[geocentrism] On size of the Universe
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 18:17:50 +1000
Neville in relation to your subject, I never did think the omnipotent
omnipresent Infinitely powerful God would be limited in size as regards the
universe or Himself. This following is not a criticism, but a comment to
invite discussion.
I also see no difficulty in "real" science for the stars at any distance to
move aroundthe earth and at any number of times the speedof light. Real science
is as God knows it.
I do understand that you are trying to make the universe small, and I am not
sure why, unless it is because you trust your athiest contemporaries rulings.
Yet not necessarily so because you made a realistic re appraisal of the law of
Gravity. (I mention more on this below. )
I have made certain comments as I read your paper .. They are purposely brief ,
as I do tend to go on when writing. . We can sort out clarifications where
necessary later.
On the size of the Universe.
("All theologians without a single exception say that when Scripture can be
understood according to the literal sense, it must never be interpreted in any
other way" - Loclovico delle Colombe.)
[This should raise eybrows and make people think. But I will consider
exceptions, and also since when have theologians gotten any claim to divine
right?
Day and night as opposed to days of 24 hours. The former reinforces the
point that the rain was continuous, night and day, and never letting up.
Whereas it rained for 40, days is not so insistent.
On what grounds do you claim this, and why?
1.. Only one gravitational field exists in the cosmos, and it diminishes
inversely as the square of the distance from the centre of the World.
Does not the moon have bodies falling on it. Comets were observed falling onto
Jupiter with increased acceleration.
I would like some info on this
"It seems likely to me that Newton's guess regarding an inverse proportionality
with distance is incorrect. In Fig. 1, we show what the graphs of g would be if
the World's gravitational field is an exponential decay (dotted curves), as
well as that of the previously assumed inverse square function (dashed curve)."
Does not the inverse law have a mathmatical reason due to the sphere, hence it
aplies to any force even magnetism. I will have to look this up I can accept
that not all phenomena should be subject to this law. A loaf of bread rises
just so far.
The following may be presumptious:
"consider a startling consequence of this model - that the sky is blue, not
because of Rayleigh scattering of sunlight, but because we are actually looking
at the blueness of the water above the firmament."
Water is not blue, but appears so because of the sky. People in high flying
jets in the stratosphere see a dark sky, not a blue one.
Not to do with the subject, but how to reconcile
"Since God resides in the (possibly) boundless third heaven, separated from the
physical firmament."
With God He is infinite, in size, He is everywhere, is not limited in size to
"reside" anywhere. He is omnipresent everywhere. He could or does have perhaps
a private centre.
If we take to a third heaven above, then we must likewise take a hell as below.
Is that feasable.. Can we take ascending in to heaven and descending into hell
literally? or may we take it as a higher and lower order. and of many mansions,
which infers degrees of this hierarchy.
These areall my questions... I had no argument with your interesting
mathmatical workout of the waters, other than that it all does depend upon
whether the waters did come from where you say it did by interpretation.
Philip,
Other related posts:
