Galileo in the Book of Mormon

[cdowis]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

The number of sands of the sea, then, would vastly outnumber the number of stars. I just don't see how a logical person could be confused by this.

 

Let me help you -->> are you familiar with the poetic device called "hyperbole"
A poet would not be confused,whereas  a hard core scientist without  a sense of the poetic would be.  It merely means "really really really lots of them, uncountable"

But let me talk to the scientist in you == exactly how many stars are there, when we include the multiple universes?  Your lack of confusion is a function of your ignorance.  You think you know something when you really don't.

for example https://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by cdowis

[JarMan]

19 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Let me help you -->> are you familiar with the poetic device called "hyperbole"
A poet would not be confused,whereas  a hard core scientist without  a sense of the poetic would be.  It merely means "really really really lots of them, uncountable"

But let me talk to the scientist in you == exactly how many stars are there, when we include the multiple universes?  Your lack of confusion is a function of your ignorance.  You think you know something when you really don't.

for example https://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

 

You could have just politely referred me to Genesis 22:17. 

[clarkgoble]

 

12 hours ago, JarMan said:

I don’t know enough about the Book of Abraham as a whole in order to try to date it. But I believe there are enough clues in the astronomy portion to tentatively date the cosmological view.

The idea of other earth-like planets in the universe = modern. 

The idea of other suns in the universe = modern. 

The idea of other solar systems in the universe = modern. 

The idea of an infinite number of star = modern. 

Heliocentrism = modern. 

The idea that orbits increase in time the further from the sun = modern. 

Jarman, with all apologies to Robert I don't think it clear the BoA teaches heliocentrism. It is at best contentious and not an agreed upon view. (I don't have strong feelings one way or the other - I'm still digesting Robert's argument) The idea that stars were suns I gave you an explicit quote about. However ignoring the fact it was an ancient belief, there's nothing in Abr 3 that says stars are inhabited planets. Rather if anything Abraham seems to be making the common view of late antiquity that the planets are quasi-intelligent governing bodies directing forcing from a common ultimate source. Likewise as I mentioned the idea that things get slower the farther away they get is mainstream ancient thought. Quoting from The Manual of Harmonics of Nicomachus the Pythagorean. (Nicomachus is 60 - 120 CE)

"Pythagoras is credited also with having made the important distinction between the diurnal revolution fo the sphere of fixed stars from east to west and the independent movement of the planets in an opposite direct. This discovery accounted for the impression of variation in the movements of the planets, and impression induced by their absolute speeds as they were carried in the diurnal revolution of the heavens from east to west and their relative speeds as they each accomplished their independent orbits from west to east about the earth. [...] ...the planets regarded in terms of their diurnal movements, appear to move swiftest as they are farthest from the earth and consequently would be assigned the highest pitches in the scale of sounds; viewed in terms of their independent orbital movements, however, they appear appear to move slowest as they are farthese from the earth and would on this basis be assigned the lowest pitches. [...] Judging from the fact Nicomachus assigned the highest pitch to the body lying closest to the earth - the Moon - and the lowest pitch to the body lying farthest from the earth - Kronos - his criterion for these assignments must have been the independent revolutions of the planets in their orbits..."

So were I going to criticize it I'd criticize it for espousing platonic cosmology at a time when such things didn't yet exist. (Although this again gets as the issue of whether this is about the historic Abraham proper or 1st century views of Abraham)

At a bear minimum when making the above pronouncements it'd be helpful to at least point to the passage you think implies that conclusion. Because honestly I can't quite figure out the basis for several of your claims.

But let's assume for the moment everything you say is true. Why wouldn't that just be what the text says, God giving Abraham information most people of the era didn't have. Imagine taking someone from 1000 BCE and putting on the show Cosmos. They probably wouldn't understand (or remember) all of it. But that's not an argument that they didn't have an experience like that unless one eliminates from consideration the reality of God and communication with people.

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

The problem is that OT cosmology has a firmament or dome above the earth. There is water above the dome that is let through the windows of heaven to create rain. Below the dome is the abode of the planets and stars. There is not a conception that the stars exist in a vast outer space that extends outward "infinitely" from the earth.

