The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube


From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Solar system orbital track.jpg

Gravity is a force which pulls together objects with mass. The modern gravitational theory was first proposed by Sir Isaac Newton in 1687. As one of the four natural fundamental forces, gravity is responsible for many of the universe's incredible qualities. It deals with general relativity, black holes, white holes, changes in tide, the relationship between space and time, and wavelengths of light. Although it may not be a major part of many topics, gravity plays a minor role in many of them to some degree. For example the curvature of space and the orbiting of the planets around the sun are all due to the consistency gravity has within the universe. When God created the universe he set forth ordinances for both the heavens and the earth to abide by, and they have remained consistent as seen through many experimentations and in every day life.

A Fundamental Force

The law of gravity is one of the four natural forces of the universe including the other three natural forces electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force. It is solely dependent upon the the mass and distance between two objects. As the distance between two objects increases the gravitational force between them decreases. On the otherhand, the larger the mass of two objects the greater the force is between them. Each factor is dependent on the other to calculate the actual force of gravity itself. Even though the force may decrease there will never be a time when there is absolutely no force present; it will always have at least a little. This force is unique compared to the other fundamental forces because while it is a long-range force, it is also attractive, and never cancels out. Gravity is responsible for attracting everything within the universe to one another. It is an unclear forces, but many have tried to explain it through gravitons (invisible particles), cosmic strings, and gravity waves. This force cannot be switched off at any moment; even attempts in an anti-gravity chamber have yet to be successful. Although none of these experiments have come to any proven conclusions, it goes to show how unique and yet principled gravity must have been created. [1]

Force name Relative strength Responsible for
Strong 1 Stability of the atomic nucleus.
Electromagnetic 10-2 Atomic, molecular bonding.
Weak 10-6 Radioactive decay processes.
Gravity 10-43 Stability of space objects.

On a more personal level, gravity is the reason why people have body weight. Weight is the earth's gravitational hold on a body or object near its surface. In order to find the force, or weight, gravity has on an object, one must calculate the mass of the larger object, the mass of the smaller object, and the distance between them. The distance between the two subjects is measured from each of their geometrical centers. To calculate the gravitational force of a planet like the Earth, it would be measured from its core because of their spherical shape. In order to complete the gravitational equation one must also have a gravitational constant which is 6.673×10-11 N m2 kg-2. Each factor within the gravitational equation is pertinent in finding the true force of gravity. On earth someone with a heavier mass will have a stronger force of gravity acting on them than someone with a smaller mass. Within the calculations the larger the mass of the first object, the stronger the gravitational attraction will be. For example an object on Jupiter would be heavier than the same object on Earth. Also if the second object is smaller or larger, it will also determine a smaller or larger force. The heavier the object the stronger the force. The distance between the two objects is also key. For example if someone were standing on dry land they would feel heavier than if they were flying at a higher altitude. As the distance between the objects increase, the force decreases. [2]

Pairs of Objects Gravity force (kg at sea level)
You and a magazine 4.5-10(10-10 lbs)
You and the moon .00045
Two adjacent locomotives .0022
You and the earth (at sea level) your weight
Moon and Earth 1.8 x 1019
Earth and Sun 3.6 x 1021



Isaac Newton is known today as one of the most prominent names within the scientific community. Throughout his life he centered his studies and research on his strong belief in God and the scriptures. Growing up and into his adult life he strove to become a minister. Even after he decided to forego his ordination because of political discrepancies, he still continued his ardent study of the word of God. [3]

Our most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. -Isaac Newton [1]

During the mid to late 1600's of Newton's time, the world was still learning through the studies of the ancient Greeks. The new findings that were presented were not taken into serious consideration due to the overall state of hesitancy within the field. As Newton became more engaged within the sciences, he thought that only scientific ideas that could be proven by testing could be considered true and useful. He was a firm believer in the experimental method of science. After graduating from Trinity College at Cambridge University, in 1665, he continued his study of many different topics such as the binomial theorem, light, telescopes, calculus, and theology. It was during his time away from the university that he supposedly came up with the concept of gravity through an apple he saw fall from a tree. This story of the origin of his first idea of gravity is and has been strongly debated on its actual merit. Despite the strong belief in superstitions during his times, Newton's faith in a creator led him to postulate that the laws of both heaven and earth should have great similarities due to their same creator. [3]

