Overturning Newton's Gravity

Isaac Newton is revered for his comprehensive formulation of gravitational theory. Prior to his work, it was commonly understood that what ascends must eventually descend. Newton revealed that the same force responsible for objects falling to the ground also governs the orbits of planets and moons. He termed this force "gravity" and developed equations to quantify the speed of falling objects and the orbits of celestial bodies. While these equations were repeatedly validated, they showed limitations, particularly regarding Mercury.

Einstein proposed that Newton had misinterpreted the nature of gravity. Newton characterized gravity as a force that pulls objects toward one another, with the strength of this pull dependent on their masses and distances. In contrast, Einstein theorized that outer space is not a void; instead, it is woven with a fabric of space-time affecting every object. Rather than being pulled, objects are pushed by the curvature of space-time, with larger masses exerting a more substantial push.

Einstein reformulated Newton’s equations, achieving accuracy for all celestial objects, including Mercury. This approach to correcting existing theories and demonstrating their functionality provided compelling evidence for the acceptance of his ideas. Furthermore, Einstein's theories successfully predicted phenomena such as neutron stars, black holes, and gravitational waves long before their discovery.

The implications of Relativity extend to modern technology, enabling lunar missions, GPS navigation, satellite communication, and maintaining satellite orbits. Moreover, his equation E=mc² paved the way for nuclear power and weapons, continuously reinforcing the validity of his theories.

The Constant Speed of Light

A cornerstone of Relativity is the assertion that the speed of light remains constant across the universe. This raises questions about how this can be verified, especially over vast cosmic distances. While I may not possess the means to test light speed at the universe's farthest reaches, advancements in telescope technology have allowed us to identify stars and galaxies billions of light-years away.

The accuracy of these measurements stems from our successful endeavors in space exploration, including lunar landings and Mars rovers. Notably, the New Horizons spacecraft launched on January 19, 2006, achieving a remarkable journey of nearly 3 billion miles to Pluto at 36,400 miles per hour. By the time it returned images of Pluto, the celestial body had been reclassified from a planet to a dwarf planet—an illustration of the complexities of cosmic measurement.

The success of New Horizons demonstrates that the speed of light is indeed constant within our solar system. If it were not, the meticulous calculations required to reach Pluto would have proven impossible. While the Theory of Relativity posits that light speed is consistent throughout the universe, the evidence presented by New Horizons lends credence to this notion.

Young Earth Creationism

The concept of light's constancy has significant ramifications for Young Earth Creationism (YEC), which interprets the Genesis account literally, positing that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old based on biblical genealogies. In stark contrast, scientific estimations place the universe's age at around 13.8 billion years—a substantial discrepancy.

Scientists have accurately measured distances to celestial bodies within our solar system, a feat that would be unfeasible if light speed varied. Beyond our solar system, Alpha Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.5 light-years distant. Numerous stars and galaxies, many exceeding 6,000 light-years away, further reinforce the notion that the universe is indeed much older than YEC proponents suggest.

YEC adherents might argue that light speed is not constant throughout the universe. However, the consistent measurements we have conducted within our solar system raise critical questions about this claim. Why would light speed differ beyond our solar system? Is there an invisible boundary that alters its speed? The lack of empirical evidence supporting these assertions casts doubt on their validity.

The distinction between science and religion becomes evident in this context. While religious beliefs can be shaped by interpretation of sacred texts, scientific inquiry demands rigorous evidence. Historical figures like Galileo challenged prevailing religious views through empirical observation, paving the way for modern scientific understanding.

I contend that the Bible serves as a guide for moral and spiritual matters but does not serve as a scientific textbook. As we navigate these discussions, we must recognize that God’s focus is on ethical conduct rather than providing scientific correction. Whether the universe is 6,000 years old or 13.8 billion years old does not alter God's essence. Therefore, we should allow scientists to pursue knowledge while we engage in our spiritual journeys.