Certainly the modern view isn't the ancient view. The main point of debate in the ancient world was the makeup of the dome and what was past the dome. To claim there was nothing past the dome just ignores a HUGE corpus of people discussing what was past the dome. Most heavenly ascents begin when you reach the dome. Some say the fixed stars are themselves moving at different rates and there's "depth" to the dome. Others see heaven as on the other side of the dome and various daemons or angels that direct what's underneath the dome. This is frequently called the Empyrean particularly in medieval and Renaissance writings,  although it's not properly spatial in many views as I mentioned. For the neoplatonists ascending past the sphere of fixed stars was to enter into the intelligible realm. The origin of teachings on this was often interestingly the Chaldeans. (Proclus attributes it originally to them for instance) The Chaldean Oracles is the key text on this. (It dates to the second century but reflects the views of the origins -- the other typical view was that the origins were Egyptian)

Again if anything, I'd be looking at whether Joseph Smith had access to the Thomas Taylor translation of the Chaldean Oracles since there are many parallels to the Book of Abraham and in particular his treatment of Fac 2. (It was translated in 1806)

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

Also, the stars were often conceived as conveying divine messages. What would be the point of invisible stars? So I doubt they had reason to believe there were a vast number of stars they couldn't see.

Invisible stars were crucial in a lot of thought of late antiquity as hidden powers. Remember that for the people of late antiquity the stars and planets weren't just balls of dirt or gas orbiting the sun by passive gravity. Rather they were daemons reflecting power and light from the One and were themselves intelligent. The higher among the planets and stars one ascends the more intelligent they were. Exactly as in Abraham. So the platonic forms aren't just passive abstract forms but living powers that produce the effects in the lower sensible world of which we are a part.

Recall that for the platonists the ultimate source, the One, is invisible except as reflected by these other bodies.

The classic example of an invisible star for the ancients is a comet that appears for a short time and then disappears. If it is a star and thus a daemon/angel then to their mind it becomes invisible. The other obvious way to see this is just think of the main figures of the Greek pantheon and see how some, like Vulcan or Neptune (in their Roman guises), don't have stars assigned to them. Thus they are invisible stars.

Edited January 24, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

But in Helaman 12 you have two things happening simultaneously; the sun appears to stand still and the earth goes back. This does not work with a geocentric model or any model that does not include orbital motion by the earth. It is only possible under a heliocentric model. I think the author of Helaman 12 perhaps does have Joshua 10 in mind as you suggest--but he is telling us how it physically happens. 

I confess I'm not following you here. Perhaps it'd help if you could explain in terms of position what you mean by "go back." Clearly you don't mean go back to the position of say an hour prior. But it's just not clear what you're saying.

An other possibility that just occurred to me is the idea of relative speed against the sphere of fixed stars. (That issue of relative speed as indicating actual speed is quite significant as I mentioned in the prior comments) I'm still trying to figure this out though.

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

I wasn't suggesting that the number of stars is actually infinite any more than I was suggesting that the number of the sands of the sea is actually infinite. I simply meant incomprehensibly large. The point I was making was that people without a telescope would not think the number of stars was incomprehensibly large since there are only a few thousand visible to the naked eye. 

For most people, particularly in the ancient world, a few thousand is incomprehensibly large.

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

And the point of bringing that up was to show that the discussion in Abraham 3 did not reflect a known view of cosmology by ancient people. 

Note it says, "I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof." So it's God's work that is infinite, not the visible stars. This is a very common ancient view. Certainly by the time of middle platonism the idea of infinity was set and impacting Judaism and Christianity.

I should also note Stoic cosmology here since the Stoics had a combination view that seems significant relative to Abraham. There were the seven wandering planets they saw as orbiting earth. Then there were the fixed stars in the sphere of fixed stars. However unlike those who saw them as fixed, they thought those stars orbited around the polar axis. I think I mentioned that a few days ago relative to the description by Joseph Smith in Fac 2 and elements 1, 22 & 23. Of course this wasn't just the Stoic view but deeply affected the platonic views I've been more focused on.