I do not know what I may seem to the world, but as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me. -Isaac Newton [1]

After some time away from the subject, Newton once again picked up on his hypothesis of gravity, in 1684. Within the next several years he would come to develop the theory of universal gravitation. Along with the law of gravity he also developed three laws of motion. Because he believed in proving theories through testing and experimentation, he was able to solidify his findings by using direct mathematical equations. For the law of gravity he incorporated the inverse square law in order to prove his findings. Not only did his research help build upon the foundations of science, but it proved again how two vastly different things such as the earth and the heavens are still bound by the same laws because of God.[3]

In response to his results he found much opposition from his fellow scientists. They, along with his rival Robert Hooke, were highly skeptical about his findings. One of the main issues of Newton's theory was not being able to incorporate it with German astronomer Johannes Kepler's study of elliptical orbits. In the end the other scientists failed to prove anything and thus Newton would finally be recognized for his significant breakthrough. With the help of his good friend Edmond Halley, he was soon able to publish his three-part book Principia Mathematical in 1687. But his success was not without its set-backs. Throughout his career he faced great trials and oppositions from not only his fellow colleagues, but the church and state as well. By 1690, his health had greatly deteriorated due to the stress and work overload he carried with him. After that he retired back into his devout study of the word of God. [3]

General Relativity

Main Article: General relativity
Two-dimensional visualisation of space-time distortion. The presence of matter bends spacetime, this bending being interpreted as gravity.

General relativity is the portion of physics which deals with high speeds and great quantities of mass or energy. The relativity theory has been constructed and derived by several scientists, but one of the most famous was Albert Einstein. The relativity theory has always been a skeptical topic for many physicists. Einstein never received a Nobel for the theory because of its many still-unexplained enigmas. Creation scientists likewise approach it with caution, but Russ Humphreys shows how the relativity theory actually helps and promotes a creation-based cosmology. Jason Lisle offer a simple rebuttal that if Humphreys is correct we would also see enormous blue-shifting across the sky. Lisle's Anisotropic Synchrony Convention synthesizes the problem while offering Einstein a cautious and partial nod. Einstein published two theories in 1905 and 1916. The first was his special relativity theory which deals with speeds going as fast as the speed of light. The second was his general theory of relativity which deals with accelerated motions at extremely high speeds. [4]

A total solar eclipse in 1919 was used to prove Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Einstein's theory of general relativity was further fortified in 1919 during the solar eclipse. As the light passed close to the large mass the light would deflect due to the gravitational force exerted.[4] It is because of the bending of space that the stars that are normally on the edge of the sun seem to appear closer to the sun during an eclipse. This first true test of general relativity showed scientists their first real look at stars near the edge of the sun. Because of the sun's powerful light rays, these stars' brightness is usually overpowered by the sun's and thus is undetectable at any other time. The information gathered from Einstein's research proved true as the stars appeared out of place just like he had so precisely predicted. [5] Since this experiment several others have been conducted during eclipses, all of which come up with approximately the same results.[4]

