Does the universe consist of space or matter?

If you have done any reading on quantum physics, you know scientists have concluded there is far ¹more space than matter in the material world. Because of this, some have even argued those things that appear solid are merely an illusion i.e. there is nothing of significant substance there. Some suggest all that we see may even be merely a projection (or ²hologram) from an "Infinite Mind."

Yet, we can touch, feel, taste, and smell the objects we see and hear around us, even if there is very little actual ³matter present. So if there is more space than matter what determines what we see and experience?

There is force (energy/frequency)! 

What do I mean? To use a familiar example, we are told at one level, everything is made of atoms. Atoms, in turn, are made of a nucleus that consists of protons and neutrons with electrons traveling around the nucleus at an extremely high velocity. Yet the space that exists between the nucleus and its electrons far exceeds the size of the ⁴individual parts. When you measure the size of these ¹parts they are minuscule compared to the "footprint" of the atom i.e. space is actually the biggest part of what makes up the footprint. This is true of all atoms. So why do we see and experience a much larger "footprint?"

We know that electrons fly around the nucleus at an incredible speed. So much so that it creates more of a solid-looking blur as you see on the right...


rather than the nice little circular patterns often used to illustrate an atom below. 









What we see and experience appears much larger than its individual parts. 

What is behind this force and what are its effects?

If you take a hammer and touch it to your face, would it hurt? It might be cold or hot but if placed lightly against your face, that's it. However, what if you took this same hammer, attached it to a long steel cord, and spun it at an incredibly high speed? And then some part of you accidentally got in the path of this spinning hammer. What would be your experience? Would this change of conditions make any difference?

A silly question, but I asked to make a point. It's the same hammer, is it not? So what is the difference? Force or the velocity of the hammer when it comes in contact with your face. Before it was still, now it's moving... and fast. 

So it's not just the hammer you are experiencing but the force behind it, i.e. the speed/velocity at which the hammer is spinning when it strikes you. That speed represents energy. Or to say it another way, there is much energy or force needed to put the hammer in motion. This speed/force makes the hammer feel much more significant (bigger, more powerful, or solid) than if it were merely stationary - the hammer itself isn't more powerful, the force behind it is.

Now, what if the hammer were held in place by some invisible (electromagnetic?) attraction/force/energy between it and a central object it was attracted to and could be spun around that central point — relatively far away from the hammer — in all directions, always maintaining the same distance and speed from the central object, similar to how electrons travel around a nucleus. What if its speed was such that it created the appearance of a somewhat round and solid object far bigger than just the hammer — like the illustration of the helium atom on the right above? In fact, the velocity was so great it made this entire assemblage of parts look and feel like one large solid vibrating object and not a singular tiny object spinning around a minuscule central point/object. 

This could explain why something so small as an atom comprised of even smaller electrons spinning around a tiny nucleus is experienced (seen and felt) not as something spinning but something solid (but also "vibrating" which all atoms do) and much larger than its individual parts. 

Since the parts are so minuscule, they would not have the same effect as being hit by a hammer. The electrons are too small individually to hurt us. But this configuration of speed and mass combined would feel solid (I propose what we are actually feeling is more force-energy contained or moving the particular parts, than substance-matter). Then when you have millions of individual atoms held together by an invisible electrical attraction/force, it would appear to be an object that could be observed, touched, and held, all the while comprising virtually no matter at all compared to its footprint - which we see and experience. So when you push up against an object, such as a piece of steel you are not feeling substance primarily, you are feeling force but in a very uniform, structured, and controlled manner (we now understand that atoms aren't static but actually vibrate constantly and consistently, which further supports this hypothesis i.e. atoms are in constant motion or at least it's individual parts are but in a very precise or tight and specific design or pattern - if you will - based on the properties of the particular parts. 

What I am suggesting hasn't been proven that I know of. I am offering a hypothesis that fits with what we already know about atoms, observed through our own experience, and also what science has recently discovered about electronic plasma. (For a fascinating documentary click here to watch "Thunderbolt of the gods" on electronic plasma).