My own view, which I think I mentioned earlier this week is that Abraham reflects this precessional effect - although that's more orthagonal to the question of heliocentrism and geocentrism. (Which I just don't think are as important as some make them out to be) There's a great paper on these precessional effects I should have linked to then from Arxiv. "On the Possible Discovery of Precessional Effects in Ancient Astronomy"

Edited January 24, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I'm not following you here. Perhaps it'd help if you could explain in terms of position what you mean by "go back." Clearly you don't mean go back to the position of say an hour prior. But it's just not clear what you're saying.

This is the earth going back as in Helaman 12. Notice that the same point on the earth is pointing towards the sun on both figures. From the standpoint of someone on earth the sun would appear to stand still during the entire process of going back.

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

This is the earth going back as in Helaman 12. Notice that the same point on the earth is pointing towards the sun on both figures. From the standpoint of someone on earth the sun would appear to stand still during the entire process of going back.

That's helpful. Thanks. Although I'm not sure I'd go so far to say that's what Hel 12 is saying. Rather it's one way to read the text. However there is an obvious problem with your perspective. Here's how to think about it. Say it's noon and the sun is straight overhead. There's no need for the earth to go back to keep the sun motionless.  All you've done is found a way to reconcile going back with a stationary sun in a heliocentric system. But you've not explained why someone in a heliocentric system would say that the earth goes back to keep the sun stationary. Indeed it makes zero sense to say that as it's unneeded. That's why I was confused.

An other possible problem is that you are looking at the problem only statically. i.e. you've found two times with particular differences in rotational speed where the sun would appear the same. The problem is that this works only by excluding the intermediary states. Now this is less of a problem since there is a solution that will avoid this by locking the two orbits together much like the earth and moon are tidally locked. But that's not the general solution. I raise it because it gets at a problem you leave out - it's not merely going back but is going backwards at a different speed than going forward. A person hearing "going back" is going to assume simply reversing the motion. But that's not what your solution does at all. So it's going backwards in a very particular special way that resolves the contradiction. However such a limited solution suggests that if that's what Mormon meant he'd have said more than just "go back."

Edited January 25, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

That's helpful. Thanks. Although I'm not sure I'd go so far to say that's what Hel 12 is saying. Rather it's one way to read the text. However there is an obvious problem with your perspective. Here's how to think about it. Say it's noon and the sun is straight overhead. There's no need for the earth to go back to keep the sun motionless.  All you've done is found a way to reconcile going back with a stationary sun in a heliocentric system. But you've not explained why someone in a heliocentric system would say that the earth goes back to keep the sun stationary. Indeed it makes zero sense to say that as it's unneeded. That's why I was confused.

You are moving the goalposts, here. I simply need to show that my model is consistent with the text. And it unambiguously is. What you are asking me to do now is mind read. If you cannot give another model that is consistent with the text then your statement that this is just "one way to read the text" is totally empty.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

An other possible problem is that you are looking at the problem only statically. i.e. you've found two times with particular differences in rotational speed where the sun would appear the same. The problem is that this works only by excluding the intermediary states. Now this is less of a problem since there is a solution that will avoid this by locking the two orbits together much like the earth and moon are tidally locked. But that's not the general solution.

A "tidally-locked" situation is precisely the solution I have presented. There is no intermediary state that doesn't fit the criteria presented.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I raise it because it gets at a problem you leave out - it's not merely going back but is going backwards at a different speed than going forward. A person hearing "going back" is going to assume simply reversing the motion. But that's not what your solution does at all. So it's going backwards in a very particular special way that resolves the contradiction. However such a limited solution suggests that if that's what Mormon meant he'd have said more than just "go back."

There is absolutely no indication in the text that "go back" means go back at the same speed. This is an artificial requirement you have added to obfuscate. And now I see that you are mind reading to support your position.