Einstein showed Newtonian mechanics to be an incomplete description of gravitational effects but also introduced a wide range of inexplicable anomalies, in many ways raising more questions than answers. The Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) initially helped to confirm Einstein's special relativity. Missing from the Michelson-Morley experiment's result however, is the consideration that, according to Einstein, the measurement bars are in motion and will therefore shrink longitudinally by the very amount that will cause the interferometer to give false results. When all of Einstein's assertions are considered, it is obvious that many of them literally cannot be proven because they contradict other Einsteinian assertions. For example, Einstein's stipulation that the speed of light is constant, is challenged by the research into the Black Hole, where gravity is so strong that light cannot reach escape velocity. Since gravity can only operate in such a manner between bodies with mass, this suggests that photons have mass. Physicists however, will deny that photons have mass because of its implications - Einstein speculated that for particles-with-mass moving at the speed of light, time stands still. The particle departs and arrives simultaneously with no expiration of time. If this is true, then photons-with-mass also depart-and-arrive simultaneously, negating the notion that light has a measurable "speed" and likewise defunct are the concepts of "light year" and long-ages in the Cosmos. Einstein also asserted that time is relative. If we look at the equation for "speed=distance/time" with the value for time as relative, then speed is also relative and light cannot have a constant speed. Einstein understood this paradox, so rather than proving that light speed is constant, he simply stipulated it to simplify his mathematics. The one-way speed of light (from an emitting source) has never been measured. Any means used to measure it requires electronic equipment that is likewise constrained by the speed we are trying to measure, plus the lack of ability to synchronize clocks at long distances (also according to Einstein). The only way to truly measure the speed of light is to have equipment that can operate faster than the speed of light, just as runners at a race track are measured by devices that operate faster than they can run.

Can objects with mass move at the speed of light? Many physicists say no.[4]. However, the black hole suggests that photons, moving at the speed of light, also have mass or the black hole would have no effect on light and the black hole would not be black after all. Quantum entanglement raises many questions, eliciting physicists to claim that between every particle is a wormhole allowing them to share behavior simultaneously across long distances[6]. Such "punts into the unknown" are indicative of a denial that Einstein's stipulation is false and the constant-speed-of-light is both a physical and mathematical red-herring.

General relativity helps to explain how gravity works and how it affects the planetary orbits. In order to find the force of gravity between the Sun and the Earth, much information is needed such as the distance, direction, and mass of the sun. General relativity posits that information can travel through space as waves. There are a total of four dimensions, three consisting of space and one of time. Space itself is found to be curved due to large amounts of either matter or energy. Thus the greater the matter or energy, the greater the curvature. It is through this concept that objects in space move on geodesics (straight paths). If an object were to travel on a flat space-time then the object would appear to travel in a straight line or appear to simply stand still. On the other hand if an object were to travel on a curved space-time then the object would appear to move at an accelerated pace. The Earth moves on the latter of the two space-time routes. The Sun's excessive mass causes the curvature that the earth's geodesic follows. Because of the curvature from the Sun the Earth's orbit appears to be accelerated. [4]

Law of Universal Gravitation

Newton's law of gravitational attraction is described by the following equation. F=G{\frac  {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}

F refers to the force gravity has on the object. The M1 refers to the object of mass and the M2 refers to the other object of mass. The r refers to the distance between the two opposing objects. The factor G refers to the parameter which remains the constant in the equation. Because G is the constant and is responsible for computing most of the gravities actual force, the fact that it is generally a small number shows that gravity itself does not hold as great of a force as other such natural forces. Out of the four fundamental forces, gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force, gravity is the weakest of them all. Each law can be described by mathematical equations and because of this, many of them are mutually supportive. The universe has always followed the laws of nature and it is only by a law-giver that the universe has laws to abide by. [7]


Newton found that his theory resulted in the collapsing of the earth. In order for his theory to be correct he would have to produce a static universe. This would provide that the universe would neither contract nor expand. Although he believed that the size of the universe was infinite, further research proved otherwise. In later years during Einstein's research, he found that even with an infinite universe, it would still collapse due to the relativity theory. Einstein showed that the only way for there to be a true static universe, a constant would have to take effect so that the universe would neither expand or contract. For this he posited an anti-gravity force, which is represented by the Greek letter lambda Λ. While it acts as a self-repulsion in space, it is otherwise a relatively weak force. Essentially its self-repulsion acts in opposition to gravity as to cancel its effects. As long as Λ is adjusted correctly the universe would remain static. But this idea did not last long, even with Einstein himself, because the mathematical equations used were based off of initial conditions that could not otherwise be determined at that point in time and even now without extensive research. Einstein originally used equations based on calculus-based mathematics. The data work he produced suggested that Λ is zero. As other scientists critiqued his work they resulted in determining that the differential equations contained a unknown constant. Although during his time Einstein's work seemed more abstract, in modern times it is not seen as so obscure.[4]

