PHYSICS 2: Appendix 4: General Relativity: Life's Transcendent Dualism concerning Freewill & Determinism: ON PROBABILITY, DETERMINISM, FREEWILL, & EXISTENTIALISM,
& Quantum Entanglement explained, & Why Dark Energy and Dark Matter may be False
--scroll down to
the middle to lower-middle portion of this paper
for my discussion on Rubber Band Theory & later on, on
why a galaxy's super massive black hole will
break away from its singularity if that singularity
is infinite in density...
"If God exists, we have Freewill, and if God doesn't exist, we have Freewill."
Note for the following paper: There are two types of Ether mentioned in this paper.
The first is the medium between every cause and its effect--which is part of
the science of Quantum Entanglement.
And the second type of ether is the "physics type of universal medium for light" mentioned by
Isaac Newton. But what is the first type of ether summarized? Every particular cause in the
universe needs a key to unlock a particular effect. So if this were false and there was no medium between every cause and it's effect,
then if you threw a stone in the air, all stones would be thrown in the air. The
ether or medium between every particular cause and it's effect stops this from occurring.
Ether can also be considered one of the higher Forms of Plato's philosophy.
1. ON PROBABILITY
On Carneades' Probability
1. The Platonist Carneades says that although we can never
know the true cause-and-effect of every event (with 100% accuracy), we can still get to the practical truth
of things through probability. I will try to
explain what I believe he means in the text below.
2. Science and philosophy try to figure out cause-and-effect truths by way of higher probability.
Higher probability can be as low as 51% of the time (in any given instance) and higher probability
can go up to 99.9999999999999999% etc. (in any given instance). But higher probability will never be
100% certain to our finite minds, since it requires an infinite mind to see all of our
future, present, and past: meaning, to see if there exists an exception to any cause-and-effect event.
3. Because everything in our Universe is finite (including our minds) we shall never know a true 100% cause-and-effect belief in anything if it has not already been proven by God.
For we may think some cause-and-effect event is 100% proven (by our scientific knowledge) but it may truly just be 99.9999999999999999% etc. proven in reality.
4. For any future cause-and-effect event 100% known is infinitely known, and any future cause-and-effect event infinitely known is 100% known. So only an infinite being can know cause-and-effect events with 100% accuracy all of the time. Therefore only God is truly wise in his infinite 100% accurate knowledge, and we finite beings are only somewhat wise in our knowledge concerning predictions through higher probabilities.
5. For if we know 99.9999999999999999% of the time that some cause-and-effect event will occur in nature (because of our scientific research) then we can be surer in our knowledge than if we only knew what might happen 50% of the time, if science was not used to investigate that event.
6. Meaning, science and philosophy can narrow down any cause-and-effect event to almost just as excellent as 100% accuracy, which is why science and philosophy are still important.
And if any natural counter event (to a cause-and-effect event) occurs that proves our belief was not 100% accurate, we can narrow down the likely culprits and still have the advantage of knowing what is going to happen for most of the time.
Higher probability, proven by our sciences, is nothing to laugh at when you come to realize that higher probabilities, combined with our ability to analyze and correct for unseen events (or mistakes) for cause-and-effect events, can make our cause-and-effect knowledge accurate to a very high degree—which is nothing to sneer at.
So the skeptics are wrong in making sport of our scientific and philosophical knowledge concerning cause-and-effect events and
probabilities--for by higher probability we can predict
the future, with very great accuracy, concerning any event or occurrence.
[Note: In his Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Sextus Empiricus states that the Method of Induction
is futile since you cannot take into consideration all of the individual particulars
that back up a generality. However, one does not need every particular proof
in the Method of Induction to back up a generality, just enough particulars
that can be validated in repeated tests. The Method of Induction would
have to wait until the 17th century when Francis Bacon showed it in a new
light. This Induction eventually paved the way for the modern Scientific Method.]
7. Now Carneades did not argue against the skeptical claims laid down by the previous philosophers
of the school he belonged to.
And even though
he knew that we could never know anything with 100% certainty (like those previous philosophers also
believed), he still believed we need probability
in many areas of life. In a sense, his philosophy of
probability is suited towards William James' philosophy of Pragmatism, since Carneades' philosophy of
probability is meant for the practical side of life.
I. Aristotle's Probability of the Psyche: On Probability's Mind Trick
1. In his On Rhetoric, Aristotle says we are more efficient at demolishing a probability than at trying
to build one up. Meaning, the mind is tricked into thinking that what is not necessary is instead
not probable.
2. Aristotle, however, did not state why the mind is tricked. I believe the reason that we are tricked into
thinking a probability is not probable, with the use of
a single counter example, is because from birth we watch out
for dangers just by the limited experience that one example makes. This process can increase a child's
survival rate since what they lack in experience they make up for in always alert caution.
3. For when you think of some probability as not probable, you are taking into account multiple causes
and effects. But when you think of some probability as not necessary, you are just thinking of a single
counter example of cause or effect.
4. And because of the mental wiring of our early years in life, we get confused into thinking that what
is possible (in only one instance) seems highly probable (in most instances)
and that what is impossible (in only one instance) seems highly improbable (in most instances).
But this is actually false.
II. Aristotle's Probability of the Psyche: On Reversion
1. There are some people who cannot determine Fiction from Fact. They no longer judge by probability;
they instead judge only by possibility. Meaning, they think everything is possible.
2. But the truth is not everything is possible. And a corollary to this is not everything is probable.
3. A cure for someone who judges by possibility alone would seem to be to make them able to judge by
probability again.
4. The childlike psyche is the most gullible because it doesn't judge every event by probability.
There are a lot of things that the child judges by possibility without probability.
5. When a child grows older that child relies on probability in judgment more and more. However,
a reversion in psyche (or its breakdown) similiar to Rene Descartes' First Meditation, can bring any adult back
to a childlike state.
III. Examples of Probability on Space Junk crashing into a Golf Course again.
1. E.g. a child may say: "I will never go to any golf course so that no Space Junk falls on me."
2. E.g. an adult scientist may say: "There is a 76% chance that the falling of Space Junk
will occur again on that golf course over the next 100 years."
3. E.g. God might say: "Falling Space Junk on that golf course will only happen two more times in all of eternity."
The reason being the golf course will be destroyed two weeks later.
IV. Aristotle's Probability of the Psyche: On Induction
1. In his natural state, a man becomes certain of something through induction.
E.g. two or more probable instances are linked together to form a generalized certainty.
2. When man's brain becomes mentally ill this process is damaged by over thinking:
i.e. a constant ripping apart of probable instances is created so that nothing is certain and everything becomes possible.
3. E.g. a normal man will need just three instances or more (of memorized signs) to remember that a door was closed and locked by him ten minutes ago, etc..
4. What the over thinking, mentally sick man will do is destroy each of the three (or more) memorized signs by thinking up a counter example to each one. And there will follow a chain reaction of counter instances that will destroy every probability thought up by the sick man.
5. Some may comment that there exists a counter instance to every probability. That is true. But wheras the mentally ill person will not get tired of this query, the sane man will. It is this non-caring impulse of the sane man that allows him a better experience in judging by probability than the mentally ill man.
6. For the root of mental illness is the belief that every counter instance matters.
And the root of sanity is the belief that every counter instance does not necessarily matter. This gives the sane man more of an advantage in logic
and judging by probability than the mentally ill man.
[Note: The sane man takes calculated risks and recognizes the value of probable, multiple signs. The insane man doesn't do such
things and is obsessed with
his own confusing thoughts.]
7. Some who have read Kierkegaard may assume that some choices we make are equal in result.
E.g. if we get angry we regret it, and if we don't get angry we regret that too. But Machiavelli
says that we should take into account both evil actions and their results and
choose the least evil one as good.
8. And as Epictetus might say, no matter how limited the choices we may have in life
we always have the option of always choosing what is the more constructive thing to do. E.g. if you go to
an area of the city to feed the poor and there is no one to accept your bread,
you can always feed the birds, and also attempt to feed the poor at some other future date.
And when Jesus fed the 5,000 men and they were no longer hungry, he told the disciples
to gather the left over fragments, so that the remainder of the food is not wasted, which
is a food philosophy also shared by the Chinese philosopher Mencius.
V. Probability's Rhetorical Algebra
1. "There is an exception to every rule." I.e. one counter instance to any probability.
2. "There is an exception to every exception to every rule." I.e. the exception to every rule is canceled out
and we judge again by probability. And the cycle repeats itself in one continuous circle.
3. Probability and 'the exception to every rule' are logically connected and work in one continuous cycle with one other.
2. ON THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE
On the error of Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
I believe Werner Heisenberg's declaration that no one can predict the future is misleading.
But, yes, because we men are finite beings
we can only judge by higher probability--which, by itself, can be very accurate.
We cannot know any future event with 100% certainty though, but only an infinite
being (meaning an omnipotent God) can. Isaac Newton's strict causality is valid because God himself exists.
