Valerie's interpretation of Genesis 1

It seems there actually is quite a bit more to the word than you’re conveying here.

Notice it also relates to Genesis 1 “deep” too.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/tehomot_8415.htm

I also wish you would address the points I raised. What actually is the problem with my interpretation? You said you had a similar idea once.

Well, with my interpretation of Genesis 1 you have quark-gluon plasma/ primoradial waters created, then primordial light/aether: all the leptons, the rest of the bosons (inflation). At the beginning of Day 2 evening was probably when what I’ll call the “aether” was separated so that there could be darkness at the beginning of that day. So Cosmic Dark Ages. Higgs probably on Day 2 after God separated the quark-gluon plasma that made earth from what made up the rest of the heavens and stretching them out (expansion of the rest of the universe). At this time the atmosphere of earth and the Milky Way Galaxy was likely formed as well.

Then on Day 3, God made the earth and plants in a form we’re more familiar with but much different because plate tectonics, etc only came into being after the flood.

On Day 4, the sun, stars and moon were created and so the rest of the Milky Way was filled in along with plasma in the rest of the universe possibly being able to form structures on its own: the cosmic sea. But of course probably Black Holes had to be specially created since I think they are probably have an extra dimension. And I think there’s possibly a hidden extra dimension since the aether would no longer exist and now we have photons, as well as electons creating electricity separately. But since they can be changed into each other, something’s going on there. Anyway, Day 4 was probably when the CMB was created when the extra dimension was hidden and we have the leftover light.

So the CMB and the Cosmic Dark Ages are not in the right order. Also if negative energy dark matter or some other theory is true, I don’t think the universe has to be expanding. I think the Bible uses stretches out in a past tense. Jamie Farnes postulated that new particles could be added to deal with the expanding universe. But if it isn’t expanding, there’s no need to postulate that.

Lol, this all makes sense in my head, but I need to go get a Ph.D. in physics to understand it. Some other creationist scientist will have to roll with it. Oh, if I understood it, I think I’d also have a good theory of everything. :joy:

The ratio of elements is predicted by the CMB?

Interesting statement. I kind of like what that may imply.

(Some aside advice. Do some studying of the CMB and redshift. Those are the hardest issues to overcome in YEC models.)

1 Like

I think the CMB is just a mirror image of the quark-gluon plasma in the second heavens just as God created the stars and took the aether away. But yeah, I really don’t understand what it is. I have a hard time picturing how it’s created. I want to study it more, but I felt like I had enough of an interpretation that fit with the Bible and science that I let it go for a while. :slight_smile:

I am willing to consider your thoughts here. As always, they sound interesting. This is your thread so feel free to input more of this mirror image and second heaven. Details would be pretty important.

Did you miss this post where I refer to the Bible passages that use “heaven of heaven” or the second heaven? Biblical Cosmography -> Primordial Waters = Fluid Dark Matter?

Well, @swamidass shoot, if I could award Nobel prizes for science and theology, I’d certainly pick this theory as I was just about to drop this idea - emergent (that it existed first in creation) and virtual (I’m beginning to think virtual particles may just come a bubble of space with different dimensions than ours).

“Emergent” will have a specific meaning to a cosmologist, namely, from a small, hot, dense big bang. The CMB must be pervasive and it must be [mostly] uniform across all spaces.

What was your specific method to accomplish this?

[I jumped to the CMB from your emergent particle. Your emergent particle might work ok, but I am much more concerned with the CMB in your ideas.]

The CMB would be pervasive and uniform because it would be what was created on Day 1 that filled the universe. God only separated this on Day 2 to make the second heaven out of it. It would remain uniform.

I cannot take that away from you simply because of the nature of the discussion and that you have included God who is pervasive, and naturally, would be pervasive in his creating domain. Too, I think I saw a hint that you appealed to 1. a reflective property regarding the CMB and 2. some kind of “clearing away”. Those would be important concepts to keep when positing a “residual” temperature we find today in space.

Earth’s atmosphere is made of mostly nitrogen and oxygen. Both of those need to be made in supernovae. You are going to need time for large stars to form, forge those heavier elements, go supernova, and the coalesce into a new solar system.

Next, the correlation between distance and redshift is consistent with billions of years of expansion. You will need to fit that into your model. If there was expansion greater than the speed of light then we wouldn’t be able to see distant galaxies.

You will need stars before the Earth in order to produce the heavier elements.

Where is the evidence to back this?

They are in the right order. Negative energy is what is causing the expansion of the universe, and dark matter has nothing to do with the expansion.

If I understand it correctly, the ratio of elements is predicted by what we would expect from a hot plasma that cools to the point that atoms form.

What experiments could we do to differentiate a CMB caused by the Big Bang and a CMB created by your mechanism?

Actually the ability to see distant galaxies is not a problem depending on the initial conditions and the line element chosen. However, since she is wanting the creation to commence at the macro level, a horizon problem looms in her model. To date, I have not figured out how to overcome this in other YEC models (which is why I always opt for a small, hot, dense beginning). So yes, this could be a problem. Not sure yet if it is insurmountable, however.

Not required in a “macro” creation.

True, the negative energy is attributed to dark energy, not matter. But this may just be a simple misunderstanding in her model.

In positing a hot plasma model of this size, then a rapid cooling, there could potentially be a problem.

No need. You would not want a detectable difference between the two mechanisms.

It’s a matter of parsimony. If we have a natural process that can explain the observations then there is no need for a supernatural process that exactly mimics the natural process.

Further reading for @thoughtful’s benefit:

The standard cosmological model predicts the ratio of elements and isotopes in the early universe to a high degree of accuracy (confirmed by e.g. measurements of the spectral lines of very distant stars, with the slight hitch that the number it gives for the trace amount of lithium seems to be wrong - though by less than an order of magnitude).

Also:

If you don’t understand it yet (because you need to Ph.D. to do so) then it doesn’t actually make sense in your head. It’s one thing to play around with ideas for fun - I do so myself - but it’s quite another to come up with a theory that actually works in practice and explains the data as well as existing theories. Don’t get ahead of yourself.

3 Likes

You presuppose “natural”, but that is exactly what the product of the creation of God is - natural. Natural does not “mimic” natural.

Uh…this is completely different model where Earth is not made from stars. :slight_smile: God made the atmosphere. :wink:

Negative energy does not require faster than speed of light travel because the physics enables it.

Again, it’s a different model.

It’s a testable prediction.

I think God would have expanded the universe, and then would’ve needed to make dark matter into negative energy in order to keep the universe stable.

That sounds familiar, and I think that’s predicted by the CMB. Someone can correct me.

OK. I don’t think my model is different enough for that to matter.

It is just for fun. Though I think there’s enough there maybe for a physicist to take something from it. I just wanted to understand what the first few days of Genesis meant.

I don’t presuppose anything. I follow the evidence. The evidence is consistent with the Big Bang theory.

Are you saying that the Big Bang occurred as described by science?

So where is the evidence for this process?

You still have galaxies billions of light years away, so it takes billions of years for that light to reach us.

Why does your model predict a CMB? What temperature and power spectrum does it predict, and why?

Where is the evidence that God expanded the universe?

1 Like