Genesis 1 interpretation

I will start to say when i was younger i didnt believe in the Big Bang but Genesis 1 after all talks about it.
Genesis 1:1-3->The beggining of Big Bang.Talk about a high condensed liquid barionic matter (dontt know if it is H2O or not).
Genesis 1:3-5->Talks about barionic matter-radiation decoupling period(someone helps me here please)
Genesis 1:6-9->Talks about the Universe inflationary expansion.This expansion initially were made in a way that the radial density distribution decreases very fast to a short distance and then it increases(In the beggining matter are homogeneous).The total mass of matter near the center is very little compared to the further ones.
However strong force hadnt appeared yet and the further ones are not attracted to the nearest ones(though there is gravitation).
Genesis 1: 9-10->God creates strong force but only on the nearest matter.
This increased matter mass density and the subsequent gravitational force.Fusion reactions made the land appear.
Genesis 1: 11-13->God made vegetation
Genesis 1: 14-19->God creates strong force on the furthest matter and creates weak force in all the matter.Then all the celestial bodies appeared.Strong force mades planets and weak force was responsible for fission producing stars.Then the Earth started orbitating around the Sun and so on.
Thats all i wanted to say.I am sorry if i failed in some scientific concepts but i think you understand the overall.

quote:

---

am sorry if i failed in some scientific concepts but i think you understand the overall.

---

Yes, I understand quite well. I understand that another person is grasping at straws to make the holy word of God fit the evidence. What a strain it must be though, when new theories come along and God's word must be interpreted over and over again to be made consistent with the facts.[This message has been edited by Beercules, 07-15-2003]

Ok. This sounds fun.I'll buy Gen. 1:1 as the BB. And I'll buy Gen. 1:2 as the immediate aftermath and the condensation of energy to mostly-hydrogen. Verses 3-5 would be the ignition of the first stars. But that is as far it goes. The rest doesn't track.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Genesis 1:6-9->We have to assume here that Hubbles constant varies through space in that time(it doesnt happen today)
I think of Hubbles constant that it is a function of time and of space
(a metric slightly different from Robertson-Walkers) but as time grows it tends to be more constant in space.
And i believe in the beggining all the concentrated matter(I will call it Big Earth) are spinning,thats why God could define the days.
Big Earths mass was astronomicaly bigger than Earths and for conservation of angular momentum the period of rotation astronomically bigger(This solves the six day paradox).
Light would be affected by gravity moving in a circular orbit
around the Big Earth(why not?)
Of course if light fallens then Big Earth will be a black hole but God did it in a manner that light would circumvent it.
That is why God defines day and night
When God made the expansion,light was set free from the Earths gravitational force due to the astronomical change in mass.

Early on, the universe was dominated by radiation with little matter. When matter began to dominate, I believe it was in a hot, dense plasma state spread uniformly throughout space. In spite of popular misconceptions, the big bang was not an explosion of a big ball of matter into empty space, and the the universe as a whole is not rotating. So much for that.

Newborn, this is not intended as any sort of comment on your content BUT - The message this is a reply to seems to be pretty representitive of you writing style.It would make for nicer reading, if you could improve on the structure of your writing.There are probably others (mike the wiz, for one) who might also try to follow this suggestion. You know - Capitalization (sp?), punctuation, spelling, paragraph breaks, etc.Try to do the best you can.Cheers,
Adminnemooseusps: So how many spelling errors etc. did I make in this message?
No reply really called for.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-15-2003]

quote:

---

Genesis 1:6-9->We have to assume here that Hubbles constant varies through space in that time

---

Of course if we start making up stuff for which there is no evidence then we can no longer claim that the Bible tracks with science, and that is the point isn't it?

quote:

---

I think of Hubbles constant that it is a function of time and of space (a metric slightly different from Robertson-Walkers) but as time grows it tends to be more constant in space.

---

I am pretty sure this doesn't make sense. Then again, I am pretty sure that I'm not sure what you are saying.

quote:

---

And i believe in the beggining all the concentrated matter(I will call it Big Earth) are spinning,thats why God could define the days.

---

Believe what you want, but without evidence it isn't science.

quote:

---

Big Earths mass was astronomicaly bigger than Earths and for conservation of angular momentum the period of rotation astronomically bigger(This solves the six day paradox).

---

hmmm... all the mass of the universe in a planet? It would collapse under its own gravitational field.Oh, and it wasn't matter and didn't spin, to the best of our knowledge. Remember, we are trying to fit the Bible to science.How could this solve the six day problem? The 'Big Earth' if it ever existed would be long gone by the time God started making the plants and animals. Sorry, no dice.

quote:

---

Light would be affected by gravity moving in a circular orbit around the Big Earth(why not?)

---

Light would be effected by any body of significant size-- any size really. And extremely dense object will pull space-time along with them. But what is the point?

quote:

---

Of course if light fallens then Big Earth will be a black hole but God did it in a manner that light would circumvent it.

---

Sorry! Appeal to magic is not science.

quote:

---

When God made the expansion,light was set free from the Earths gravitational force due to the astronomical change in mass.

---

I am sure this makes no sense. Some friendly advice... you obviously know next to nothing about your subject. Spend some time learning about physics and cosmology.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Thank you Beercules for some enlightment.
This approach of mine was very ad-hoc.
I will try a different approach another time.
Jonh it is possible for a particle to orbitate around another without falling to it ,that is not magic.
Beercules,I remember light and matter resulted of a symmetry breaking.For the one that replyed before Jonh-Dont you know I am not English?

Yes it is possible, but when the object is massive enough the particle would have to exceed the speed of light in order to maintain its orbit.So, it looks like you need magic to have this scenario work.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

quote:

---

Jonh it is possible for a particle to orbitate around another without falling to it ,that is not magic.

---

Yes, of course, but one must consider gravity. An object falls toward the center of gravity of the orbital system. In order for it to not fall it must be moving fast enough to overcome that gravitational pull. As gravity increases, the object must move faster and faster. When gravity is great enough, the object must travel faster than the speed of light and this is not possible as far as we can tell. Basically, compmage gave you answer already.

quote:

---

For the one that replyed before Jonh-Dont you know I am not English?

---

Yes. I know you are not English. Your English needs work but it isn't all that bad. It is your understanding of science that stinks.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This is basically a variation of the long running misunderstanding that Genesis actually teaches science at all. It is, fundamentally, no different from the rather strange notion that the word translated "day" means an indeterminate long period of time, and that the order of the "days" matches the process revealed by science.Quite simply, reading Genesis as revealing scientific knowledge is an interpretation that is completely alien to the intent of the passage.Having said that, this attempt suffers the additional problem of a very poor grasp of the science that newborn is trying to read out of Genesis.Alan

Newborn,{the harsh comments in this post have been removed}[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-19-2003]

Please,close or remove this post.
The theory were made in precipitation.

All right, I'll admit my post was a bit harsh. I'll remove it. But only after you tell me what you meant by "The theory were made in precipitation." Because you really had me baffled there. Have you actually been sitting in the rain, thinking it all up???Well?[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-18-2003]

Precipitation in my country is "precipitao".
It is an adjective that means "to do something in a run"or "think little about and talk fast"
There is someone in this forum that could explain that to you because he has a member in his family that comes from my country.
Hey,i will give you a link but tell me how to show links in this forum.