And, by the way, there are an infinite number of solutions to this problem. The earth can go back in its orbit at any speed including the speed it was going in the first place. This would simply require that the corresponding reverse rotational speed keep it tidally locked. Or, alternatively, the earth's rotation could reverse at any speed including the original speed. This would simply require that the corresponding reverse orbital speed be adjusted appropriately.

Edited January 25, 2018 by JarMan

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

You are moving the goalposts, here. I simply need to show that my model is consistent with the text. And it unambiguously is. What you are asking me to do now is mind read. If you cannot give another model that is consistent with the text then your statement that this is just "one way to read the text" is totally empty.

I don't think so. I just don't think consistency is enough since it doesn't explain the phrase. If the "solution" is tidal locking then "stay in place" or "move forward" have the exact same effect as "move back." So you really haven't explained the term "move back" and it seems dubious to imply that's what's intended.

Further I'd just note my speculative explanation is consistent with the text too. (That he's conflating Joshua with Isaiah) My guess is that the more probable answer is that he had a metaphysics/cosmology in which "move back" makes sense for explaining things. But what that is I'm just not clear on. I don't think this makes sense for heliocentric because if you ask someone with a heliocentric cosmology how to make the sun appear to stand still they won't say "move back in a tidally locked orbit." They'll say keep everything motionless because that makes the most sense. A bit of ockham's razor is helpful here. I just don't think consistency is enough.

I do think you've brought up an excellent question here though. It's just that the more we've talked the less sense heliocentrism makes to me.

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

There is absolutely no indication in the text that "go back" means go back at the same speed. This is an artificial requirement you have added to obfuscate. And now I see that you are mind reading to support your position.

And, by the way, there are an infinite number of solutions to this problem. The earth can go back in its orbit at any speed including the speed it was going in the first place. This would simply require that the corresponding reverse rotational speed keep it tidally locked. Or, alternatively, the earth's rotation could reverse at any speed including the original speed. This would simply require that the corresponding reverse orbital speed be adjusted appropriately.

But there's also no indication that go back means tidally locked (which as I noted would mean go forward would work just as well). This isn't obfuscation at all. This is a serious part of the explanation. Clearly "go back" means something to the author and it's not "go back in this mathematically complicated way." So for his cosmology he's suggesting go back explains something. If he's sophisticated to know about tidal locking then he's presumably sophisticated to know that you don't have to go back once you have tidal locking. That'd be as true of Mormon (or potentially Nephi) as it would be of some speculative 17th century sophisticated Dane. (I tried to find the date when tidal locking was explained but I was unsuccessful - although most of the work on tides was done in the late 18th century)

I'd love to know more about mesoamerican cosmology here.  I feel like we're still missing something.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think so. I just don't think consistency is enough since it doesn't explain the phrase. If the "solution" is tidal locking then "stay in place" or "move forward" have the exact same effect as "move back." So you really haven't explained the term "move back" and it seems dubious to imply that's what's intended.

You are arbitrarily placing an outrageous condition on the text instead of simply reading what it says. It is hardly "dubious" to imply that "go back" means go back. What's dubious is claiming that "go back" must mean something other than go back. 

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Further I'd just note my speculative explanation is consistent with the text too. (That he's conflating Joshua with Isaiah) My guess is that the more probable answer is that he had a metaphysics/cosmology in which "move back" makes sense for explaining things. But what that is I'm just not clear on. I don't think this makes sense for heliocentric because if you ask someone with a heliocentric cosmology how to make the sun appear to stand still they won't say "move back in a tidally locked orbit." They'll say keep everything motionless because that makes the most sense. A bit of ockham's razor is helpful here. I just don't think consistency is enough.

I'm going to adopt your premise that Joshua and Isaiah are being conflated here. In fact, I think it's a brilliant point. In Isaiah the sun moves back in the sky and in Joshua it stays still. Notice that a heliocentric model with the earth going back explains both scriptures. So with two simple words both of these cosmological miracles are explained. . . but only if the earth moves around the sun. Thus the Book of Mormon conflates Isaiah and Joshua and overturns the existing geocentric model with a remarkably elegant solution.

