Tuppence, first of all welcome to JCF, I don’t know if anyone has taken the time to welcome you to our board, but you have contributed much, at least to my, understanding of physics.
Now, lets see if this dumb bean counter can express E=mc^2 in a layman’s terms.
If E was constant at the moment of the Big Bang then since there was no mass c^2 had to equal E. This means that in order to achieve m, c must decay or slow down. As more m is converted from E, c of necessity must continue to decay. When astronomers observe a red shift in a distant star system they are not seeing star systems moving away from us so much as c changing speed as m increases or decreases as more stars form or increase in mass or explode converting their mass to heat and light.
Is the above accurate?
So if the Big Bang is a viable theory and Einstein's theory is true, then our universe is young and a scientific explanation of God is not only possible but demanded by the evidence. Since God is spirit and does not have any mass then He is the only entity that could have "pushed the button" that created all that is seen and unseen.
The implications of c being a variable are mind blowing. No wonder so many scientists, evolutionists, and atheists refuse to consider that c is a variable. All the assumptions of science would then be absolutely wrong and evolution has lost the enormous amounts of time required for life to have evolved on this planet since our perception of time is also tied into the speed of light.
This puts a whole new and intriguing spin on “I am the light of the world.”
Jovaro, I think you do not understand the differences between the Bohr and Schrodinger models of the atom. According to my reading on the subject we can use Newton’s laws of gravity and Einstein’s theory of relativity as a comparison. Newton’s work on gravity is accepted as true, however Einstein’s relativity is a more accurate description, this does not negate Newton. I can understand Newton but Einstein is way over my head. The same can be said of the atom models, I can visualize Bohr’s model but Schrodinger’s model requires a better understanding of science, the later does not negate the former.