Biblical References

"He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17

This verse explains how nothing existed before God and by his creation and his power does everything within this universe exist. He has created the forces and natural ordinances of the heavens and earth to abide by. By his power alone do 'all things hold together.' God provided the world with gravity to hold everything in its place. Whether it be planets suspended within the galaxies in space or a car driving along the streets, this force keeps everything within the world in its place. [1]

"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Hebrews 1:3

God sustains and maintains everything within the universe. This shows that not only did he create the universe, but he continues to provide for it and keep it. He guides every motion, every occurrence, every natural disaster, every constant sunrise. Despite gravity's mysterious nature that has alluded man's research, God is still in control of it and understands it more than man ever could. Just as gravity is constantly in effect to some degree throughout the universe, so is God constantly in control. People can rely on an egg to crack on the ground when dropped just as they can rely on God in any situation. It is by his will that everything exists and functions the way it does and life will continue on in his care until the day he chooses to alter it.[1]

"This is what the LORD says: 'If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth...'" Jeremiah 33:25

God established 'fixed laws' that the entire universe is bound to. It is seen in everyday life by the natural, logical, simple, and mathematical way the universe works. The Lord placed the heavens and earth under these ordinances to create beauty and wonder at the consistency and uncomplicated nature of his creation. All the stars and planets of his creation are bound to him just as his people are bound to him. [7]

Gravity and the Moon

An image contrasting the earth and its moon and yet they both rely on each other for their present day survival.

The gravitational force between the earth and its moon is 30,000 trillion tons. Depending on which side of the planet is facing the moon at the time determines the size of the force projected between the two objects. For example the side of the earth facing(closest to) the moon will have a larger force exerted rather than the opposite side of the planet away from the moon. Because the moon obviously does not constantly face one particular side of the planet at all times, the gravitational pull of the moon causes both land and sea surfaces to react. The most notable reactions are the changes in the tides of the sea. This same gravitational force is also responsible for the continuous motion of the moon which allows it to constantly rotate. The moon has been found to spin in the opposite direction from the earth. [8]

Because the amount of gravitational force is determined by both the distance between and the masses of each object involved, the effects that gravity has on something is also dependent upon the same factors. By using proven mathematical equations it is postulated that according to evolutionist beliefs the moon has a maximum life of 1.4 billions years old. This find was studied based off of the current finding that the distance between the earth and moon is and has been increasing approximately 4 cm per year. By incorporating several factors into the calculations 1.4 billion years ago the moon would have been in direct contact with the earth's surface. This result cannot be explained by an evolutionary standpoint. Before the Moon ever came that close, it would cross the Roche Limit[9] and be completely disrupted. As the Moon influences the tides and crustal movement, such proximity would have caused mile-high tides, crustal disruption and upheaval[10]. The Earth's crust has no evidence of such activity. According to Biblical reasoning the moon would only have a current age of around 10,000 years old. The Bible does not say anything about the earth and moon ever coming in contact with one another. The moon would have been created at around the same distance away from the earth as it sits today. According to creationist beliefs the total recession of the moon throughout its life would only sum up to less than 1 kilometer. The calculation and its explanation can be found through this link at the bottom of the page. [8] Some authors have leveraged this relationship to suggest that the Global Flood also had a powerful influence on the Moon, drawing it fractionally closer to the Earth. The Moon currently requires slightly less than 30 days to revolve around the Earth but the book of Genesis (chaps 7 & 8) describe months as exactly thirty days long. The next section (gravitational increase after the Flood) may explain this further.