As an additional explanation for why the Lord doesn't simply say "stop" I think it's important to look at the context of the chapter. Mormon's commentary is meant to explain the nothingness of man and the power of God using simply his voice. All of God's feats listed here are active. He moves the dust hither and thither. He makes hills and mountains tremble and shake and flattens them. He makes the whole earth shake. He removes the waters of the sea. He causes mountains to bury cities. In this context it's only logical that he tells the earth to do something active. Telling the earth to stop here would rob the passage of some of its poetic impact.

Nor would we expect the Lord to tell the earth to go forward in order to make the sun stand still. For one, the earth is already going forward. Secondly, in order for the earth to stay tidally locked while continuing forward at the same speed, the earth's rotation would have to slow down. In order to speed up the earth's orbit and speed up the rotation while remaining tidally locked, the earth would have to accelerate to a speed great enough to bring it around the sun in less than 24 hours. And in order to make the sun go back while pushing the earth forward it is required that the earth either slow down or reverse its rotation. In short, "stop" and "speed up" or "go forward" don't work to explain both Joshua and Isaiah nor do they fit the context.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But there's also no indication that go back means tidally locked

Yes. Yes there is. The fact that the sun appears not to move means that we are necessarily tidally locked. There is simply no other answer. You just don't like the answer because it doesn't conform with what you want to believe.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

This isn't obfuscation at all. This is a serious part of the explanation. Clearly "go back" means something to the author and it's not "go back in this mathematically complicated way." So for his cosmology he's suggesting go back explains something.

Yes. It explains the Joshua and Isaiah scenarios. And it's really not complicated. I'm just some dude on the internet and it makes perfect sense to me.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

If he's sophisticated to know about tidal locking then he's presumably sophisticated to know that you don't have to go back once you have tidal locking. That'd be as true of Mormon (or potentially Nephi) as it would be of some speculative 17th century sophisticated Dane. (I tried to find the date when tidal locking was explained but I was unsuccessful - although most of the work on tides was done in the late 18th century)

I'd love to know more about mesoamerican cosmology here.  I feel like we're still missing something.

You don't need to know about tidal locking in its greater context to come up with this solution. Honestly, I took out two coins and played with them on the table for about 30 seconds to come up with it.

[clarkgoble]

46 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Yes. Yes there is. The fact that the sun appears not to move means that we are necessarily tidally locked. There is simply no other answer. You just don't like the answer because it doesn't conform with what you want to believe.

But of course there's an other answer. Neither the sun nor earth move which is the case in a heliocentric model. You give reasons why not to accept that based upon Mormon's commentary using this as allegory. But in terms of the problem proper "go back" makes far less sense to say in the heliocentric model when "stay still" works better.

46 minutes ago, JarMan said:

You don't need to know about tidal locking in its greater context to come up with this solution. Honestly, I took out two coins and played with them on the table for about 30 seconds to come up with it.

Bet "stay still" came up even quicker doing it that way.

46 minutes ago, JarMan said:

You are arbitrarily placing an outrageous condition on the text instead of simply reading what it says. It is hardly "dubious" to imply that "go back" means go back. What's dubious is claiming that "go back" must mean something other than go back. 

Oh I agree. But that's why I'm now skeptical of heliocentrism. Because "go back" doesn't make much sense to me in the heliocentric model. I'll probably not convince you of my doubts here I sense. So I'll not belabor the point. However this has really convinced me that something deeper is going on. I honestly used to just assume it was heliocentric either because Mormon knew of heliocentrism - and as I mentioned there are reasons to suspect mesoamericans did but no proof - or because it's an expansion to the text. Now after going through this more closely with you I'm far, far more skeptical. So you've changed my mind. Just not the way you wanted. <grin>

I'll keep checking the ancient astronomy particularly Stoic and neoPlatonic since they were most interesting. I'm turning to Renaissance views now. While I'm extremely skeptical of the Danish influence you seem to find compelling, I do think indirect Renaissance platonism was a broad influence.

