Sorry, I know I haven't answered your question yet. (I'm basicly brain storming out loud.) God defines what all things are even when they do not yet exist. I suspect that God spun around the Earth verses the unexisting Earth spinning in something itself. Of course it all breaks down to relative motion. If a relative motion is observed between a nonexistent point and the creator of all things, which is orbiting which or is it an equal balance?

The current standard cosmological model suggests that the known universe is about 93 billion lightyears across, and is about 13.7 billion lightyears old. The fact that we know about stars that are farther away than the accepted age of the universe is explained by the rapid expansion of spacetime shortly after the Big Bang, and the 'red shift' of distant stars is similarly explained.

Maybe I summarized my question too briefly. The idea was like, what went bang rather than relative motion of spin. But, if you define the sentence of the earth being without form and void with water over it to be non-existent and only exists in God's mind, I see it as calling into question other things stated there. I read it as the earth was already in existence before the creation act in Genesis. You then wouldn't need formulas to make it match 6000 years. Because, likewise, one could say the 6-10K years left out much time and were only in God's mind and really were much longer.

I do agree that God's act of creation may be of such we cannot understand, but if we base our beliefs on the Bible, it says the earth existed before. It also speaks of other worlds. I believe Ellen White talks about the beings on other planets. Were they created before or after our earth?

The great controversy is ended. Sin and sinners are no more. The entire universe is clean. One pulse of harmony and gladness beats through the vast creation. From Him who created all, flow life and light and gladness, throughout the realms of illimitable space. From the minutest atom to the greatest world, all things, animate and inanimate, in their unshadowed beauty and perfect joy, declare that God is love. {DD 62.5}

What is the Origin of Spin?
By Nassim Haramein

What is the origin of the rotation or spin of all objects from galaxies, suns and planets to atoms and subatomic particles?

Ask the question, and you may get the answer that it originates at the big bang as an initial impulse (moment) and that it has been spinning since then in a frictionless environment. From this response, now you may have two additional questions: is a frictionless environment a good representation of our observation, and where did the energy co me from initially? To the first one, our universe is comprised of not only space, but matter/energy all of which is interacting in plasma dynamics of galaxies, solar systems (solar winds), and so on. Even in the intergalactic vacuum, which is centimeters apart. All of this stuff interacting does not make for an ideal frictionless environment. In fact, this idealization further standardizes the spinning object as a solid with no viscosity difference of sp in. A good experiment that you can per for m is to boil an egg and after the egg is completely cooled, try to spin it on your desk. It will spin in a uniform manner and you ca n imagine t ha t if it was in a frictionless environment it could spin forever. Now perform the same experiment with a non-boiled egg; you will observe that the egg will slow down rapidly due to its viscous core. No w envision the viscous magma inside our planet it. It certainly is not spinning in a frictionless environment. The center is thought to act as a dynamo to generate our magnetic field; however, it takes torque to spin the dynamo! Currently there are elaborate thermal and magnetic models that attempt to explain the inner spin of the core of our planet; however, none explain where the impulse moment initially comes from. Where is the force coming from? The same dilemma applies for the spin of all objects our sun, galaxies, atoms, subatomic particles, and so on, which brings us back to the second part of our question above concerning the origin of the energy of spin. The origin of the energy is unknown, and at the quantum level of subatomic particles causation is not addressed!


Yet, without spin/rotation none of reality can come to exist. All things spin! Even things that appear not to! You may say, “a tree doesn’t spin, but in fact every atom on that tree spins, and that tree is on a planet that is spinning, and this planet is in a solar system that is spinning inside a galactic disk and so on. So we could say that spin is fundamental to creation, and objects that appear to be inanimate exist solely because spinning atoms within allow the objects to radiate, and hence, appear in our reality. So an important endeavor of physics would be to find the fundamental forces necessary to generate spin since, if those were known, we would ultimately know the foundations of reality. That is a valuable thing to know never mind the fact that it could provide very important clues about energy and gravity, which can have huge impacts on our current state of technology and ecology. Yet, in all of the intricacies of both quantum theory and relativistic equations (and I assure you that these complexities are not trivial), no equations, no concepts, no fundamental theories have to date been postulated to describe the origin of spin.

