posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 03:28 PM
Last attempt. I don't think any other Creationist has put themselves out so much.
Genesis 1:1-10 provided the equations. I just transcribed and rearranged according to the instructions. You'll see a familiar one or two if you're
a physicist. As with other parts of the Bible it's circular maths, this time in polar coordinates. The terms "waters", "earth" and "heaven"
are arbitrary. They describe planes and areas. When you look at the diagram in the centre you'll see that the curves form a circle first, "earth"
being the central one and the "firmament" (heaven) surrounding it just like the atmosphere surrounds the planet. The light covers only a fraction
of the "planet" as in reality. The ancients either knew the Earth was round then or this is Divine inspiration.
The firmament represents Gravity. The dry land represents Mass. Mass is created from Light and Gravity according to Genesis and then Gravity and
Mass perpetuate each other until Mass equals Gravity and the Universe implodes. The Bible goes beyond what scientists can speculate at the moment.
The creation of the Universe was more like a Big Whimper according to the equations. There are no sudden jumps and the curves don't suddenly
disappear off the graph when the numbers get really big. It's all controlled and measured, as you'd expect with an Intelligence at the wheel.
You can see that the Universe is expanding in accordance with current theories. You can also see that where there is matter (mass) it is limited to a
fraction of the rest, the void. The red line is God's movements. As you can see He comes into the Universe every so often to pay a visit. That's
why He doesn't interact with us for years at a time. He's otherwise engaged. It doesn't mean He's not watching.
Using the equations provided for the Firmament, Earth and Sea which coincidentally use E=mc2 and an equation similar to that for relativistic energy
with v2 = 1, you can see that mass = God
. God therefore created the Universe. The equations can't be disproved in the same way E=mc2 can't.
If E=mc2 is valid in contemporary science it is valid in these equations. The same goes for the relativistic energy component 1/Sqrt(1-1/c2). The
other equations are therefore equally as valid - they are all connected to relativity which can't be proven.