Edited January 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[cdowis]

FWIW, go back in a geocentric model  refers to stars and their epicycles.

[JarMan]

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But of course there's an other answer. Neither the sun nor earth move which is the case in a heliocentric model. You give reasons why not to accept that based upon Mormon's commentary using this as allegory. But in terms of the problem proper "go back" makes far less sense to say in the heliocentric model when "stay still" works better.

The text doesn't say "stop" it says "go back."  And there is only one model that fits that. Implying that you would have said it differently had you written the Book of Mormon does not offer a solution, it simply begs the question.

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Bet "stay still" came up even quicker doing it that way.

I didn't write the text. It doesn't matter how I would say it. Besides, have you abandoned your idea that Joshua and Isaiah are being conflated here? Because "stop" simply doesn't work with Isaiah. You need "go back" to deal with both Joshua and Isaiah.

42 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While I'm extremely skeptical of the Danish influence you seem to find compelling, I do think indirect Renaissance platonism was a broad influence.

Dutch. Grotius was from Holland. Also, we haven't even touched on the other two Galilean issues. We have the novel idea of experimentation in Alma 32. And also the concept of buoyancy being described in the way Galileo describes it (in clear contradistinction from the Aristotlean view).

[JarMan]

18 minutes ago, cdowis said:

FWIW, go back in a geocentric model  refers to stars and their epicycles.

In Helaman 12, though, it is clearly the earth that is going back. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

The text doesn't say "stop" it says "go back."  And there is only one model that fits that. Implying that you would have said it differently had you written the Book of Mormon does not offer a solution, it simply begs the question.

I didn't write the text. It doesn't matter how I would say it. Besides, have you abandoned your idea that Joshua and Isaiah are being conflated here? Because "stop" simply doesn't work with Isaiah. You need "go back" to deal with both Joshua and Isaiah.

I think conflating Joshua and Isaiah is a live possibility. I find it unlikely but not something I’d dismiss out of hand just as I’ve come to find heliocentric as possible but unlikely. I’d also say that we shouldn’t say heliocentric is the only model that works. You are just only looking at a simple geocentric as it’s only other alternative. I prefer to think there’s something I just don’t understand yet - i.e. give more weight to my ignorance. I’d feel much better if we could explain the odd word choice which makes no sense in your model.

[JarMan]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think conflating Joshua and Isaiah is a live possibility. I find it unlikely but not something I’d dismiss out of hand just as I’ve come to find heliocentric as possible but unlikely. I’d also say that we shouldn’t say heliocentric is the only model that works. You are just only looking at a simple geocentric as it’s only other alternative. I prefer to think there’s something I just don’t understand yet - i.e. give more weight to my ignorance. I’d feel much better if we could explain the odd word choice which makes no sense in your model.

Well, I'm interested in how you view Book of Mormon cosmology in totality. I actually think I'm going to start another thread regarding Book of Mormon cosmology, in general.

[clarkgoble]

42 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Well, I'm interested in how you view Book of Mormon cosmology in totality. I actually think I'm going to start another thread regarding Book of Mormon cosmology, in general.

I don't really think there is a Book of Mormon cosmology that I can see. 

I've written something up on Hel 12:15 that I think might resolve things somewhat. (But not really) I'm going to let it sit for a few hours and then reread it and see if I still agree with it. If I do I'll put it up on T&S later tonight. I've been thinking on this a lot and I've come around to thinking that we may be wrong reading Joshua or Isaiah into the text. Rather I've come to think verses 13-14 are more key for understanding 15.

Edited January 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't really think there is a Book of Mormon cosmology that I can see. 

I've written something up on Hel 12:15 that I think might resolve things somewhat. (But not really) I'm going to let it sit for a few hours and then reread it and see if I still agree with it. If I do I'll put it up on T&S later tonight. I've been thinking on this a lot and I've come around to thinking that we may be wrong reading Joshua or Isaiah into the text. Rather I've come to think verses 13-14 are more key for understanding 15.

