Tuesday, March 10, 2015

I'm a ge o cent trist (parody of thrift shop featuring ryan and Macklemore)


I'm a Ge Oh cen  trist
Can't find the black holes in gravity pockets
I, I, I'm hunting lookin for dark matter
This just ain't empiricism
Verse One:

Walk in the club like what up?
I got a big aether!
Nah, Im just pumped up, cause of the results of the plank scale.
  physics      on the fringe this is atheist heresy

People like Wow! that don't come from a monkey!
Rolling in shell a coriolis of the cosmic

Tested in experiments of michelson/morrely
Draped in a leopard mink, general relativity
Probably shoulda notticed when the speed of light.... missed
But hey it was 186, million miles a sec! copy and stop watching it.
Bout to go and get some hatred sent passing up luke warm Christians
Who ain't got the sense to read the scripture regulative? fah get it.
I'm studying philosophy, mix it with astronomy and a lil deuteronomy
Thats academic rich!
Imma take your grandpa views, Imma take your grandpa views, no for real, ask your grandpa

Can I study his cosmology?
geocentric young earth with a swirling big dipper.
Walt brown hydroplate water  that I found digging.
They had an ice canopy; I got an ice canopy
I got an electric universe making a galactic cord.

Hello, producer man Rick Delano
 Copernicus aint got nothing on my main man Tycho!
I could take some stone henge take  a word from Ambrose
The sneaker heads would be like Ah, they match electros!
[Hook: Wanz]

I'm a ge o cen trist
Can't find no Black holes in gravity po ckets
I, I, I'm hunting
Looking for dark matter
This just ain't empiricism
 [Verse Two: Macklemore]



What you know about  an ECI framework    on your noggin?

What you know about uncovering occult magnetics
Im digging, Im digging, Im searching right through that text book.

One mass center that's another mass vacuum
Thank your Ancestors for looking at a day without an expert.
Cause this critique right now is gonna hurt
Cause we don't need a quack in a white shirt

Does this Good World revolve around me freinds ?
The U ni verse sucker and  da con stellations
Your Mach an your Einstein, ya Newton, ya Hawking
I reveal those fail experiments, you covered up for a sucka

The built in curriculum to to propagate grammar school for a sucka?
Socialized party that won't stop to enslave that sucka
They be like Oh that Galileo that's Helio tight
Im like Yo, he recanted, all he got was jupiter
limiting addition sounds simple by comparison.

Suns bigger than earth,  thats just some ignorant con slant
I call that getting swindled your cosmos, short
I call that getting tricked by a  Spaceless aimless helio  don't

And having the same argument for 6 centuries is a  helio don't
                                        
Peep game,  don't know the limits of a telescope
Trying to get truth from your math/  Man ur helio won't (repeat) 
(little girl) Geoooohhh Cen  trist!  yeah-ah-ah
[Hook: Wanz]
I'mma ge oh cen trist
Can't find no black holes in gravity pockets
I, I, I'm hunting
Looking for dark matter
This just ain't empirical
[Bridge: Wanz]
I have your granddad's views, and axis of evil
            
Im in this big cosmos  from that big bang down the road
 Im in this real cosmos it looks incredible

The big bang just got old, I don't front no helios
[Hook: Wanz]
(little girl) Is that Great Grandpa's cosmology? Hee hee!




(note: some lyrics are more in line with the author's New Years Cosmology Hypothesis)

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Dialogue with atheists trying to justify reasoning.


Job 38:1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Who is this that darkeneth counsel
by words without knowledge?
This was some reactions to my  video

Response: venaloid "Atheist can account for logic.

 http://youtu.be/ywWFcQpahmQ

Now the comments got bit jumbled, But I believe I replicated the order of the argument. These are 2 individuals #1 and #2.


#1   If you honestly are of the opinion that god isn't subject to logic, then you're free to say all kinds of nonsense like "God exists even if he doesn't exist". Which is great - just don't pretend you're adhering to rational inference when defending the concept. It's probably also a mistake to expect respect as an intellectual.  The reason for this is that while it may indeed be true that something is itself and not not itself out in reality, our labeling of things and partitioning of nature is subjective and somewhat arbitrary and it's those labels that are fed into logical arguments. In the end, the acid test of logic is if it is useful and it doesn't really need more justification than that as a mathematical model of the most basic common behavior of things that manifest in our experience.

Me: 1st comment. You misunderstood my position. I do not argue an irrational God. But what I am saying is that since he creates logic. He is not going to constrict himself by his own creation. The laws of logic govern the universe, not necessarily God. For instance God created time in the universe. But God is not limited by Time since he transcends the universe. Although God would act according to time inside the universe, especially in communicating with man.



#1 comment 2.  You also don't appear to understand what justifies empiricism. We don't have to assume anything about either our senses or the universe for it to be useful. Rather, our experience of reality is what defines everything we could possibly care about. It is the starting point for inquiry and we're interested in finding relationships between experienced phenomena, such as various types of causation.

me: Comment 2 How can empiricism give us ANY common ground when we have different experiences? I don't believe in space aliens,but people testify they saw it. How can I trust your senses? Even if I trust my own?

#1  comment 3 When doing this I have also made the choice to use the label "chair" to distinguish it from everything else. Now if you present a sitting device to me that is painted green and call it a chair, then I have to decide whether I'm going to: a) Say that you are wrong in calling it a chair, because it's green b) Amend the color requirement in my own definition and accept that some chairs are green c) Abandon logic - the idea that it's possible to distinguish X from not-X
  Me : Comment 3 If logic is subjective to language, then you have given up on logic. Your chair was green. But I didn't even worry about that. Because I saw someone once standing on a chair. So I just stood on it. You assumed we would have common agreement at some level. But that requires a logic which transcends our two minds.

#1 comment 4 But really, this is very simple: The reason logic appears to be absolute is because it's tied to language. When I associate a set of sensory perceptions with a label, like "chair" with certain images, feelings and usages, and create an abstract category I am then in a position where I can say things like "All chairs are red". If it happens that everything I call "chair" is red, then this is true by direct correspondence.
  It's impossible for us to do c) because it's a requirement for thinking in general - that's where the idea of logical absolutes come from. Both a) and b) are what we always do in practice, which involves saying that someone is wrong or that one is learning more useful concepts or whatever. It's also possible to say that the laws of logic describe the observed behavior of existing things if one wants to, but I don't think that's necessary to justify logic as a tool of reasoning.
  Me: Comment 4 Practicality is indeed practical. But it does not proceed to understanding. To be without understanding, is to drive a car blindfolded.


#1 Comment 5 It's not at all obvious that all of nature will be comprehensible to humans and it's only correlations between observations that produce the evidence required to make the assertion that we are able to do so. No amount of presupposition about "designers" or "blueprints" makes any headway towards justifying the use of empiricism or logic. Especially not because to even formulate the concept "God", you're already presupposing logic, because the label refers to itself and not not-itself.
 me: Comment 5. I didn't formulate the concept of God. Your point here fails.

#1 Comment 6 Really, