Part 5. Flood

In the ancient scrolls of time, Adam’s life spanned 930 years, a testament to an era where the sands of time flowed differently. Let us delve into the mysteries of these prolonged lives, through the lens of modern understanding.

Imagine, if you will, the Earth ensnared in the gravitational embrace of a black hole. According to the profound insights of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, such a powerful gravitational field can stretch and warp time itself. This phenomenon, known as gravitational time dilation, reveals its secrets near the colossal forces of black holes.

In this cosmic dance, if the Earth once waltzed closer to a black hole, the very fabric of time would have been altered. What seemed like centuries to the ancients might have been mere moments in the grand tapestry of the universe. This celestial ballet offers a glimpse into the extended lifespans of biblical figures like Adam, Noah, and Abraham, whose years numbered in the hundreds.

The Torah, a sacred chronicle, whispers of these ancient lives:

– Adam, the first of men, lived 930 years.

– Noah, the savior of life, lived 950 years.

– Abraham, the father of nations, lived 175 years.

As the epochs flowed, the lifespans of these revered figures began to wane, especially after the great deluge and the era of Abraham.

Consider the descendants who followed:

– Isaac, son of Abraham, lived 180 years, surpassing his father.

– Jacob, son of Isaac, lived 147 years.

– Joseph, son of Jacob, lived 110 years.

Isaac stands as an exception, his years slightly outlasting those of his father Abraham.

In the chronicles of kings, we find:

– King David, the poet-warrior, lived 70 years.

– King Solomon, the wise, lived 80 years.

These lifespans, shorter than those of the patriarchs, mark a trend towards the brevity of life in later biblical times.

Thus, it is conceivable that by the time of King David, the Earth had drifted to a distance from the black hole where time’s flow had stabilized, aligning more closely with our current perception of time. This celestial hypothesis offers a poetic explanation for the ancient longevity of figures like Adam and Noah, while the lives of David and Solomon resonate more with the fleeting nature of our modern existence.

And an even more curious reasoning. Today, the average human life expectancy has begun to increase. Certainly, medicine has stepped far ahead. Various forms of ecologically clean nutrition, scientifically argued gymnastic practices, vitamins, and other platforms that lengthen human life represent an objectively positive part of our lives. But other vectors of explanation can be hypothesized. Namely, humanity is returning to its source. And in reverse order comprehends what has been previously passed over. We’re returning to our black hole.

Explanation of the Flood. Changes in the physical characteristics of the Earth, caused by its distance from the black hole, could lead to a worldwide flood. Let’s develop this hypothesis:

Changes in the atmosphere and climate. As we move away from the black hole, changes in solar radiation and heat balance could have caused changes in the Earth’s atmosphere. This could have affected the distribution of precipitation and temperature patterns, which in turn led to an increase in sea and ocean levels.

Changes in gravity and heat balance could also have affected Earth’s tectonic activity, including volcanic activity and crustal movement. This could have triggered earthquakes, tsunamis, and other geologic events contributing to the Flood.

Moving away from the black hole could also change the currents and circulation of the oceans, which in turn could affect the distribution of ice and the level of the seas.

All these changes could put pressure on living organisms, including humans, and trigger the need for adaptation or migration, which could also affect cultural and historical processes related to the memories of the Flood.

It is written in the Torah that there were no rainbows on Earth, and this may mean that there were no water droplets in the atmosphere capable of creating a rainbow effect. That is, there was probably no rain or other forms of precipitation that could have formed water droplets in the air, or the atmospheric conditions were not suitable for rainbows to form, such as the absence of sunlight in the right position relative to the observer.

The sun’s rays did not penetrate through the upper waters in the atmosphere, this could have affected the types of plants on Earth, as plants need sunlight for photosynthesis and growth.

If the upper waters prevented sunlight from penetrating, this could have changed the conditions for plant life on the Earth’s surface. Perhaps this would have led to the evolution of plants that could adapt to such conditions, or to different types of ecosystems that are not as dependent on sunlight as our current plants.