Just as the earth's gravitational pull causes the moon to rotate, it also causes the moon to revolve around earth. The moon orbits around the earth falling towards it at an approximated 1 millimeter curve away from traveling in a straight line per second. The moon orbits planet earth just like the planets of the solar system orbit around the sun.[1]

Is Gravity an Intrinsic or Derived Force?

Note that the use of the word "force," when referring to gravity itself, does not mean force in the mathematical sense (mass times distance per unit of time squared). The "force due to gravity" is technically a mathematical force, however. The reason Gravity is not really a force is because its strength (the force due to it) increases depending on the distance between two objects (and their masses, should they change). The force, and therefore the acceleration, exerted on the moon by the earth is larger the closer the two objects are. That's why the moon would have -theoretically- been touching the earth 1.4 billion years ago, even though a linear calculation of the distancing rate results in the moon being 60,000 km closer 1.4 bya (the moon's orbit is c. 400,000 km in radius). As the moon moves closer, going back in time, it would move towards the earth faster, so the linear calculation is not correct--it is useful to point this out to evolutionists who try to refute the claim in the section above by simplistic linear multiplication.

Base units in science are such things as time (seconds), mass (kilograms), length (meters), etc, which don't depend on other units or properties. One cannot know the length of something until it is measured. However, speed (a derived unit--length per unit time) can be derived if one knows the distance traveled and the duration (time) during which this took place. Speed is not a property that can be directly measured--it must be derived from measurements of time and distance.

This may be quite simplistic, but it is similar to the concept in question. The question is: is gravity an intrinsic property of the universe (like a base unit, not depending on something else), or is it derived from the interactions of other forces (does it depend on other measurements)?

Scientists have so far been unable to determine if a particle exists that exerts gravity, or if the effects of gravity are simply the results of interactions between masses over distances.

A more thorough treatment of this topic perhaps deserves a separate page to have ample discussion devoted to it, but here is a recent thought-provoking article from ICR.

Gravity and Electrostatics/Electrodynamics

Recent research in electrostatics[11]particle physics and space-based telescopes have further synthesized the correlation between gravity and the forces associated with electrical properties of matter[12][13]. Electrodynamics and gravity are identical in behavior, but the electrodynamic force is trillions of times stronger than gravity. A simple experiment demonstrates this, by picking up an object with a magnet. The magnet is able to effortlessly overcome the significant difference in mass between itself and the Earth, snatching the object in the opposite direction of Earth's gravitational force.

Others have noted the very precise tuning of gravity[14] directly related to the electrodynamic force. Also noting that if the electrodynamic force was out-of-tune in how it expresses gravity, the tiniest percentage off-kilter would have radical gravitational implications, affecting how small or large objects (such as stars, or even living things) could grow. This razor-thin margin of error that keeps the entire cosmos in balance is part of a larger argument called the Anthropic Principle[15] which is a subject of heated debate between atheists and theologians alike.

Science-at-large has struggled to describe the mechanics of gravity. For example, a black hole supposedly has so much gravitational attraction that not even the speed of light can reach escape velocity. Yet gravity escapes[16], so is gravity faster than light? Scientists freely admit they don't understand gravity all that well[17]

Additionally, what is "mass" compared to "matter" have textbook answers that are superficial when it comes to describing the actual mechanics of the gravitational force. Gravity holds objects on the ground. This requires significant power, but it never seems to run out or wind down. Is it being fed by another source or is this a side effect of a much larger force such as electrostatic interactions?

Both gravity and inertia[18] seem to be joined at the hip with electrostatics, eliciting many scientists and researchers to revisit their relationship[19].

This not only has implications in understanding gravity but also in understanding the cosmos and the relationships between stars and planets[20]. If gravity is merely an expression of (or a derived force from) electrodynamics, we should see scalable effects in the heavens. Gigantic streams of electrically-charged plasma are witnessed in deep space.