This deficiency in our understanding of the dynamics of spin/rotation is what lead prominent Nobel-prize laureate C.N. Yang (of the famous Yang-Mills equation) to comment that, “Einstein’s general relativity theory. Though profoundly beautiful, is likely to be amended…” and that amendment, “somehow entangles spin and rotation.” Although Dr. Rauscher and I were unaware of Dr. Yang’s most accurate statement, we believe that our most recently completed paper entitled, “The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein’s Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory” addresses the same issue. As you can deduce from the title, we imbued Einsteinian spacetime with a torque and Coriolis term that becomes the cause and origin of all spins. We then solved the equation and related the solution to a modified GUT Theory (Grand Unification Theory) for the electromagnetic and subatomic particle scale of reality. In doing so we have arrived at a true Unification view, for we have bridged the
macro and the micro. Sure, there is much more math to be worked out; however, this
we believe becomes a landmark foundation from which a new level of physics can be written that generates a more accurate and complete picture of not only galactic formations and solar system structures, but as well planetary plasma mechanics, and atomic and subatomic dynamics. Although the math involved may seem quite complex, the concepts are quite simple. Einstein, with his beautiful field equations, showed that gravity is not a force resulting from objects themselves (as in Newtonian views), but that gravity is a force resulting from the curvature of spacetime in the presence of matter/energy. Imagine a ball placed in the center of a flexible surface such as a trampoline. The ball would curve the surface of the trampoline (spacetime) around it so that any other ball on the surface of that trampoline would be attracted to it. That is the standard simplified view of Einstein’s Field Equations describing gravity. Those field equations have their basis in earlier equations that are known as the LaPlace-Poisson Equations, which describe gradients (in this case, gradient densities), making spacetime curve more or less depending on the density/mass o f the object. Now what we have done is that we have added a term to Einstein’s quations which accounts for a fundamental force in spacetime generating torque, which is forcing t he space time manifold to spin just as the engine of your car must apply the force of torque to the wheels of your car in order for them to rotate. One may ask, “But where is the spacetime torque coming from?” i.e. “Where is the engine?” The answer is, just as we think of the spacetime curvature generating gravity as a density increase in the presence of matter energy, we can think of the torque force of the curvature of space as increasing as density increases. Thus, the torque comes from a change in density (or gradient) in the geometry of spacetime.


To give you a mental picture, replace the surface of the trampoline we were discussing earlier with the surface tension of water as it goes down the drain of your bathtub. The change of density between the air in the drain of your tub and the water makes the water surface curve towards the drain, but significantly, the surface is no longer a smooth curve (as in the trampoline example ), but now it curls as the water goes down and as the air spins out. Another way to look at this is to analyze the dynamics of weather patterns on Earth (note that in this example the same could be said for water currents). Take, for example, a hurricane. As a result of a relatively small difference in density/temperature in the atmosphere, immense currents gather large quantities (tons and tons) of water orbiting in a highly defined structure sometimes hundreds of kilometers resulting in huge energy events that include enormous electromagnetic discharges, high velocity winds, and sometimes funnel tornadoes. Now compare those dynamics to the ones of spiral arm galaxies with their spiraling galactic discs. The similarities are obvious, however in our equation the change in density is not in the air of a planet, but in the plasma gases of our universe. For instance, recall that the density of the relative vacuum between galaxies although being the largest vacuum observed and millions of times more vacuum than that of our solar system has its atoms only a few centimeters apart. Yet the vacuum density inside our galaxy is much greater. The difference in densities in this case, just as with the differences in densities in air currents o f our
atmosphere creating hurricanes, is what generates spacetime torquing matter/energy, and
spinning it into the observed topology of a galactic disc with it s galactic halos and galactic polar jets. Further, as in the case for a hurricane, Coriolis forces dictate very specific structures that are related to a torus (donut structure) or more specifically to a dual torus bubble, because the Coriolis forces manifest in two opposite rotational patterns
(go to www.thereso nanceproject.org/research/torus.htm to view the dual torus animation).

We named this amendment to Einstein’s Field Equations the Haramein-Rauscher solution. We believe that it will more accurately predict the observed dynamics of our universe, including its galactic clusters, galactic structures and planetary plasma dynamics. This solution may as well be able to describe galactic structures and universal behavior without the need for exotic inclusions such as dark matter and dark energy.