But only God himself understands the universe through strict causality. We however can only know universal
causality through higher probability--which, like I said, can be very accurate.
However, this lack of omniscience in the human finite state is how we are fooled
into thinking that Newton's law of strict causality is wrong. But because God exists, Newton's law of strict
causality is a true law in the universe. Therefore, Albert Einstein was right in opposing Heisenberg's theory
and in defending Newton's laws.
Heisenberg was correct in that we finite beings cannot know with 100% certainty the future,
but he was wrong
in thinking the universe has no fixed laws (created by God in his mind)
that dictate the future of the universe.
[I think Jesus himself is not omniscient, nor knows
all causality, as he hints at in the Gospel of Matthew 24:36. However, this does not mean that God
did not give great powers to Christ. It just means Jesus is not the exact same thing as God the Father.
Of course, this would mean Jesus is homoiousios with the Father (or like him)
and is not homoousious with the Father (or the same as him.)]
Note: For the divinity of all three persons of the Trinity could possibly be homoousious. But the three persons of the Trinity to one another are possibly anomoios (or different) to one another as individual persons.
Now one of the differences between a finite being and an infinite being is that a finite being, no
matter how much knowledge he possesses, can only predict things through higher probability. And an
infinite being, or God, predicts all predictions with 100% accuracy. The Koran itself teaches that
one should only say 'God willing' when stating any kind of future action. For we do not know
with 100% certainty how something will turn out but only God knows. Although, science and philosophy
can make our predictions very accurate--just not 100% accurate. For God has 100% knowledge of the
future, but we finite beings don't have 100% knowledge of the future.
The following passages from the Bible support the idea of determinism:
Eccl. 3:1-8, Isaiah 45:9-12, John 6:65-66, 19:10-11, Romans 9:18-21.
But why does being ethical still matter? Read the following parable...
Once there was a king who summoned two young men before him. The first man he turned into
his future succesor, while the second man he turned into the kingdom's executioner. Over the years,
the executioner killed many hundreds of men, by order of the king; while, the king's future successor walked
in the ways of piety and mercy. When the king was soon to retire from his occupation of being
king, he summoned both men before him.
The king told the future successor to succeed him as king, while the executioner was to die. Now the executioner,
when he heard this, became furious and demanded to know why he was going to be put to death when all
of his duties were ordered by the king. The king replied: "I know you could not lift one finger without my
leave. But since you polluted yourself with such foul acts, you must perish, so the kingdom, in turn,
will not be polluted by your nefarious past and character."
[Determinism or not, the moral of this parable is to do many good works in life to
survive God's future wrath.]
The following Logic of Determinism vs. The Uncertainty Principle
is based on Part Three's Logic of Absolute Time vs. Relativity
If we need to calculate the universe,
And if we can calculate Determinism,
We do not need The Uncertainty Principle.
But we need to calculate the universe,
And we cannot calculate Determinism, (since we are finite, and not infinite, in nature),
Therefore we need The Uncertainty Principle (and therefore Quantum Theory).
3. ON THE ETHER... Or part of the science concerning Quantum Entanglement
On the Ether and Cause and Effect
The philosopher David Hume suggests that since we cannot sense the middle part of
causality that it does not exist, meaning: all
science is false. (Although, he once hinted, contrary to his dogmatism, that everything needs a cause.)
But what do we know about cause and effect? We know that it functions in
time with before and after, that we can sense the before and after but not what comes between them.
The middle part of cause and effect is left anonymous. Therefore, I think there must exist a higher force
between cause and effect that we cannot experience with sense perception as human beings.
And yet it is unseen like one of Plato's divine forms.
It must exist for a cause to produce an effect. This middle part of cause and effect
is what I believe is called ether. I think no cause and effect can happen within our universe without ether.
Now I believe ether runs normally in our universe, according to the laws of physics, mathematics,
reason, logic, biology and all other sciences: except during miracles.
The latter is when the ether is either withheld from a cause and effect, or forms an alternate effect,
or both.
Therefore, ether is either divinely permitted or divinely not permitted. Ether is the higher, unseen force of
God's determinism. Hume was puzzled at the unknown medium that could bridge the gap between
cause and effect. That gap is bridged by ether.
More on Ether and Miracles
I suppose if ether does not exist, and is not the bridge between cause and effect, then God would have to change
the laws of the universe everytime a miracle took place. God would also have to change those same laws back
to their original state; and, a miracle, like the Red Sea parting, might occur everyplace
there exists an ocean (or sea) during the time that miracle happened--or worse, a universal cataclysmic event
might take place because of opposing laws in conflict with one another. Ether,
which is a solution to this problem, would allow a temporary
miracle to happen, in an isolated place, anywhere and at anytime,
without changing and rechanging the laws of the physical universe
whenever (and wherever) there is need of a miracle somewhere. Plus, if ether exists, determinism could exist as well.
In a universe in which ether doesn't exist, determinism could not exist as well, because
(without ether) God would
be working at random forever--which is totally opposed to any sort of divine plan, omniscience,
or God's 100% (infinite) knowledge of the future. Meaning, fixed miracles can be pre-planned with ether
but not without ether, since a label of future date can be applied to every future ether miracle,
which cannot happen if God acts at random. See Eccl. 3:1-8 and John 9:1-7.
Now some may quote Genesis 18:14 and say God can do
anything. That is true, God can do anything. But many times God sends various angels to perform
miracles in the universe. And it would make more sense if an angel altered an ether's effect,
or stopped an ether to produce an effect, or both,
than if that angel had power to alter the laws of the universe in any fashion he wished. The above may
also be true concerning the Christ. See The Koran 3:49.
The Logic of the Ether Medium of Cause and Effect
If cause and effect doesn't work,
There is no need for a medium between cause and effect.
But the cause and effect of science works,
Therefore, the medium (of ether) is needed for the cause and effect of science to work.
And since cause and effect works inside of science because of the ether,
Cause and effect works outside of science because of the ether.
David Hume inadvertantly proves that God exists
If Hume's hint is correct about a medium to cause and effect,
Then he is wrong about God not existing.
But Hume's hint is correct about a medium to cause and effect,
Therefore, God must exist.
For the medium of cause and effect can only be a divine ether.
And for there to exist a divine ether,
There must also exist a divine God.
The Problem of solving The Unified Field Theory
Column (A) ----------------- Column (B)
Absolute Time-------------Relativity
Determinism---------------The Uncertainty Principle (& Freewill)
Ether in Causality---------No Ether in Causality
*Column (A) is composed of complete theories which cannot be proven by a finite being's observation.
**Column (B) is composed of incomplete theories which can be proven by a finite being's observation.
(Although, having no Ether in Causality cannot really be proven.)
***However, the gut feeling (and logic) of the wise, who believe in God, say Column (A) is how the universe is truly run,
and Column (B) is how the universe seems to run but is not really run that way.
But since it is impossible for us finite beings to figure out Column (A), Column (B) will most likely
always be valid to mankind--i.e. except for the rejection of ether.
****By the way, the Michelson-Morley experiment cannot refute my idea of ether, since my ether is
invisible and non-corporeal. (Of course, there exists only one corporeal aspect of ether and that is
Jesus Christ.--see below titled: 'The Unmoved Mover and Ether').
Summary of above:
1) The cause and effect of science works through higher probability. Hume's belief that we cannot sense
a causal connection, in any cause and effect, is true. The causal connection, therefore, must be a
higher Platonic form based on Plato's forms. This Platonic form is called ether.
2) The ether both validates every cause and effect and is recollected after the "witnessed" effect
of every cause takes place. However, the ether cannot be sensed.
3) It would be ridiculous if there would be no causal connection (meaning no ether) between
cause and effect events for two reasons: 1) miracles would occur in the universe without reference to the
laws of physics and the proper order of linear events,
and, 2) the exceptions to every event could not occur without an alteration or
warping of physics laws: which could not occur without ether.
The Unmoved Mover and Ether
Since God is the only Unmoved Mover (or First Cause), the Second Cause must have been the WORD (or
the only perfect
Ether): i.e. Jesus Christ (The Way, The Truth and The Life)--see John 1:3.
For The Koran says: God says the word 'Be' and something is created.
Via veritas.
I think Genesis 1:2 speaks about the ether-wind, or Second Cause of existence.
The first thing created by God through Ether, that created thing being: light, was done
through the Word of God (or ether), so light was created in Genesis 1:3.
So the pattern of the creation of light seems to
follow this sequence:
First Cause ----> Second Cause ----> Effect.
(or)
God -----------> Ether/Word -------> Light.
Note: Remember, Jesus is not light but the true light, just as he is not bread but the true bread.
(This logic is analogous to Plato's Forms.)
4. EXTRA ARGUMENTS
Stoic Logic on God's Existence
If creation exists, a Creator must also exist.
But creation does exist, therefore there must exist a Creator.
If a Creator exists, creation must also exist.
But creation does exist, therefore a Creator must also exist.
