Dr Jones, I am still not sure why you insist on a small universe model there is no impetus for it. Scripture "implies" other wise. Observation indicates it is at leas very large not necessarily the 14.5 billion light years, although at those distances, if it were that large, which it very well could be, it wold be difficult if not impossible to make accurate measurement anyway, and that is what scripture implies. And as for God being near spatial considerations are part of, or as a result of, Gods creation in the first place. What possible meaning could distance or speed have to him? God is not bound by these expressions. So to build a model or say he would be nearer if it were a small universe in my opinion has no meaningful relevance, regardless of what you infer form the text. I just don?t see anything but problems there, that are not necessary, and could be considered contrary to everything including scripture. Allen "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: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 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