Can we explain this

This leads to a very basic question. If this theory is correct, what energy or force could or would be at work i.e. where does the energy come from that propels electrons around the nucleus of an atom and holds the atom together so that its individual parts don't fly apart? 

What we do know is this force/energy is so great that when the individual parts of the atom are separated (split apart) it results in an incredible release of energy as demonstrated in an atomic bomb. 

We have an answer. And believe it or not, it's in the most "unscientific" book of all -- at least according to many scientists -- the Bible.

Col 1:15  He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation (i.e. all physical/material things). 16  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 

And also

Heb 1:2  but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son (the Christ), whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3  He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he G⁵³⁴²upholds the universe by  G⁴⁴⁸⁷the word of his G¹⁴¹¹power...

Last but not least

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2  He was in the beginning with God. 3  All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 

All three passages tell us Christ -- the same person who became a man and walked among us over 2000 years ago -- is the eternal Creator.

The Colossians passage tells us Christ is not only the Creator but the sustainer of the universe i.e. the one that holds everything together and keeps everything going. He is constantly standing before and in oversight over the creation (...he is before all things... see definitions of the words below in the original greek language) and in or by his very existence all things stay together instead of disintegrating into their various parts and flying off into space.

Last of all, in the book of Hebrews we are told how he does this; by speaking/ 
commanding things to be - which also produces vibration/release of energy. Though we too speak, giving off vibrations/energy, His is a power far beyond us or our understanding i.e. we do not bring physical things into existence out of nothing merely by speaking. Only God did and does. The picture the passage gives us is His speaking is the energy (vibration/frequency/force) that energizes and moves all things and holds all things together. All things are held together simply by the power of his words. If His words alone are this powerful, imagine how powerful He must be as a Being. 

Granted, an electromagnetic force may be involved in holding things together, but that explains the "what" not the source of it, i.e. who or what creates/causes/sustains the magnetic force! The fact that we can observe the effect of electromagnetic energy does not explain the source of that energy. Science can only observe the "what" and not explain the "how" or "why." We must go to scripture for the explanation.

If we dig a little further into the specific keywords in these passages, we get an even clearer and more amazing picture.

It is unnecessary to read every part of the definitions below. I have underscored and emboldened, or italicized what I think are the key elements of the definition that are relevant.

Keywords in Col 1:17 

And he is G⁴²⁵³before all things, and in him all things G⁴⁹²¹hold together.

Before: G⁴²⁵³ πρό pro pro

A primary preposition; “fore”, that is, in front of, prior (figuratively superior) to. In compounds it retains the same significations: - above, ago, before, or ever. In compounds it retains the same significations.

Total KJV occurrences: 46

Hold together: G⁴⁹²¹  συνιστάω /συνιστάνω /συνίστημι - sunistaō /sunistanō /sunistēmi

Thayer Definition:

1) to place together, to set in the same place, to bring or band together

1a) to stand with (or near) (Christ is ever with and before but distinct from creation (i.e. he is both imminent and transcendent)

2) to set one with another

2a) by way of presenting or introducing him

2b) to comprehend

3) to put together by way of composition or combination, to teach by combining and comparing

3a) to show, prove, establish, exhibit

4) to put together, unite parts into one whole (kind of like an atom?)

4a) to be composed of, consist

Part of Speech: verb

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4862 and G2476 (including its collat. forms)

Citing in TDNT: 7:896, 1120

Keywords in Heb 1:3  

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he G⁵³⁴²upholds the universe by the G⁴⁴⁸⁷word of his G¹⁴¹¹power. 