The Ontological Argument Rethought
1. If God is that which nothing greater can exist,
And if he exists solely in the mind,
Then God is really that which something greater can exist,
And is not that which nothing greater can exist.
2. But God is that which nothing greater can exist.
Meaning, God cannot be that which something greater can exist.
So God cannot just exist solely in the mind.
Therefore, God must exist in reality as well.
The Subjective Three Parts of Human Prayer
(1) Prayer ----> (2) Ether ----> (3) Effect
You may believe that all three parts of prayer are ordained by God. Or you may believe that perhaps
the human prayer part is only partially ordained since it requires some human
effort. The truth is that it depends
on one's subjective experience. In God's mind, or in his own subjective (and objective) experience,
all three parts are
ordained by his infinite mind. But in our very own subjective experience, ether and effect are ordained by
God--for they are not up to our choice; however, praying (or not praying) are up to our freewill or choice.
An infinite mind can understand its own subjective viewpoint and any human subjective viewpoint, but a
finite mind can only understand its own subjective viewpoint. A finite mind cannot understand God's own
subjective/objective viewpoint since God's mind is infinite.
So although you may think you are stuck thinking:
God controls all,
so why should I even try to pray....
It is just as equally in our power to think (and to act on):
God controls all,
so I will pray....
Subjective freewill gives us the choice to chose either sloth and pride in the former,
or industry and humility in the latter.
What is the definition of Ether?
1. Ether is the invisible gate between cause and effect that normally stays open for a cause to produce its intended effect--just as
long as that effect is not an impossible one.
2. An ether can be closed or replaced by another gate (or ether) by God or one of his servants.
3. The greatest ether is Jesus Christ. Via veritas.
An Example of Ethers that are Hidden
That great doctor of ancient history, Hippocrates, believed that four humors had to be in balance
with each other to maintain a state of good health in a person. Otherwise there would be ill health.
Now one could imagine that a healthy body is the effect and the perfect balance of the four humors
is its main cause. This method of medicine worked quite well in the ancient world--even though the ethers
between such causes and effects was absolutely unknown. We now know from modern science and technology
(and Pasteur) that such ethers between such causes and effects, of good health or sickness,
are the work of microbes and their particular diseases. This knowledge led to the scientific breakthrough of antibiotics. But these ethers were not known in the ancient world because the micro universe wasn't discovered until the invention of the microscope around two hundred years ago. Now this basic truth we are discussing, of course, falls under the category (or scientific field) of medicine. But this basic truth is also equally true with all the other fields of science. Without the precise knowledge of an ether it is quite impossible to solve (or manipulate) a cause and effect problem as fast and efficiently as when knowing the particular ether (or ethers) between any cause and its consequential and inevitable effect.
On Existentialism and Prayer
1. I think that we humans have freewill because we are subject to the present and have finite minds.
Therefore, since our subjective experience is finite, we have the ability to chose our actions
in the present. Einstein
believed in the idea of determinism. But determinism can only exist in God's all powerful infinite mind.
So since God has an infinite mind, determinism exists. But since we humans have a finite mind,
we have freewill. It is the relativity of our finite human experience to time's present
that allows us to have freewill. But it is also
the relativity of God's infinite objective experience to all time as a single whole
that has created determinism. Meaning, both determinism and freewill exist at the same time and are
separated by two very different types of mind.
2. But my idea of existentialism is different from both the traditional monotheistic existentialism and the atheistic
existentialism. I believe that both: essence precedes existence (in God's infinite mind), and that
existence precedes essence (in our finite minds). So they both exist at the same time, just as
God's determinism and man's freewill exist at the same time. We cannot understand both determinism and freewill
existing at the same time because we are finite beings subject to time's present and our own subjectivity.
In the same way, we cannot understand how both essence precedes existence and existence precedes
essence at the same time.
3. I also want to point out that (existentialist or not) the monotheist will have the advantage over the atheist because of
his appeal to God's infinite mind and power. The atheistic existentialist
has no such appeal. This magnifies the power of praying over not praying.
4. And because God is the only First Cause (or First Mover), he is the only one capable
of essence preceding existence both in his own nature and in his creation. And although essence precedes existence in
the creator's design for us, our finite minds can only fully grasp that existence precedes essence.
A Clockwork Universe vs. Divine Dominion: The Difference between
Spinoza's idea of God and Benjamin Franklin's idea of God
Spinoza believed that God made the universe and all of its physical laws
and then quit all of his intervention. In biblical terms, Spinoza's bible began at
Genesis 1:1 and ended at Genesis 2:3. While on the other hand, Franklin's bible starts at Genesis 1:1
and continues on past Revelation 22:21. Meaning, God is still active and will always be active in
guiding the universe and mankind within it. I choose to believe that Franklin's idea of God
is more realistic and makes more sense. If I am not mistaken, Spinoza believes, instead, that
the universe is completely
worthless to God.
5. ON RELATIVITY AND PERSPECTIVE
A) On Perspective
I apprehend that there exists a very large number of perspectives on how
the universe is viewed. All perspectives are relative except for God's objective perspective;
however, there only exists one infinite being
and that infinite being is God. Everything else, or all other things, are finite. So really the first most largest
division of experience has got to be the separation of God's determinism (or objective perspective)
from everything else's subjective perspective and freedom of choice.
B)
Here are two verses of scripture I wish to prove valid:
Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.
Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to
go down about a whole day. *
The Koran 35:13
He causeth the night to enter in upon the day, and the day to enter in upon the night; and He hath given
laws to the sun and to the moon, so that each journeyeth to its appointed goal: This is God your Lord: All
power is His: But the gods whom ye call on beside Him have no power over the husk of a date stone! **
* scripture taken from The King James Bible (public domain)
** scripture taken from The Koran (translated by John Rodwell: public domain)
C) Scripture's Geocentric Theory vs. Science's Heliocentric Theory
1. I believe both scriptural and scientific theories are true since both are subjective viewpoints.
2. Only God knows the ultimate third (or true objective) viewpoint concerning that mentioned above.
We finite beings have no objective viewpoint either way.
3. Here is my logic:
If Relativity is true,
Then the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth is true as well.
But Relativity is true,
So the Sun revolves around the Earth as well.
D) In a Relative Cosmos, all things are equal except for one's viewpoint in the universe...
1. From an 'relative viewpoint' it makes just as much sense that the Sun orbits the Earth and that the
Earth orbits the Sun. Meaning, both geocentric and heliocentric viewpoints are true.
2. But from our own geocentric or 'Earth-relative-viewpoint' it makes more probable sense
that the Sun orbits the Earth.
3. After all, when we calculate time and the seasons of the year, we are using a geocentric calculation
and observation.
4. The Earth centered universe must be true, especially if you live on Earth,
unless you too believe in God and therefore Absolute Time and Space.
However, atheists refuse to believe in God and therefore cannot believe in Absolute Time and
Space--if there exists no center of the universe. For there
can only be one objective viewpoint by one infinite being--if there exists no center of the universe.
For those who believe in Relativity, it is just as valid to believe in
the Earth as the center of the universe (or geocentric theory: if you live on Earth) and to also believe in
the heliocentric theory as well--if you live on the Sun.
[What I am getting at is that just as time is relative (throughout the universe), physical perspective
is also relative throughout the universe--and must be if you believe in Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Plus, Relativity, concerning physical perspective,
must be used by men even if God exists, since man will never have an infinite mind.
However, if there exists a center of the universe, 'absolute time' may exist, which is not dependent
on God's existence--except that God created the universe.]
E) You can also look at it this way:
If there exists a center of the universe,
There can exist Isaac Newton's 'absolute time' for us finite beings,
Since all time in the universe can be based on the center of the universe,
Just as all time on Earth is based on Greenwich mean time.
Likewise, if there exists no center of the universe,
Then, according to Relativity (which is the only option left for man to figure out time),
Any object we stand on can be equally considered to be the center of the universe,
Since any object can equally have its own objective viewpoint.
So, if you live on Earth, the geocentric theory can be true,
But the geocentric theory is not true (for you) if you live on the planet Mercury,
Or on another non-Earth planet etc..
So if God exists, or if there exists a center of the universe,
Then Isaac Newton's 'absolute time' exists.
For 'absolute time' either exists in God's mind or at the center of the universe (or both).
And if God exists, so does Isaac Newton's 'determinism'--for God controls all things.
However, there exists a problem if the center of the universe only exists in God's mind:
We would have no frame of reference of time or place since our minds are finite,
And since God's mind is infinite,
Only he does not need Relativity to judge time or place in the universe.
Plus, if men do not know if a center of the universe exists or not,
Or the mathematics of the center of the universe,
Men must base time and place on relativity.
F)
The relativity of perspective:
When you are on the earth, it looks like the sun circles it. When you are on the sun, it looks like the earth circles it.
When you are on the planet Venus, it looks like both the sun and earth circle it.
Meaning, the center of the universe is relative.
It is impossible to believe the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa, unless someone imagines one's frame of
reference outside the earth's spherical zone and somewhere else inside the solar system: e.g. hovering
away from the earth in the direction of the sun.
Perspective's Logic:
The earth circles the sun,
If you have the sun's perspective.
And the sun circles the earth,
If you have the earth's perspective.
Note: Some may comment that on any planet that you are on, making it the center of the universe,
'retrograde motion' of other planets in that same solar system will only happen in the solar system
your planetary center of the universe belongs in. Well, I say that just makes your center of the
universe all the more distinguished from the rest!
Some may still believe in the heliocentric theory so what is my point to all this?
I am trying to make the point that since we are finite beings: time, place, and space are all relative to us in the universe.
6. CONCLUSION
If only an infinite being (meaning God) can fully understand 'determinism' and 'absolute space and time',
then we finite beings can only fully understand 'freewill' and 'relativity'--these last two being the opposites of the former two.
So what was Albert Einstein trying to figure out 100 years ago concerning the Unified Field Theory?
Einstein might have known that only an infinite God could figure out the Unified Field Theory. So I think Einstein was trying to figure out
the Unified Field Theory regardless of the limits of his finite mind. Einstein tried to play God but failed.
Although it could be considered noble to imitate God in knowledge, excluding the Garden of Eden story in Genesis,
what Einstein was doing would seem impossible.
7. CONCLUSION SUMMARY LAW
The First Law of Relativity: For every large, complete sphere (i.e. a moon, planet, or star), there exists
it's very own complete, relative perspective in the universe that is divided into lesser relative perspectives,
throughout it's outer reaches & throughout it's inner self.
The Second Law of Relativity: For relativity to exist, the universe must be spherical
in structure. For relativity can only exist in circular repeating motions.
If the universe were square or rectangular in shape,
relativity would not be possible. What is needed is 360 degrees
of total axis rotation in both the universe and macro-universe
for relativity to be possible.
The Third Law of Relativity: For relativity to exist, there must only exist a finite amount
of time in the universe. For infinite time is completely static, while finite time
must be dynamic or in constant motion. Infinite time has no future or past; it consists
of all possible scenarios but to an infinite degree. Therefore, infinite time can only
exist in God's infinite mind. So, therefore, only God can understand Determinism since only
he has a mental grasp on eternity. And, remember, infinite time is greater than eternity.
Eternity is finite time going on forever, while infinite time is all time locked in a
complete infinite sphere or realm. Just like Einstein's idea of racing a light beam and the speed that light travels,
no matter how much time is counted in a finite amount of time, when compared to (side by side) with
infinite time, infinite time will always be infinitely greater in length. Even if a finite human
or computer-like mind could count forever, it would still not be able to surmount and overtake or even
reach an infinite number. So, therefore, all finite time is nothing compared with infinite time.
For relativity must exist in an eternity of time, but it cannot exist in an infinite amount of time.
But what is Infinite Time? As a Math Equation it may go like this:
Infinite Time = Zero time added to any time in any endless Eternity × 0 (+ the number
Infinity.) And, therefore, Infinite Time = the Speed of God's Mind.
For as in racing a light beam, the light beam will always speed
away from you at the speed of light. And counting to eternity will
be endless, and you will never break the endless barrier even if the universe
lasts forever,
and the number Infinity will always be beyond the endless barrier.
For when the number Infinity is put into an equation, all other numbers are cancelled out
by the utter immensity of the Infinite number.
The Fourth Law of Relativity: The difference in rate of relativity between two objects in the
universe depends on the combined speed & distance of any object that leaves any other
object from their original relativly shared point of origin. Once the object that left
returns to it's relativistic point of origin both that object and the object
that was relativly stationary will both share the same relativistic point
(& rate of time) in the universe. --Distance is included since the speed and
distance it takes light to travel is fixed according to Einstein, which is also the
limit at how fast a man (or physical object) can travel in the universe. --Time is also included
since it is a factor in the speed of light and all relativistic (or independent)
points of origin move through time at different rates & have different
gravitational influences on universal objects.
On the Holy Trinity and The Koran
If the Holy Trinity is true, our finite minds cannot fully comprehend three persons in one God.
Our finite minds can only understand God (or God the Father), Jesus Christ (the Messiah), and the Holy Spirit
as individuals. It would take an infinite mind to fully understand the Holy Trinity. So the Koran's monotheism
and Christian doctrine (on the Holy Trinity), both can be true at the same time. The Koran has man's perspective on God,
while the Holy Trinity is God's divine understanding on himself, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Against Heisenberg's Quantum Egg
For arguments sake, if God cannot visually detect where a particle is (e.g. an electron) and its velocity at the same time, then
that doesn't mean God does not know where (and how fast) that particle is going. The reason is because God has an infinite mind.
God's infinite mind knows where everything is at anytime. Some may comment that God can see both the velocity and position of
a particle simultaneously because his eyes are 10,000x brighter than the sun. That's probably true but my argument is that God
doesn't need to see that particle precisely to know exactly where it is while moving. So God would know where a particle is (and its speed)
100% exactly in space whether he could accurately observe it or not. And only God has this capability. So chance is a factor since
we are finite beings, but it is not for God who has 100% knowledge of all events because only he has an infinite mind.
Meaning, both determinism and freewill (& chance) exists and are only separated by the type of mind: one infinite and the rest finite.
Finis.
Since we know of no center of the universe, the Earth for us is the center of the universe. However, it is only when we calculate,
for things in outer space, beyond Earth's atmosphere (like the orbital path of the Earth or Mars), that the heliocentric viewpoint dominates the
geocentric viewpoint. Not until then though. Plus, once the solar system is left behind, the center of the Milky Way takes precedence.
But once the galaxy is left behind, what takes precedence if there is no center of the universe? Every point in space would
be relative.
[E.g. For if I were Joshua fighting against my enemies, then the geocentric viewpoint is true for me. It is only when I go to heaven, leaving the
Earth beneath me, that the heliocentric viewpoint takes precedence over the geocentric viewpoint. But even the heliocentric viewpoint
makes no sense outside of the solar system.]
[Why does the heliocentric viewpoint of the universe make logical sense to a lot of people? It makes sense because with the sun as the center of the universe, all of the planets orbit the sun in lesser to greater orbits like the lanes of a race track with no retrograde motion. Meaning, there is no retrograde motion of the orbiting planets around the sun if the sun is the center of the universe. This, of course, is in contrast with the geocentric model or Earth centered universe. For the Earth centered universe has planets physically acting out retrograde motions at times when orbiting the Earth. (And just because there is no retrograde motion of the planets in a heliocentric universe means nothing because it will continue to exist with bigger universal objects.) That is retrograde motion will continue on a larger scale. E.g. orbiting stars in the vicinity of the sun's orbiting cycle of our spiral Milky Way galaxy also have retrograde motion in relation to Earth's sun--as the sun and stars orbit the Milky Way's galactic center. It is only when the center of the Miky Way's galactic perspective has the sun and stars orbiting it that the retrograde motion of the stars disappear to a great degree. Likewise, when the Milky Way's galactic center has galaxies orbiting it, there will be retrograde motion of the other galaxies in their orbits. By such logic it would make sense that galaxies will have no retrograde motion (or very little) with the center of the universe as its orbiting center. The above logic proves that everything orbiting something in the universe can be the center of the universe in a relative way. Many people are just confused by the phenomenon of orbiting retrograde motion, not realizing that one series of retrograde motions is replaced with another one with each major shift of larger universal orbiting position. Therefore, all universal centers are relative regardless of any retrograde motion or lack thereof.
Meaning, the sun orbits the Earth, and the Earth orbits the sun.
One proof that most people utilize the Earth as the center of the universe is in telling time during the day.
For we don't say it is noon because of sunlight shining on a rotating Earth. (Meaning, the sun is the center of our universe
perspective because sunlight comes from the sun.)
We say instead that it is noon because the sun is at the Earth's zenith. Likewise, we say it is the beginning of the
day because the sun is rising in the Earth's east, and it is evening because the sun is setting in the Earth's west.]
Note: The Milky Way Galaxy even experiences it's own orbiting stars, or half the stars in it's central spherical zone, with having retrograde motion to it's center.
An Analogy between The Center of the Universe & The Center of Galaxies and the no-need for Dark Energy
If the Big Bang occured, could the center of the universe be the same thing as the center of the Big Bang? If this is true than the center of the Big Bang (meaning: the center of the universe) would have a gravitational influence on the expanding universe. However, there would be a point in distance where objects (or galaxies) would break from the gravitational hold of the center of the universe and therefore increase in speed, thereby causing galaxies to expand at an ever increasing rate the further out they go--since such galaxies would still have the expanding momentum of the Big Bang explosion itself. So there would be no need for Dark Energy, to cause a faster rate of the expansion for the universe, since the center of the universe was the main culprit for making universal expansion slower, in its beginning, than later on and what we can see now. Now the outer edges of a galaxy & their increase (or steady rate) in orbital velocity could have nothing to do with Dark Matter just as the increased expansion of the universe may have nothing to do with Dark Energy, if all now said is true. But since there was no great explosive force in the center of galaxies, where could such stars get the momentum to increase (or steady) their velocity? Probably from the orbital momentum, or centrifugal force, that all stars have from orbiting their
galactic center--except that the faster (or steady) stars have become loose from the gravity of the galactic center. Some may say that star systems don't have planets that increase (or steady) in velocity the further out a planet travels from the center of a solar system. The reason may be because there are both no Big Bang like explosions, and no great centrifugal forces, associated with satellites that orbit stars, unlike the expansion of the universe & galaxies, and the orbiting of stars at the outer reaches of galaxies. Therefore, the physics equations (or math) that work for planets orbiting stars are not equal with stars orbiting far away from galactic centers, and are not equal to the constant expansion of the universe. If this theory is true, then there really is no such thing as Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
No need for Dark Energy if there exists a gravitational center to the Big Bang? How so? A Physical Picture for the later increase of galactic velocity in an expanding universe: or, what I dub "Rubber Band Theory."
Take a rubber band and stretch it between two index fingers. Have one index finger close to your chest and the other index finger pointed away from your chest in a perpendicular lengthwise direction in contrast to the width of your chest. Now try to stretch the portion of the rubber band farthest away from you with the index finger located farthest away from your chest. This physical picture is analogous to a galaxy initially traveling away from the center of the universe in an expanding universe after the Big Bang explosion itself. The index finger nearest to your chest is analogous to the force of the gravity at the center of the universe holding onto the galaxy that is traveling away from it with the momentum caused by the Big Bang explosion. The index finger (& portion of rubber band) pointing away from your chest is the directional route of that particular galaxy in an expanding universe. It is slow going at first for that galaxy, but if you release the end of the rubber band that is nearest to your chest, the rubber band will shoot away from your body at a much higher acceleration away from you. This, of course, is analogous to what happens to a galaxy, in an expanding universe, that is initially held by a gravitational field, located at the center of that universe, but is now no longer held by that same gravitational field, that is located at the center of that universe, because of a great increase of distance away from that central source of gravity. What is my conclusion to all of this? That there really is no need for a force of Dark Energy to exist to increase the expansion of the universe at a increasing rate of motion after the beginning stage of that expansion was initially at a slower rate of universal expansion to begin with. All the Big Bang needs is a universal center of gravity, and that same gravitational center is the same spatial center of all of the known universe.
[Note: Of course, you could also say that that is exactly what Dark Energy is: the kinetic, built-up energy of the rubber band released! This would also imply that there exists a center of the universe just because Dark Energy exists.]
For the holder (or medium) of such dynamic energy (or Dark Energy) which functions like a Rubber Band can be probably no other than the ether (or the aether) theory of Isaac Newton.
Note 2: Because of Rubber Band Theory the universe will not collapse in on itself. Once the gravitational Rubber Band
breaks the expansion of the universe will speed up, but the galactic expansion
will eventually slow down and stop because of the galactic kinetic energy will
be worn down by friction caused by rubbing against the ether field. However, since the Rubber Band
is broken there will no longer be a gravitational connection between galaxies and the center of the universe.
So like floating in limbo the entire universe will eventually come to a galactic rest for every galaxy.
[E.g. any observable galaxy moving slowly can be considered still connected (by via of the gravitational
hold) with the center of the universe, and any galaxies moving the fastest have already
broken with the gravitational hold of the gravitational rubber band with the center of the universe. Mathematically
averaging out the various galaxies (of those still connected, and those no longer connected)
with the most probable directional-location of the center of the universe can produce a mathematical equation that would give the probable
distance in light years to the center of the universe--and maybe even it's precise universal direction (& distance) of existence.]
Note 3: When a spinning top is released with a piece of string, or by via one's fingers, the spinning
top, at that instant, I believe, has the most energy and spins the fastest. Replace the "dreidel"
with any particular galaxy and you will realize where
a galaxy gets its forward momentum from when it is
released from its gravitational connection with the center of the universe.
Note 4: Rubber Band Theory Test
To test Rubber Band Theory, one can use the Sun as a substitute for the center of the Big Bang. As a substitute for galaxies one can use the solar wind traveling away from the Sun's surface. When the solar wind leaves the surface of the Sun, it maintains a steady rate of velocity. When the solar wind reaches a certain distance from the Sun, its velocity increases. If the velocity of the solar wind is averaged out with the speed of galaxies, one could theoretically determine the distance of the Milky Way (and planet Earth) from the center of the Big Bang, or the center of the universe. Of course, one would first need to compare the size (or mass) of the Sun compared with the size (or mass) of the Big Bang explosion. Plus, the Sun's surface (where the solar wind begins) must be compared with the distance on average from the Big Bang where galaxies on average first began to form. And you would also need to average out the distance in the Solar System where the solar wind begins to speed up as the cut-off-point of the Sun's gravitational hold on the solar wind and compare it with what is already known to find the missing parts of the mathematical equation.
*Note on why there is No Need for Dark Matter. There is also another way of looking at the reason why outer-rim stars move or accelerate faster than
their inner-rim cousins. Here is a diagram of a galaxy:
***1***2***3***4***(***5***)***4***3***2***1***
If gravity and time are bounded together, or what I call GRAVITY-TIME, then it would make sense
that the greater the gravity the slower the relative time--just as an obese person moves physically slower and gets
tired faster than a physically fit person. And if gravity can bend light,
if there is enough of it, it can bend (or slow) time. And since Einstein says time is relative,
and that a light beam travels always at the speed of light, stars 4 & 5 in the
diagram have the slowest relative time (time that may reverse in a blackhole located
at #5), while stars 1 & 2 have the fastest relative
time. Meaning, time speeds up where there exists the least amount of gravity
in the universe. So there could be the illusion that outer-rim stars
are traveling faster than inner-rim stars. And since we are located in the outer-rim
of the Milky-Way Galaxy, the slowness of inner-rim stars of other galaxies
(compared to their outer-rim cousins) are because the relative time
of outer-rim stars match our own time's relativity, while the inner-rim stars
relativity of time is slower than our own time's relativity. This gives the illusion that
outer-rim stars of other galaxies are traveling faster than inner-rim stars of those same galaxies.
But perhaps with this adjustment mathematically added, it is possible that Kepler's
and Newton's laws of gravitation are accurate for galaxies just as they are
for our Solar System.
2 Peter 3:8
...be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day.*
* scripture taken from The King James Bible (public domain)
For seen from God's throne in the highest heaven,
a thousand years in our outer-rim star system could be
equivalent to observing one day in a star system in the inner-rim
of the Milky Way Galaxy. And one day in the Milky Way Galaxy's inner-rim
star systems may make up one thousand years of our reckoning since we are located
inside the outer-rim of star systems.
Dark Matter is the universal force (or theory) that because galaxies spin too fast, especially at their outer-rim
regions, there is not enough normal galactic matter to allow such a rotation because of Kepler's and Newton's
mathematical principles. So in space there must be something that adds to the gravity of galaxies
that allows them to spin so fast. But if a galaxy is made up of various GRAVITY-TIME regions,
with all of their different regions having greater or lesser gravity and relative rates of time, then perhaps
this will affect the overall mass and gravitational strength of a galaxy, causing there to be
no need for Dark Matter to exist. How to put this into a mathematical equation I do not know?
I leave it up to the mathematical experts to decide... Perhaps, however, one could apply
Newton's universal law of gravitation to determine
how much extra matter is needed in a galaxy for its gravitational
field to move that galaxy. Then you could partition
that galaxy into different segments (or categories) of gravitational
workings of that galaxy's radius and diameter.
(Remember, the strongest gravity is at the center of any galaxy
because that is where there are the most stars and also blackholes.)
After your galaxy's gravitational partition
equals the amount of normal matter needed to gravitationally
move that galaxy, you should be able to calculate the
differences of relative time throughout the radius
and diameter of that galaxy's galactic plane. However, if you do even more equations
on various (and many other) galaxies, you could probably come
up with a general equation for most galaxies that works most of the time.
This may be true considering many similar shaped galaxies
are of various sizes...
An additional note concerning Dark Energy...
I just recently learned that Physicists Neal Weiner & Ann Nelson (sometime in 2004)
came out with their own Rubber Band Theory.
Mine is different because they do not talk about
a release of the Rubber Band, creating the
acceleration of galaxies, and they believe
that Dark Energy truly exists. I don't believe in
Dark Energy but the outward forces caused by the Big Bang, and
the gravity at the center of the universe
that can only hold onto accelerating galaxies
for a certain amount of universal distance, until gravity's hold breaks the hold
(or let's go), and as a result the Big Bang's explosive force accelerates those galaxies
at a greater galactic velocity throughout the universe.
My theory is very different from theirs but with the same title.
E.g. they talk of 'neutrinos leftover from the Big Bang that
create an acceleron field.' That theory is not in any way the same as mine.
Furthering the Rubber Band Theory...
There may be multiple stages at which galaxies break away
from the universal center and it's gravitational
hold. The Milky Way Galaxy
& the Andromeda Galaxy may be closer to the
center of the universe than those countless
galaxies that are traveling away from us at a
greater speed than our galaxy and it's neighbor are traveling.
In fact, those galaxies that are said to be the farthest
out & which we can still see from Earth are said to be
traveling at a speed faster than the speed of light.
Those galaxies the farthest out, no matter how
fast they are really going, are still the fastest known galaxies
in our universe. That is because they have broken
completely from the center of the universe. Those
fastest & farthest galaxies are like recharged
spinning
dreidels that have gone through several stages
of increased freedom & speed further and further away from the center of
the universe and it's gravitational hold. I.e. like a rubber band that has
broken away from it's fixed point of contact
in several stages.
And Dark Matter itself could be the leftover gravity that Rubber Band Theory
works in multiple stages, (by the false Dark Energy that galaxies take part in that separates themselves from the universal center)
a separation that was
propelled by the past Big Bang explosion itself.
So it could be that Dark Matter exists but not Dark Energy.
Then Dark Energy would be replaced by Rubber Band Theory
but Dark Matter is the gravitational residual leftover of galaxies
contracting & breaking free of the universal center's gravitational hold. Finis.
Note on an Inflationary Universe
Of course, Rubber Band Theory may prove erroneous
in a inflationary universe. However, if
singularities are infinite in density, then they
cannot exist in a finite universe. Meaning
they must exist in another dimension that can
support them. This other dimension would not
be part of a universe that would inflate as our
universe inflates. Meaning such singularities would be anchored down.
If this is the case then the Super Massive
Black Holes, at the center of galaxies, would eventually
break apart from their singularities and
increase in velocity free of their attachments. This theory
explains away the false belief of Dark Energy.
The following diagram should further explain this theory...
[Note before the diagram. In Physics 1, I explain why time cannot be infinite
in length. Here is a repetition of what I said:
1) Because there would exist an infinite number of hours inside of infinite time--and if you divided those same hours into an infinite number of minutes--there would exist more infinite number of minutes (in infinite time) than an infinite number of hours (in infinite time).
2) However, this would be impossible if both divisions of time (meaning: hours and minutes) existed inside of infinite time--which they would have to. For there cannot exist both an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of time x60. (The infinite can only have one number to it. Meaning, the last number. And this last number can only exist inside an infinite realm.)
3) Therefore, there exists only a finite amount of time in our finite Universe.]
Further note: For there are 60 minutes to every hour. If time were infinite, there would have to be an
infinite number of hours. But if there were an infinite number of hours there would also
have to be an infinite number of minutes times 60. But if time were infinite, or the greatest number, how could the greatest number be times 60 more as well?
Therefore, there exists only a finite amount of time in our universe. And if the universe is made up of 4 dimensions, and one of them is time which is finite, how could
the other 3 dimensions of space be infinite in dimension? For if the 4 dimensions of our universe are a whole then how could one part of the whole be finite and
the other parts be infinite? That's like saying one hundred men could eat an infinite number of apples. It's just not going to happen. An infinite number of
men could eat an infinite number of apples, but it is impossible for a hundred men to do so. Or how could a 1,000 foot tall building have mounted on it an infinite number
of windows? Or how could a star with an infinite size be contained in one Astronomical Unit of space? It's just not going to happen. Therefore, our universal 4 dimensions of time
and space are only finite in size and amount. So any super massive black hole's singularity, which is said to be infinite in density, can only exist in another dimension
outside of our universe. This dimensional realm has no universal inflation, since that requires a finite amount of time and space. Therefore, a singularity is anchored
in its dimension and doesn't move. But we know galaxies are constantly moving because of universal inflation. This puts a tight reign between galaxies, their central black holes,
and the singularities of those black holes because a singularity is anchored but a galaxy is not.
Sooner or later that connection between a galaxy and attached singularities will break from one another. This release from a singularity, or momentum, or energy
will accelerate a host galaxy faster and faster throughout space. And that is the explanation for supposed Dark Energy.
Furthering the argument against Dark Matter & Furthering the argument for Dark Matter...
[1]
Hawking Radiation is the spillage of light from the main Black Hole of every galaxy. Perhaps this spillage may also be in the form of gravity as well. Perhaps gravity spillage floods all except the edge of a galaxy. This could be an explanation for the mistaken idea: Dark Matter.
[2]
For example, water spills out of a clogged toilet to a certain distance away from that toilet. "Gravity Spillage" could flood most of the galaxy but not the edges of any galaxy. It all depends on the degree of spillage. May explain 2 why some galaxies seem to have no Dark Matter.
[3]
Gravity Spillage retards the speed of stars that orbit a galaxy. If the spillage has a hard time to reach a galaxy's outer band stars, this would explain why such stars seem to be going too fast for Newton's math. If there is complete spillage, Dark Matter is not there in theory.
[4]
Just as Hawking Radiation comes out of a massive Black Hole at the center of each galaxy, so Gravity Spillage (or vast amounts of gravitons) can come out of such a black hole. The plumbing in each galactic black hole determines how much comes out. This is confused as Dark Matter.
[5]
Too much galactic graviton flooding from a massive Black Hole will result in a galaxy not being detected as having Dark Matter. Too little galactic graviton flooding from a massive B. H. results in outer stars traveling too fast so astronomers think such a galaxy has Dark Matter.
[6]
Gravity Spillage Theory? Since black holes have magnetic fields, they may have mag. shifts within their interiors & event horizons. The more shifts the more clogging & the more gravitons will escape into the galaxy. The more shifts = the more gravitons = less supposed Dark Matter
[7]
For the more magnetic shifts of a black hole, the more it will interfere with the gravity-power of a black hole: meaning the more matter & gravitons can escape from a black hole and be ejected back into outer space.
[8]
How do you test this Gravity Spillage Theory? Compare on average the magnetic shifting of supermassive Black Holes found in other galaxies. When there is a magnetic shift, X-rays diminish and UV & visible light increase in activity around a Black Hole's accretion disk. More activity = less Dark Matter in the same galaxy. I say 'compare on average' because it is not clear yet if countless other smaller non-supermassive black holes also eject enough gravitons to make a difference.
[Note:] If Gravity Spillage Theory is correct, then supermassive Black Holes that have the greatest frequency (or occurrences) of magnetic shifts (or magnetic reversals) will be hosted in galaxies w/the least amount of supposed Dark Matter mathematically calculated on average.
Note 1: Like Einstein originally thought, I believe the expansion of the Universe is false. If there is Dark Matter between all galaxies this could explain their higher redshifts. The more Dark Matter there is between galaxies the more a redshift. (A reason why a negative redshift Doppler Effect cannot be seen between galaxies.)
Note 2: Einstein's Cosmological Constant is true! Hubble said Galaxies 2x as far away from us move 2x as fast & Galaxies 3x away from us move 3x as fast. Wrong! Dark Matter is the uniform repulsive force of space. A Galaxy 2x as far has 2x Dark Matter between us. A Galaxy 3x as far has 3x Dark Matter between us, etc. Dark Matter (or Dark Energy) gravity multiplies redshift of light with all increasing uniform distances from a Galaxy.
Note 3: I think the electromagnetic redshift in galaxies 2x & 3x away is seen as 2x & 3x faster than a galaxy 1x away not because of cosmic expansion, but because Dark Matter is uniform throughout the universe & a galaxy's spectra 2x or 3x distant is affected by Dark Matter 2x or 3x as much.
Note 4: But, of course, light is not affected by Dark Matter. So what affects the spectra of electromagnetism to cause an increase in the redshift in that spectra of distant galaxies? There must be an X factor that makes the gravity of Dark Matter interact & affect the light spectrum.
Note 5: The Hubble Space Telescope has detected over 8,000 galaxies outside our Galactic Local Group that are blueshifted but this is a small number compared with the number of redshifted galaxies in our universe. Dark Matter is everywhere, but perhaps there is less with blueshifted galaxies.
Note 6: There is a Clausewitzian term called FRICTION that hampers planned military goals during their physical operation. Dark Matter's gravity affects the electromagnetic spectra of light from distant galaxies to be redshifted through the process of Dark Matter FRICTION. [Over 99% of the galaxies in our cosmos are redshifted.]
Ether Finis.
Does gravity pull or does space push?
Isaac Newton believed gravity pulls, but others believe space pushes. But as far as the latter force,
if space pushes then what pushes space? It can only be the ether-wind that pushes space. For if you say there exists no ether-wind,
but that objects fall downwards over the curvature of space, isn't that the same thing as saying that gravity pulls downwards
creating the fall? Therefore
an ether-wind must exist.
Note: This is not the total truth. Einstein believed space
is curved and that we get the illusion of gravity. To explain
this he needed to explain the postulates of non-traditional
geometry. Nostradamus believed the universe is composed
of 8 spheres. If the universe is spherical in structure, this
could explain why space is naturally curved in dimensional
structure.
[If space-time is curved all things must fall towards the center of the universe. This fall towards the center of the universe is overcome by: a very far distance from the center of the universe, the built up force of Dark Energy, nearby tears in the monad-field, and the momentum generated by the Big Bang explosion itself.]
Additional Note: In Physics 1, I've explained that gravity is like the
suction of a water-filled bathroom sink that gets suddenly unplugged.
The question is what takes the place of the water in 4 dimensional
space-time? It would probably have to be Isaac Newton's ether or
ether-wind. And since black holes may have been sucking in ether for billions of years, Dark Matter may be vast areas of space devoid of ether or the ether wind.
If this is true then ether gets sucked into the center of planets, stars, and black holes at a faster rate than the matter it carries with it. E.g. it's similar to when a person quickly yanks a table cloth off a table and some of the dishes still remain on the table.
Of course, this idea of Dark Matter in my Physics 1 paper is different from my belief
that Dark Matter doesn't really exist as previously stated above in this Physics 2 paper.
When all is said and done, I choose to believe in my Physics 2 paper belief, or that Dark Matter doesn't truly exist...
Hume Finis.
David Hume believes there exists five senses, and any idea that we do not trace back to sense experience is a false idea.
E.g. we do not sense a causal connection with a cause-effect, so science is bogus, since science is made up of cause-effect.
He also says we cannot sense God, so he thought God was a made up idea. But Hume doesn't include a sixth sense of the soul.
Our sixth sense has most likely detected the Platonic Forms. It has detected God's presence.
And it also has detected the causal connection between cause-effect which I call ether.
Some may ask how we can detect an operation of the soul? I believe the soul transmits its knowledge to the mind through the emotions.
E.g. if you internally feel calm and peaceful after attending a church service, it is proof you have experienced the peace-giving presence of God.
The ether is also detected by our soul when we can emotionally swear a cause has produced an effect.
Quantum Theory Finis.
1) The mysteries of Quantum Theory are endless for mankind.
2)The Koran says that for everything in the cosmos there exists a finite number. [The Koran Chapter 13.]
3) Only God has an infinite mind.
4) The implication for this is that, for our finite minds,
Quantum Theory is endless.
5) And that only God understands the Unified Field Theory.
6) Meaning Quantum Theory is never ending for physics research.
7) There is a big difference between never ending (or endless) and the infinite.
8) Never ending means the continual addition of a finite number--while the infinite is the final number to all numbers. Only
an infinite mind can house such a number. Meaning, only God can.
Note: Einstein, in his later years, embraced Newtonian physics (and dropped Relativity)
because he wanted to believe in his heart that the Unified Field Theory was discoverable by man.
If you believe that Quantum Physics Theory and Relativity are the limits to mankind's approach to physics,
then perhaps you believe that
only an infinite mind can discover The Unified Field Theory--meaning, only God can.
(And although human beings may understand the general ideas of The Unified Field Theory
only God would be able to understand all of its particulars.)
The Lun yu
Confucius believed time had a beginning; therefore he believed time was finite. See Book 12 Passage 7 of The Analects.
In response to Matthew 24:36
On the infinite Mind. We who read scripture can assume that Jesus has had a divine, immortal body since his passion and death. The creator himself has a divine, immortal body. Jesus even has a throne in heaven like the creator has a throne in heaven--which we can gather from scripture. We may also confidently gather from scripture that Jesus has a superior mind to all of the holy angels (and creatures) in heaven. But Matthew 24:36 proves that Jesus does not have an infinite Mind like the creator has. In fact, no one has an infinite Mind like God the creator.
In response to Romans 9:15-20, 11:33-34
On Freewill and God's will. God's infinite mind has created infinite Determinism (in his thought) over the universe and over all of creation. But just as our finite minds could never count to the number 'the infinite' (even if our minds counted endlessly, for all eternity), we could never grasp or understand infinite Determinism. So our finite existence has finite Freewill--which is maximum Freewill for all of us finite beings.
On Cause and Effect and Ether
1. A cause and effect rate is based on the rate of time between every cause and its effect.
2. The rate of time between every cause and its effect is based on every object (macro or micro) that transforms (or moves) from every cause to produce its intended effect.
3. The combination of such objects that transforms (or moves) themselves from their cause to their effect, and the time this takes is generically what we term or call ether.
4. Ether is that middle part between cause and effect that was a mystery to the philosopher David Hume. He did not know of the medium between cause and effect.
5. Every ether that is not observed (or experienced by the other senses) is still classified as ether.
6. Association, the psychological term based on human experiences, is the false term given to every ether
that is not observed or sensed. So cause and effect is a true extraordinary thing in the universe
and so is ether. For it is not just because of a lack of knowing the ether/s that Hume thought up the idea of association.
It is also when a result (or effect) has many multiple causes that are unknown to man. For the universe is huge,
unknown, mysterious, and cyclical. And those are the reasons why many causes are hidden from man concerning
events. Association is really just knowing what causes and effects are highly probable to occur
without really knowing every cause (or causes) and their event. So a relationship of two or more
things are known to occur with one another without knowing their true connections. But because we are ignorant
about many causes and their events, association still has its place in science. In fact, it is very much needed
because of mankind's ignorance.
For cause and effect (& time) are more clearly connected than any other thing with cause and effect
(or time) in their basic, mutual states in the universe. For when causes (& their effects) are not equal in
time the true cause and
effects are unknown.
This gave rise to a new measuring stick in science called: association.
[There exists a proof (through the workings of cause and effect) that the mind conforms itself to objects but objects do not conform themselves to the mind. (1) A causal connection cannot be seen, and we do not know if anything is a cause until we are made aware of its effect. This process should really be known as Effect and Cause instead. Time's flow only moves from the future to the past. Therefore, cause and effect only moves backwards through time. So our understanding of cause and effect is really like putting the cart before the horse. Hence, previously the real cause and effect was mistaken as the connecting patterns of Association. The truth is that cause and effect is knowing the effect first and the original cause only known afterwards. (2) So cause and effect is really a process of anti-time. Since we live through forward linear time is it any wonder why we cannot detect any causal connection with its effect? For a causal connection will always be gone in the past every time we are aware of a effect of a cause. And the effect is the first in the process of awareness of a cause and effect. (3) If understanding patterns of connecting thought, through the process of Association, never existed, and if it were possible to see a causal connection with the human eye, then the mind wouldn't need to adapt to anti-time through the process of Association. This hints at the fact that the mind conforms itself to objects that get past the senses.]
--This paragraph borrowed from the Anti-Prologema.
The Truth behind Existentialism
Existentialists believe correctly that if either is true, that if God does exist, (or if God doesn't exist) that Existence precedes Essence concerning people everywhere.
But God exists and Existence still precedes Essence because (again) Determinism can only exist in God's infinite mind & it cannot exist in our 4th dimensional universe which is finite in structure. So whether God exists or not: Existence precedes Essence (for human beings). There is just one place (outside of the universe) that Determinism does exist. And that is inside the thoughts of God's infinite mind. So to say Determinism exists nowhere is a grave contradiction of metaphysics.
Since we finite people can only fully understand & experience Effect & Cause we can only understand Freewill. But since God's mind is infinite in knowledge, he is the only one that can fully understand & experience Cause & Effect. Therefore, only God understands Determinism, but we people cannot.
Question: What about the logic of St. Paul's defense of Determinism (or that Essence precedes Existence) in Romans 9:19-21?
Answer: St. Paul could not get too philosophical about Determinism & Existential Freewill since such a philosophy was too particular for his audience to mentally grasp. However, St. Paul was speaking the truth about God's sovereignty anyhow, so his answer was still a correct one. But let us not dwell here on what St. Paul said but, rather, on what he could have said (or meant) concerning Determinism & Freewill in the above text.
Jesus Christ & Freewill & Determinism
I imagine Jesus Christ believes that--concerning human beings--their actions either save or condemn them. So I concieve that Jesus Christ believes in Freewill. I believe that Jesus Christ believes Determinism only exists in God's infinite mind. To prove this let's look at two passages from the Gospel of John.
John 6:65
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. (KJV)
John 6:66
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. (KJV)
In John 6:65, I think Jesus is speaking about Determinism that only exists with the Father (or God the Creator). But where does it exist? Most likely inside God's infinite will, meaning, his infinite mind.
Now in John 6:66, it was the Freewill & Free choice of Jesus' disciples that made them leave Jesus and no longer walk with Jesus anymore. I think John, the Gospel writer, is saying in the above two passages that we human beings have Freewill, and since we cannot fathom God's infinite mind, we will always have Freewill and Free choice in our decisions. Meaning, Determinism only exists with God in his infinite mind. So why should a human being even try to begin to fathom what Determinism really is? All we 4th dimensional beings can understand are the Free choices we make.
This shocking Dualism of Existence (of both Determinism & Freewill existing side by side) is no better stated about God and the universe
except in the side by side biblical verses of The Gospel of John 6:65 & 6:66.
Note: Some may make the comment that because Jesus knew which disciples would not believe in
him in John 6:64 that 'essence precedes existence' (for human beings) in our universe.
But my response to that statement would be: where did Jesus get this
information from if not from God the Father? And from God the Father's infinite mind?
Therefore in our universe 'existence still precedes essence' (for human beings).
[When peoples say that it is impossible for God to exist they are really subconsciously
implying that it is impossible for the human individual to think like God and become like God.
For what is more likely possible? That a human dependent on so many universal factors to exist exists,
or that an independent being that is dependent on nothing exists? Obviously, it's the latter that
is a lot more possible.]
In Summary. Since only God is capable of holding all the series of universal Causes and their Effects
in his mind, he only needs to arrange matter in a certain way, at the start of the universe, and give it
a single push with his finger to make everything turn out the way he wants. Plus, God
being a participating agent in his creation, he knows exactly when and where he will take part in
changing the course of the universe for the better. So the entire universe is planned out according
to God's infinite will since the beginning of the universe. However, all of the rest of us
have Freewill since we cannot fathom the infinite mind of God and the
course of the universe in it's entirety.
[Note: Some may say that we do not have as much Freewill as the Existentialists say that we do.
But Epictetus would probably respond that we always have the Freewill to better our choices in life--and
therefore we always have the Freewill of choice.
And perhaps Jesus might teach that we all have enough Freewill, for each one of us, to earn our
individual eternal salvation inside the present universe now.
For to have total Freewill of choice you would have
to have the power of God. Only God has the power & energy
to do whatever he wants. So although we don't have the
total Freewill of choice, we still have total Freewill
of all of the available choices given to us in the present.]
Historical note on the Book of Job. The Book of Job can be considered the very
first existential book. Job believes in Determinism. He believes that since God exists then
Determinism exists. What Job cannot figure out is that Determinism can only be understood by God himself
since only God has an infinite mind. At the end of the book, God shows Job giant dinosaur-like
monsters that Job has never seen before. God is basically saying that Job has never
contemplated such monsters before so how can he contemplate God's mind?
Job realizes what God is saying and gives up trying to justify his virtue
before God. In summary, I believe the Book of Job is saying that man who is finite
cannot peer into the particulars of Determinism, and must be content with
realizing that our finite universe is governed by it's own freewill and so are we.
[Some may comment that on the Judgement Day no human being will have Freewill. I don't
believe this is true. And I don't believe it will matter then either. For you will be
judged on what you did in the past.]
A final note on Existentialism. Existentialists believe that we have Freewill always. This is true. We are condemned to be free. And we are punished in thought if we fanthom otherwise. But it is also true that only God has the will and the power to have total Freewill to do whatever he wishes at all times. Now our finite possible choices in life go up and down like a polygraph needle on a roll of paper. We always have the Freewill of choice--no matter how limited those choices seem to be at any time. Reading the several first chapters of Epictetus' Discourses will cure a person of believing they don't always have Free Choice as a finite creature. We always have Freewill and Free Choice but our options always change. When we lose some possible choices to carry out certain actions we are misled into believing that our Freewill doesn't exist at that particular time and place. This is what Bad Faith truly is. It is our mistaken belief that our individual Freewill must always have the same power of choice in whatever present abode we are stationed in, or, once it escapes our power, we give up & assign that option and task to Fate. The truth is that when we are thinking of choosing an option we can always choose something better or worse or equal as an alternative choice.
If anyone religious thinks the above is hard to accept, then just read the following words of Christ:
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." --Matthew 21: 21-22 (KJV)
[This most wonderful saying of Jesus is another proof that we finite beings have Freewill.]
For one can never experience God's determined will in the present or future, but just in remembering the past.
And one can never have Freewill of the past, but
just the present and future. Of course,
one may experience misfortune or death a certain way.
But some of the minute particulars of such events are
still up to your choosing.
For it is the little things in life that we can control that truly matter, and it is not
the grand things in life that we can't control that matter. As Voltaire said: 'We must cultivate our own garden.'
But what is my opinion about the meaninglessness about life that Existentialists believe in?
I believe that since we dwellers of the universe are finite beings that we can never find out
what meaning our individual lives have without the help of God. For since only God understands
Determinism only he can fully understand the meaningfulness of anything. And it depends on God
how and when to reveal such meaningfulness to any of us. So monks and nuns seem to have
gotten a jumpstart at finding meaning in life than the rest of us. For they are waiting
for God's revelation--while the rest of us only care half as much. Some Existentialists
are atheists though. They believe only they can create
meaning in their life. While the theistic existentialists
believe God exists but there is no teleology (or divine plan) in life. My reply to monotheists
is that even though we have total Freedom in life, God
acts according to infinite Determinism--something our finite
minds cannot comprehend.
My reply to atheists' belief that God doesn't exist is that if God decided to stay invisible (or hidden) from the universe
for all time, how would any of us know he is not there? For it is possible for a monotheist
to have their belief about God's existence proven one day in the future, while
it is totally impossible for an atheist to have their belief about God not existing settled once and for all
since God could be hidden for all eternity. And that, my reader, is the greatest ontological argument
that proves God's existence.
[For me, as an individual, there are two options available to me about God; i.e. God is either alive and visually hides himself from me, since I never had a personal,
visual meeting with God in my past; or God is dead, and has no need to hide himself from me, because he is already non-existent, and doesn't exist in reality in the first place.
Of course, I choose the former option and not the latter one. But how would an atheist solve such a problem for themselves & to their satisfaction? He or she couldn't.
For they may think God is dead, and believe that God is dead, but God could very well be alive & just hiding himself for all eternity, or atleast, up to a certain point not yet reached yet.
And since God would be a being who is all powerful, all knowing , & all wise, he could very well hide himself from all, and no one person would even be the wiser, except God,
& all those souls who truly believe in him--even if he hides from them as well. Now an atheist may say that God may hide himself for all eternity, but that they
will continue to not believe in God, even if there would be an afterlife. The only problem with this mode of thinking & doing is that what if God is a God bent on judgment
(for good or ill) against all those peoples who inhabited the universe in the past, and that he will judge such peoples, and all other peoples, on a given place and
time, sometime in the future? The reader must realize that would be an easy thing for God to do if God were God; meaning, a being all powerful, all wise, etc.
Now this entire above theory and way of thinking is, like Pascal's Wager, a gambling bet that everyone must make.
For myself, I believe it is a much safer bet to believe God has been visually hiding from me all of this time instead of being dead.
Of course, people will say that they can see signs of God in the Churches, Mosques, and Synagogues throughout the Earth that God allows to be built for his people.
These are great signs indeed. Not 100% proof signs for everyone, but still signs for all peoples to think about.
So do we take these things seriously, now, before it is too late? Or do we postpone our good actions, and postpone changing our character, one more day (again, and continually again) until it truly becomes too late?]
On Determinism or the Laws of Fate
What are the laws of fate? Are they not the pre-planned order of all events orchestrated by a Divine Mind? For these laws of fate are order from the result of a Divine Mind.
Some may say that a Divine Mind does not exist and that chance rules over all. But if a law of chance governs the universe in chaos (and randomness) wouldn't chance
have to stay in a set order of unpredictability? Therefore chance would seem to exist by its own laws. Therefore, both the laws of fate and the
laws of chance are both the results of a pre-planned order by a Divine Mind. For when we look in the universe there seems to be both order and chaos.
For where there is order or chance, there is God. Albert Einstein believed that God doesn't 'play dice' with the cosmos. And he doesn't. For both order and chaos are
mapped out and designed by a Divine Mind, or what we call God, who has both an infinite mind and an infinite capability.
"What is Relativity? It is the belief that we are all finite in the universe. That we are finite beings
and that we all have our own perspective about life. And that there exists no absolute truths about anything
in a finite universe concerning ourselves: in time, space, or matter. For the totality and
focus of all truth can only be absolute truth--or any truth measured against absolute truth.
The opposite of the finite is the infinite. Only with an infinite
being can total truth exist. For only an infinite being is absolute. Only an infinite being has an infinite mind.
And only an infinite mind can house all truth. An infinite God is the standard. Comparing God's standard with
everything else is the only way to understand the truth from falsehood. We have great laws from the
Christians, Muslims, Jewish people, and the Buddhists. What they agree on forms what is called Natural Law.
Natural Law can even be found in the Stoic teachings of Seneca and Epictetus and Cicero. Christ's law was
love God, and love your fellow peoples as yourself. This is the summary of all Natural Law."
[I.e. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." --Matthew 7:12]
See Confucius' Analects 15:24 and Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
for two similar but different versions of Jesus Christ's rule.
All texts are copyrighted by Michael Llenos 2015-2023