No doom and gloom, my theory on creation.

Hi, i was just driving to work and this little idea popped into my head with all the flooding going on in britain, its a theory on the creation of earth. Now this is my first thread after i introduced myself yesterday so appologies if its not up to some of your standards. Lets get started,,, what if in the beginning of the earth there was less gravity being smaller in mass, and the water that was present on earth was in the air not on land.( gasious form) as the water was in the sky then this would block any sunlight, and the earth would be fairly dark. Now as the earth collected debri from flying round the solar system it gained in mass, which in turn added to the gravity. With the added gravity the water would start falling to the earth creating small lakes and oceans, bacterial life would have a place to start its path in evolution. With the water falling more and more it would open up the sky to allow the sun to peirce the clouds, 'let there be light' this would give the bacteria a little kick, which in turn would bring more complex life.(fish, trees, dinosaurs) early man would be around now, and gravity would be alot stronger hence there are no longer anu large land creatures. Now if the water that had been in the atmosfere had collected in high mountanas areas, it would reach a tipping point and barriers would break releasing the emence amount of water into the lower parts of earth, and there you have the story of the flood. The story of noah doesnt have to be true exactly but man loves a good story, especialy one with a hero saving the earth. Man living in the areas safe from the flood would witness these avents and pass on the story from father to son and so on and so on. And the rest is history. You have to be pretty open minded to entertain this idea, but i thought id just put my thoughts out there, as i need to work now and i dont want this rattling round my head all day. Please be nice with your comments as im a thread virgin. I look forward to reading your comments.

Sounds logical to me. Unfortunately, logic is antisemitic.

If you want to look into the nature of beginnings you have to start at the beginning. First, gravity is only a theory. My contemplation has lead me to consider a few different ideas. First let us consider the extremes, such as one form must be so heavy that it cannot be moved yet moves everything else. Likewise, one thing must be so light that it is moved by everything else. The two extremes of movement are unipresence (being in one place always) and omnipresence (being everywhere at once always).

Geometry is of high importance when attempting to understand the constructs of existence. Consider the circle being the most complex form of plane as it's circumference has infinite points. The dot is the simplest form of existence being a single point. So the two extremes would embody these basic forms. We see a basic representation of this when we view the Sun as a dot and the plane of a circle as the field through which the planets orbit it. At the smallest level, understand that space between two points is impossible as a representation of two dots in connection forms a line and without a line no plane can be constructed and without a plane then no three dimensional object. Obviously three dimensional objects exist. Keeping this in mind consider the outermost circumference of the circle being at a different rate of motion than the center most point.The two positions being two parts of a whole which are only separated by rate of motion. The simplest way to navigate from the center to the circumference without void is a spiral. So the rate of motion ascends and descends in this manner. You see a representation of this in the spiral form of a galaxy.

We can now assume a theory other than gravity which is logical and yet provides a provable force rather than a fantastic imagined one. The position of an object at any given point is defined by its rate of motion towards unipresence or omnipresence. It is simple to assume then that the center of a planetary object is an element which is at a point of extreme rest, however, of less signifigance that the point which it revolves around. The center of our galaxy being the elemental point at greatest rest. All points then are bound to revolve around that point in a micro or macrocosmic sense. On our planet we are restricted by the rest at the center to which all things move towards or away from.

This being said I would like to discuss an aspect of this rest and more evidence towards its properties. Consider Uranium, the densest natural elemental form we are aware of. Then consider that the radiation that seems to be an effect of uranium is the act of two extremes attempting to equalize rates of motion. Such effect is magnified when uranium is decayed to lead which occupies a lower density. This is the force behind nuclear power, something we understand to be a great source of energy. So consider that the center of our planet would occupy a greater state of density than uranium and effect a similar force on its surroundings. The center of our sun being an even greater form that the center of our planet, or at least a larger amount of the same substance, resulting in it's influence on our planet and all other planets around it.

These things being pointed out, consider the answers to your questions under these new concepts as they are nearer your beginnings. Not even Sir Isaac Newton meant what people understood of his ideas. The principle of a magnetic wave of force holding you to the planet is rediculous. It is absolutely undetectable for a reason.

I personaly beleive gravity is a push rather than a pull towards the objects, i just put gravity as a standard. The theories of gravity is a deep hole indeed, i was just just looking for comments on the idea as a whole. But thanks for your input, it certanly is giving me food for though while im badgering away at work.

reply to post by Lompyt


I was actually reading Genesis the other day and I had the thought to try and formulate what we know today and working it in to Genesis's account of creation. It was a short lived thought, however, mostly due to my lack of knowledge in scientific fields.

After perusing your post, it seems like you have a good idea in your hands. I hope you really work it out because you may have something brilliant.

Just a friendly reminder because you mentioned it was one of your first threads:

Break the sentences up and space them out. This avoidance of clutter would help the reader greatly.

Welcome to ATS. If someone offers you kool-aid, throw it out!

reply to post by DelayedChristmas


Thank you, il take your tips on board. And il definatly try and delve a bit deeper into this subject over the chrimbo holidays, maybe even put in some links to show my research. Thanks for your comments.