If plants did not receive direct sunlight due to the presence of overhead water in the atmosphere, they would probably have evolved under conditions of strong diffuse light rather than directly from sunlight. This could have led to the evolution of plants adapted to weaker light and prone to shady conditions.

Such plants could have the following characteristics:

– Large leaves. Plants could develop large leaves to increase the surface area that absorbs light for photosynthesis.

– Thin stem structure. The stems could be thin and flexible to ensure efficient light distribution within the plant.

– Plants could be more adapted to shady conditions and more tolerant of lack of light.

Plants could develop specific pigments or mechanisms to capture and utilize available light in low-light conditions.

These are just some speculations about what plants might have been like if they had not received direct sunlight due to the presence of overhead water in the atmosphere. Or perhaps things worked out differently.

Under conditions of diminished sunlight, plants could evolve to develop smaller leaves because they would require less energy to maintain their functions. Smaller leaves could reduce water loss and increase the efficiency of photosynthesis.

Plants could develop specific adaptations to make better use of available light, such as higher chlorophyll concentration, specific cell structures to maximize light absorption, and more sensitive photosensory mechanisms to optimize photosynthesis in low light.

With limited access to light, plants could develop thicker and stronger stems to maintain vertical structure and allow efficient distribution of water and nutrients.

Diversity of shapes and textures. Plants could develop a variety of shapes and textures, such as folded leaves, designed to maximize light absorption and increase the efficiency of photosynthesis in low-light conditions.

Plants could develop larger and deeper root systems to increase water and mineral uptake from the soil, which could compensate for the lack of sunlight.

These speculations represent possible plant adaptations to diminished light conditions in the event that sunlight did not penetrate through the upper waters.

If plants evolved under the influence of diminished sunlight from overhead waters, then the animals that eat those plants could also experience evolutionary pressures leading to changes in their anatomy, physiology, and behavior. Here are some possible changes.

Adaptations to plant consumption. Plant-eating animals could develop specific adaptations to digest and assimilate nutrients from plants with thicker cell walls or other features related to adaptation to low light.

Behavioral changes. Animals could change their lifestyles and behaviors to accommodate new conditions, such as altered food-seeking dynamics and adaptation to a diversity of vegetation.

Evolution of appearance. Plant-eating animals could evolve changes in their appearance to better suit the conditions, such as changes in coloration or body shape that provide an advantage in the new environment.

Evolution of food chains and networks. Changes in vegetation could lead to changes in food chains and networks as plant-eating animals adapt to new plant species and varieties.

Thus, if plants were different because of the lack of direct sunlight, the animals that feed on those plants would probably also have undergone evolutionary changes in response to these new conditions.

Changes in animal size in response to changes in vegetation and food availability could be varied and dependent on specific environmental conditions.

For example:

– Size reduction. If food availability were limited due to changes in vegetation, some animals could face food shortages, which could lead to a reduction in population size or even an evolutionary reduction in size to match the limited resources.

– Size increase. With abundant vegetation and food availability, some animals might conversely experience an evolutionary increase in size to improve their chances of survival and reproduction.

– Diversity. Some animals could adapt to changing conditions by maintaining a diversity of sizes in populations, depending on their specific needs and survival strategies.

Thus, changes in animal size could be the result of evolutionary selection in response to changes in vegetation and food availability in their habitat.

Assuming that the physical and biological characteristics of the animals were significantly different due to changes in Earth’s conditions (e.g., due to distance from a black hole), this can lead to interesting speculations about the kosher status of the animals.

In Judaism, the kosher nature of animals is determined by established criteria, including the division into clean and unclean animals listed in the Torah. If conditions on Earth had changed to such an extent that animals evolved in a direction that did not conform to these criteria, it would be conceivable that changes in anatomy, digestion, or other aspects of the animals might have made some of them inconsistent with the standards of kosher as defined in the traditional texts. Based on this premise, we can explain why people did not eat meat before the Flood, according to oral Jewish tradition.