[geocentrism] Re: On size of the Universe
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:00:00 +0100 (BST)
Philip,
I answer your points as follows:
[P] 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.
[N] Such a monstrosity is pointless. We must be able to see, with our eyes, the
edge of the universe. Furthermore, the water above gives us an exceptionally
pleasing and soothing blue dome high above us, with God just on the other side
of it. Also, ?science? has no meaning to God, because science is investigation
and explanation and, since God knows all that there is to know, He has no need
to investigate and explain anything. What you mean is the mechanism involved in
the rotating firmament, though that mechanism must surely be hugely different
between a universe rotation at 3.5 km/s at the celestial equator, and one
rotating at 20 times the speed of light !
[P] 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.)
[N] No, I am not TRYING to make the universe small. All my research comes back
to a universe that MUST be ?small? (?small? relative to what we are all
taught). This answers your query.
[P] ?and also since when have theologians gotten any claim to divine right??
[N] They do not, but ALL of them (even Catholic ones J ) have the right to
discuss and debate the Holy Scriptures. The consensus amongst them appears to
be that Scripture should primarily be interpreted literally, unless there is
some good reason or indication to do otherwise. (Have we not arrived at the
non-rotating World via this approach?)
[P] On the business of ?day? and ?night? in the Genesis Flood account you ask,
?On what grounds do you claim this, and why??
[N] I believe that this is adequately explained in the paper, but if you could
phrase a more specific question, then I will address it.
[P] Does not the moon have bodies falling on it. Comets were observed falling
onto Jupiter with increased acceleration.
[N] The Moon has bodies falling on it? I presume you mean the impact craters?
These, I believe, were caused by chunks of rock being flung out from the World
at the onset of the Flood (Dr. Walt Brown?s hypothesis). As for Shumaker-Levy
colliding with Jupiter, we have only NASA?s word that any increased
acceleration occurred. I therefore deny that.
[P] Does not the inverse law have a mathematical reason due to the sphere,
hence it applies 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.
[N] An inverse square relationship applies to some finite amount of something
being thrown out from a point source, at a constant rate and in all directions.
This is why, in my opinion, Newton discounted the concept of instantaneous
action at a distance for gravity (something which is held close to the heart of
every ?Newtonian?). It works for a body like the Sun (even though the Sun is
not a point source), but is irrelevant for something which is just set in place
(as I believe God did with the gravitational field of the World).
[P] 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.
[N] No, you are wrong. Water does have an intrinsic colour (see the chemical
engineering reference that I provided in a previous posting). Also, I have been
to 37,000 feet and the sky out of the aeroplane window looked only slightly
less blue as it does out of the window next to the computer I?m currently sat
at. As regards space shuttle and Mir, I?ll consider this.
[P] If we take to a third heaven above, then we must likewise take a hell as
below. Is that feasible.
[N] I don?t understand how this follows, unless you mean that hell is on the
World, which I would agree with, since hell is nothing more than the grave and
the World is not much more now than a huge graveyard.
Thank you for your thoughts and questions. I will ponder the space shuttle
point some more.
Neville.
Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