In cosmology I am also considering the conception of hell. But this is a bit of a tough nut to crack since the Book of Mormon doesn't have a creation story. Nevertheless I am going to try to generate some discussion.

[Raymond Ellis]

I don't understand the question but I would like to talk about my own experiences and science that it may increase your faith in God. I posted elsewhere about reality and God but I can't find it.

I am 59 now and have cancer, I am sin-sick not old, people use the idea of old age to deny responsibility for their condition. When I was 17 I asked the universe [the universe was God to me at that time, I didn't read the Bible until I was thirty and the book of Mormon a few years after that] 'Why do things fall?' The universe replied with a voice in my head: 'Things fall because they [we sinners] reject the love-light from above.' It took me many years to connect 'they' with sinners.

A few years after the voice I altered one of Science's equations: Force = G M m / r-squared, F =ma, so the two little m's cancel and you get an equation for the acceleration of gravity at a distance r from the centre of the earth: g = GM / r-squared -- Where G is a gravitational constant and M is the mass of the earth in kilograms, which makes GM a constant, so we can write g = constant / r-squared. Now we can write g = constant quantity of love-light falling down / 4Pi r-squared, which is the surface area of a sphere, g = love-light / 4Pi r-squared.

The light of God shines down from the firmament, and the firmament is a thin shell of light way beyond the moon. Daniel 12:3 reveals that the firmament shines. The firmament shines both inwardly and outwardly -- Genesis 1:6-7.

Reality is an interpretation we make of the love-light of God -- I mentioned elsewhere that God is the absolute servant of his created beings and makes the universe according to our faith or lack of faith. he first made the universe for Adam and Eve and then when they sinned God created the fallen world.

Things fall violently to the earth because of our sin, our worship of power instead of the total worship of the Holy Spirit -- Zechariah 4:6: Not by might nor by power but by my spirit says the Lord.

I once pushed a girl in her back as we climbed up a stairwell to a rotunda. At the top the girl started playing a card game with the others, but I jumped over the brick wall to get a drink of water, one hand on the wall. I actually slowed down as I fell and landed precisely on the ground but made a loud noise. I was supposed to jump back over the wall so the girl could hear and see the way I moved, but I ignorantly did not. I think this was a glimpse of what gravity will be like on the new heaven and earth: objects and people will slow down as they fall and hit the ground with precision. So even if you climb a tree and fall out of it you won't be hurt on the new earth. I think it was also an indication that reality is linked to how we treat the opposite sex -- that God and reality is the love between husband and wife. True love equals a true reality, and false love or lust equals a false reality, or fallen reality. A hint of true love: Genesis 29:20: Jacob served for seven years for Rachel but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her -- this was work-self love, no sex-self love.

Even in this reality we are called to make love with honour and sanctification and not in lust like the heathen who do not know God: 1Thessalonians 4: 1 to 8. Lust is one of the four ways sinners worship power -- I might have written about the four ways before, I don't know. Isaiah 66:17, the 4 ways: Idol: a group that worships a man or thing to bestow power, emotional colour gold, number 9; Mouse: clever words or small-precise actions that glamorise power, yellow, 8; Swine: sheer intensity or lust in work or sex or both work and sex, green, 6; Abomination or Might: a black dark heavy slow spirit that is the accumulation of facts or actions to make a strong argument or immoveable fortress. These colours are for work-self only. The lust colours for work& sex are Royal Blue and for sexual lust the colour is maroon; the numbers are the same. Isaiah 66:17 reads: Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves in the garden with an Idol in the midst, eating swine's flesh and the abomination and the mouse will be consumed [by fire] together says the Lord. For example people thin lust in work is integrity and they even teach children to have this "integrity". These four spirits comprise the false work-self soul -- there is a false soul for sex as well. If this is the false soul then what do you think the true soul might be? This false soul is a corruption of the true soul due to the worship of power instead of the worship of the Holy Spirit.

Science uses Mathematics to try and understand nature. Mathematics and geometry are true but the world is false. So even with true tools one cannot find total order in this fallen universe.

Please engage with the other posts. We do not allow sermons and lectures.