The "horizon" problem is where galaxies seem to have the same energy levels but are many millions of light-years apart. Their energy levels could not have equalized with each in such a short period of time (e.g. via exchange of energy). If the energy levels are being traded through large-scale streams of energy, then they are both being fed by a common source rather than being standalone islands of stars. In addition, stars are mapped as though they are pearls-on-a-string, where the string is simply a constant flow of charged particles. This "constant flow" is significant in how it explains gravity, that gravity and its effects are not the driving force of the cosmos, but are side-effects of the electrodynamic force.

For example, a baker delivers a truckload of donuts to his customers each morning, but invariably has several cases leftover. He pulls over to a common location and hands out the donuts for free. Any onlooker would imagine that the donuts were coming from the baker personally. If we dig deeper, we find that the donuts are coming from a much larger scale operation and our experience is simply on the end of a long chain of events.

Was Earth Gravity Always the Same?

Many discoveries out of the ancient world have raised a great deal of questions about gravity. While one may marvel at the 15-ton blocks shaped into sculptures at Coral Castle[21] by a small person using seemingly anti-gravity technology, he was using simple leverage and pivot approaches to move the stones. Many ancient stone structures were built using such simple machines (block-and-tackle, levers, pivots, etc). Many others however, defy common understanding.

The 1000-ton megaliths at Baalbak, Lebanon[22] are renown for their simplicity and size, yet no known technology could have moved them from their original quarry location to their place in the Temple of Jupiter, where they are so well-aligned that a knife blade cannot fit in their seams. Their structure predates the Roman culture by several thousand years and the Romans have no records of ever having laid these stones. The stonework over these megaliths are an entirely different style. The megaliths are not the foundation stones, but sit atop another stone structure of much smaller stones. These remain a mystery even today.

For the megalithic structures of the past[23] the vast majority are "prehistoric" or very-early civilizations. This has led to radical speculations of ancient astronauts and alien lore surrounding their construction. Even the Great Sphinx is considered to pre-date the Egyptian culture, primarily because of the deep erosion marks in its enclosure that were clearly caused by heavy rainfall. The area near the Spinx has not been subject to significant rainfall since before the beginning of Egyptian culture[24].

Fossils of marine creatures abound around the Spinx and in the area, evidence that the entire land mass was once inundated with ocean water[25]. These findings change the understanding of ancient peoples but also change the understanding of the resources available to them. Current speculation about the stone saws used for cutting stones for the Pyramids[26] reveal they used various types of saws including large, circular ones like a common table-saw or lathe[27]. This suggests that the builders regarded such activities as practical, when using stones that are today highly impractical. A hallmark of the ancient world is that they stayed well-within the margins of practicality even when building in large-scale. In our time, 2.5-to-15 ton blocks are highly impractical no matter what the technology.

Yet another theory is that the pyramid stones were not carved from the earth but were cast like concrete using softer limestone that is abundant in the area. Several compelling evidences[28] support this theory, including the fact that the pyramid stones are filled with parts of fossilized marine creatures. The fossils are not stratified in the rock, as expected by a deposition process. They are rather in disarray and homogenous, as if artificially mixed. Also the silicates in the stones are amorphous (not crystallized) as is found in the crystallization of natural stone. Other elements indicate a much faster cementing process, such as air bubbles, organic fibers, teeth, bone, and foreign materials never found in natural limestone. That the majority of pyramid stones are twenty-percent less dense than the hard limestone in nearby quarries, contain generous amounts of natron (salt is a key ingredient in cementing limestone), and they exhibit higher density on the lower half of the stone with a nearly porous upper half, are all telltale signatures of man-made stones. Many Egyptologists fully accept the cast-not-carved theory while others reject it in favor of tales that seem impossible if not ridiculous.

A clear objection to a lower gravitational attraction is that the atmosphere would likely be much thinner. Yet we know from other artifacts such as giant insects [29] and pterosaurs[30] that the early atmosphere had to be higher barometric pressure in order to support their flight.

