>From: "Don Perrett" <don.perrett@verizon.net>
> Perhaps someone might know. I have never heard recently nor do I recall
> learning the purported cause of the Big Bang. Many theories are out there
> though. I like others believe Gen 1:1-2 to describe before the big bang and
> the "Let there be light" as the big bang. Here's a thought. God hovering
> over the waters is the force of God which binds the singularity and keeps it
> from expanding (pressure). At the moment when God says let there be light,
> he releases his hold on the singularity and the surrounding vacuum of space,
> or possibly gravitational force (although most say this did not exist prior,
> but perhaps not in the singularity) pulls the universe outward. That of
> course would explain the fact that the universe expands but not like an
> explosion. Its dynamic is different. Proximity to a vacuum source or
> gravitational force would cause things closer to the outer area of the
> envelope/balloon to move faster than those further inside the balloon.
> Without God's presence over the balloon we expand. This would also lead to
> the conclusion that some come to when saying that God is not actively
> involved in the Universe, but of course may intervene from time to time. God
> essentially left the universe. You might say he was here for the
> construction phase and now he's of course in day 7 kicking back and watching
> us make fools of ourselves with ideas like this. Not to say that he's
> sadistic mind you. Anyway, what's your take on this.?
You have proposed a personal theory that entangles biblical, theological and
scientific concerns. It is a highly conjectural theory that cannot be
evaluated scientifically. Phenomena relevant to some of the events/processes
you propose are dealt with in a remarkably thorough manner by persons who
have the mathematical competence both to formulate meaningful hypotheses and
to test them by comparison to relevant empirical data. It is highly unlikely
that an amateur could fruitfully participate in such an enterprise.
Furthermore, your approach assumes that there must be some form of concord
(agreement on matters of detail) between the biblical text, written in the
conceptual vocabulary of the Ancient Near East, and modern scientific
theorizing about the early universe. I judge that to be highly improbable.
These comments apply equally to the rest of your conjecturing below.
>
> Another thought. In a singularity matter is of course destroyed. Time stops
> but gravity still surrounds it.
> My thought: Gravity does not exist in the singularity due to the matter
> drawn in which is destroyed. It exists separate but works in tandem. At some
> point the gravitational hold is released and the singularity expands. Since
> we know that matter develops as a natural part of the cooling down process,
> perhaps it is the introduction of the one other things that has no
> explanation for being. That is TIME. Since God exists without time, he is
> the force binding it. Then when he introduces time into the equation, we
> begin to expand and shall we say be created. Without this time, we would not
> exist physically. Physical things have shape and distance, but without time
> energy has no physical shape. So time is the one none physical
> element/force. It does not effect anything directly. So why does it exist
> and for what purpose? I would conclude that this is the catalyst for the
> universe. Without it nothing would exist physically. I would further
> conclude, that God is the energy that binds and surrounds us, but his
> introduction of time is what made us. Essentially he did not have to make
> each and every thing in the universe, but rather he only had to create time.
> The rest happened as its result. To further express this, we also theorize
> that the universe is infinite in size. I would say that it is not physically
> infinite. Since time does not exist outside of the universe it appears
> infinite to us, and is of course with respect to time. This is God's realm,
> where time does not exist.
>
> Scientists are also debating whether there is sufficient mass to cause the
> collapse of the universe. Some point to black matter. If there is an unseen
> force (absence of God) outside the universe, and God returns then would his
> existence then cause the compression of the universe. As in Revelation, "the
> stars roll up like a scroll". I wish I were a mathematician. I would love to
> be able to do some serious calculations. The question would be, just as we
> can only see back 12 billion years, if the universe were already beginning
> to compress how long would it take for us to see this effect. Due to the
> delay of light, it may well be already happening but we may not see it for
> up to some billion years. And due to acceleration, by the time we do begin
> to see the furthest stars coming in instead of out, our time would nearly be
> up. It may well be that God will take time away and the whole thing will be
> collapsed back together. And unlike creation which may take, relative to
> time, billions of years, it would only take a second to undue it if time
> were removed.
Scientific cosmology is best done by those persons trained to do so.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 20:12:16 EDT