Another interesting result fro m this amendment is that we have found a topological (geometric) relationship between the dual torus spacetime manifold of our solution and the structure of subatomic particles described by group theoretical models, typically used to describe subatomic particle interactions. The relationship involves a very specific geometric structure called a cubeoctahedron, o r in other cases a vector equilibrium, which can be constructed from eight (FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=8)" edge-bounded tetrahedrons generating twelve (12) radiating vector s and twenty-four (24) edge vectors. This group theoretical model relationship then allows us to unify the atomic scale forces to the macro cosmological scale objects, and thus generate a Unified Field Theory. Further more, the twelve radiating topological cubeoctahedral vectors generating a dual torus field are the base vectors o f a 3D fractal structure I had discovered many years ago and concluded to be the foundation geometry of creation at all scales (to view this unique fractal model at its 64 tetrahedron iteration, go to www.theresonancepr oject.org/graphics/3d.htm). You could imagine the same dual torus bubble and cubeoctahedron occurring at all scales, driven by the torque forces of spacetime as the density increases towards the microscopic scale of the atom, and along the way, spinning everything into existence.

In a work-in-progress, we are writing a balance equation between the gravitational torque forces of spacetime and the electromagnetic repulsive forces. In this view, then, the Universe seems to be spinning in perpetual motion in a frictionless environment only due to the exchange between the torque o f spacetime and the electromagnetic entropy, where the torque overcomes the shearing friction dynamics to generate billions of years of rotation in a seemingly frictionless manner at all scales. This brings us to a deeper view of black hole dynamics where the black holes are no longer only absorbing material/information, but radiating this information back out in the form of electromagnetic radiation, and the feedback between the two generates the topology of the dual torus structure of the Haramein-Rauscher solution driven by spacetime. Now the black hole is no longer black since its exterior event horizon radiates, which is what I have been calling the white hole portion. Here the black hole/white hole are concentric to each other, where the black ho le is inside and the white hole is concentrically structured outside and activates the plasma dynamics and Coriolis forces of the ergosphere of the black hole , which I coined the black -white whole.

Dr. Stephen Hawking, who for nearly thirty years insisted that black holes could not radiate information, in a recent announcement has now made a complete 180 degree turn in his views (much to his credit), predicting that black holes may be able to radiate information. This has been a fundamental contingency of this unification view for almost twenty years, and I am excited to see these views now being embraced by others. Interestingly, I arrived to these conclusions long before confirming these relationships with standard mathematics. I did so by using pure logic, a keen observation of nature and geometric extrapolations, some resulting from in-depth studies of ancient symbols and esoteric schools of thought, such as the Pythagorian schools and ancient Hebraic and Egyptian texts. In many respects, I unknowingly followed a similar path of investigation as Sir Isaac Newton, who had spent a significant part of his adult life deeply immersed in the study of ancient texts and monuments before arriving at his fundamental laws of nature. But I am getting ahead of myself this is all for a future article, on the seemingly ancient profound understandings of the geometry of nature to what that means in our technological modern era.

My take is that the Earth existed but not in a manner that we could comprehend well. For human beings, the presence of time space must exist or we effectively cease to exist. (This doesn't mean that there are not other forms of existence.) Genesis refers to earth being without form and void in the begining (of time). Form relates to dimensional form. A void is a vacuum containing nothing. At the begining of time Earth was therefore a dimensionless vacuum containing nothing, but it still existed.

Jeremiah 4:22 For My people are foolish; they have not known Me; they are stupid sons, and they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
23 I looked on the earth, and, lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I looked on the mountains, and, lo, they quaked; and all the hills were shaken.
25 I looked, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled.
26 I looked, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all its cities were broken down before the face of the LORD, before His fierce anger.
27 For so the LORD has said, The whole land shall be desolate, yet I will not make a full end.
28 The earth shall mourn for this, and the heavens above shall be black, because I have spoken, I have purposed, and will not repent, nor will I turn back from it.

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
The earth didn't actually exist as we understand existing and the waters didn't cover it as we understand water covering things.
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
It wasn't light and darkness as we understand as light and darkness.
So the evening and the morning were the first day.
It wasn't evening and morning as we understand evening and morning.
And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
It wasn't dry land and waters as we understand dry land and waters.

My take is that the Earth existed but not in a manner that we could comprehend well.