Note than this dovetails with Genesis 2 which tells us that there was no rain on the earth (rainfall happens in low-pressure) but the ground was covered with a mist on the whole earth. This also dovetails with the account of Noah (Genesis 9:20-21) where he drinks the wine, becomes drunk and passes out. These are classic symptoms of alcohol overdose (lightheaded, overheated, loss of consciousness)[31].

In short, more evidence abounds for higher barometric pressure in early-Earth history. Apart from gravity, is there another means through which atmospheric "weight" would be higher? Perhaps if there were actually "more atmosphere" than today, or as some creationists have noted, an abundance of water in the upper atmosphere providing additional pressure on the air molecules below. Whether this is a fully-loaded "vapor canopy" or simply additional atmospheric water, the overall quantity does not have to be significant to increase the air pressure to the expected levels. In fact, the very nature of the hydrologic cycle "as described" in the Scriptural account requires there to be higher barometric pressure but if this means significantly higher gravity, why did things grow so large so quickly and easily?

If Earth-gravity was somewhat weaker at some point in the past, this would mean, according to the electrostatic-based musings of theoreticians, that the overall electrical charge of the Earth would have been lesser than today. If gravity is merely an expression of charge, then changes in the charge would affect the gravitational force.

This seems anathema to the common understanding of gravity being associated with the static "mass" of the attracting objects. But when scientists peel back the next layer to discover the meaning of "mass" it is apparent that this quantity is also elusive because its measurement is related to gravity. In short, there's no independent way to unhook mass from gravity if these are the only two quantities under examination. Introduce the electrodynamic force and gravity becomes an effect, so where does this leave the measurement of "mass"? Is "mass" then also related to the electrodynamic force? In short, is mass (related to gravity) merely a derived effect of electrodynamics between two bodies?

While the theoreticians observe-and-report, what does this imply for creationism? No real impact, but it does explain some issues of the deep past with a bit more simplicity. If gravitational attraction were somewhat lower:

  • Living things could grow larger. The Bible speaks of both giants in the earth (Genesis 6) and we know from the fossil record that living things naturally grew much larger prior to the Flood.
  • Less stress on living things, offering higher longevity and health. We see this recorded in the years prior to the Flood.
  • Less stress on the created geologic strata, offering the ability to maintain the "fountains of the deep" with less stress.
  • Less stress on the Ark, as the electrodynamic force governs inertia and gravity both, the stress factors on the ship would decrease.
  • Both before and just after the Flood, the ability for mere men to lift larger-than-normal stones to make giant structures. Pyramids, the Tower Of Babel and other large-scale structures would still be within reach, and today's 2.5 ton stones (if lighter in weight back then) would be practical building blocks.
  • If gravity increased slightly over time from the Flood, this would make it impossible for modern man to understand how early man could have accomplished such things.
  • Could a large-scale catastrophe like the Flood change the electrical nature of the planet? Clearly it resurfaced the entire planet and had untold impact. Electrical properties would seem to be a nit compared to the rest of the damage.

This discussion recognizes the electrical properties associated with gravity and matter but is not an endorsement of Plasma Cosmology or the Electric Universe.

Feature star.jpg
Featured Article
Recognized for exceptional quality and value. See also other
featured articles.


  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Gravity-the Mystery Force By Don DeYoung. Creation 22(3):40–44. June 2000
  2. Force of Gravity By John Carl Villanueva. Universe Today
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Sir Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727): A Scientific Genius By Ann Lamont. Creation 12(3):48–51, June 1990
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Faulkner, Dr. Danny. “Modern Physics”. Universe By Design. Master Books. 2004. Pgs. 22-27
  5. Weird Physics By Danny Faulkner. Answers Vol 3(1), December 2007.
  7. 7.0 7.1 The Universe Confirms the Bible By Dr. Jason Lisle. Taking Back Astronomy, March 6, 2008.
  8. 8.0 8.1 Is the moon really old? By Dr. Don DeYoung. Creation 14(4):43, September 1992
  24. secrets-of-the-sphinx-5053442/

External Links