300,000,000 meters per second. Since human beings cannot stare at God's light without dying, I would assume that His light--from a physical standpoint--is different from the light that we have grown accustomed to seeing. In other words, I don't think that His light is the same kind of light as ours.

Second, when God created the universe, there was no natural light source in the universe. As such, when God said "let there be light," he actually created the light that we now can see. And by doing so, he set the speed of light to the aforesaid 3x10^8 meters per second.

 

[TheMatmanReturns]

Now, perhaps you have an answer to this one, but I see a fundamental flaw in your entire argument from a science perspective. At the time of creation, there was the speed of light, just no light to fly that fast. See, the speed of light is just a measurement of something traveling as fast as light. Therefore, the speed of light has always existed just as 55 MPH has always existed (before there were cars).

Yeah, but the national speed limit was not set to 55 mph until after cars were invented.

Speed is a measure of distance over time. (e.g. miles per hour, or meters per second) If there is no time, then there can be no measure for speed.

Thus if light does not exist, and if time does not exist, then the "speed of light" would not exist, because there would be no such thing as "speed" or "light".

Thus without a measure for the speed of light, any motion would create infinite mass.