Upholds: G⁵³⁴² φέρω  pherō̄

Thayer Definition:

1) to carry

1a) to carry some burden

1a1) to bear with one’s self

1b) to move by bearing; move or, to be conveyed or borne, with the suggestion of force or speed

1b1) of persons borne in a ship over the sea

1b2) of a gust of wind, to rush

1b3) of the mind, to be moved inwardly, prompted

1c) to bear up, i.e. uphold (keep from falling)

1c1) of Christ, the preserver of the universe

2) to bear, i.e. endure, to endure the rigour of a thing, to bear patiently one’s conduct, or spare one (abstain from punishing or destroying)

3) to bring, bring to, bring forward

3a) to move to, apply

3b) to bring in by announcing, to announce

3c) to bear, i.e. bring forth, produce; to bring forward in a speech

3d) to lead, conduct

Part of Speech: verb

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a primary verb (for which other and apparently not cognate ones are used in certain tenses only, namely, oio; and enegko

Citing in TDNT: 9:56, 1252

Word: G⁴⁴⁸⁷  ῥῆμα rhēma

Thayer Definition:

1) that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word

1a) any sound (vibration) produced by the voice and having definite meaning (i.e. not random or arbitrary, but with specific meaning and purpose)

1b) speech, discourse

1b1) what one has said

1c) a series of words joined together into a sentence (a declaration of one’s mind made in words)

1c1) an utterance

1c2) a saying of any sort as a message, a narrative

1c2a) concerning some occurrence

2) subject matter of speech, thing spoken of

2a) so far forth as it is a matter of narration

2b) so far as it is a matter of command

2c) a matter of dispute, case at law

Part of Speech: noun neuter

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4483

Citing in TDNT: 4:69, 505

Power: G¹⁴¹¹ δύναμις dunamis (also root word for dynamite)

Thayer Definition:

1) strength power, ability

1a) inherent (vs delegated) power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and puts forth

1b) power for performing miracles

1c) moral power and excellence of soul

1d) the power and influence which belong to riches and wealth

1e) power and resources arising from numbers

1f) power consisting in or resting upon armies, forces, hosts

Part of Speech: noun feminine

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1410

Citing in TDNT: 2:284, 186

The bottom line is we don't only need mass to see and experience the material world, we also need force, energy, power, etc. The "solidness" we experience when touching or engaging the material world may be more because of force than mass. Mass alone is too small to explain what we actually see and experience. Science has confirmed this. Which matches exactly with what scripture tells us in the passages above. 

And the observed creation is real, not a projection in the ultimate sense i.e. there really is material (though in far lesser amounts than the non-material parts) moving at a high velocity which I propose gives it its "solidness" i.e. it allows us to experience it as solid, not as space or according to the ¹space to mass ratio we know it to be. The vast majority of what we see isn't space, in the sense of a vacuum, it is because of energy, force (dark matter?) - unseen for sure, but very real (it has a real measurable effect just as magnetism does) - that we can see and feel it.

______________________________________________________________

¹The estimate is only 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the universe comprises actual matter. Do a web search on this number, and you will find plenty of sources that cite this.

However, scientists are now saying there is something in all that emptiness/space, we just can't see it. They call this "dark matter" because we see evidence of its influence/effect even though there is nothing there i.e. no observable matter but highly charged electromagnetic plasma.

For a fascinating documentary ("Thunderbolt of the gods")  on how scientists may be incorrect in their materialistic/ gravitational model of the universe, click here.

²This is proposed by the fascinating book "The Holographic Universe" I recommend it though I don't totally agree with everything in it. What I agree with is it shows through the science of quantum physics, clear proof of an infinite cause/source/order/being (what this book calls "implicate order") behind all that we see and experience.  

³By matter, we mean anything that we can touch and see. We distinguish this from "dark matter" (which is actually not matter at all) we can not see or touch it, hence the label "dark" (though we can see its effect/influence on matter). I (and the Thunderbolts researchers) am suggesting this so-called dark matter is not matter at all but force in the form of electromagnetism. 

⁴We are told that if an atom were about the size of a professional baseball stadium, the nucleus would be the size of a pea in the very center of the baseball field with the even smaller individual electrons being at the outside parameter of the stadium. The electrons circle the stadium at such a high velocity and in so many directions (though always held in place at the same distance from the nucleus), so that the stadium (atom) would appear to be a much larger structure than the actual parts. This is an illustration of how miniscule the parts are to the actual footprint or the stadium we see to illustrate the analogy.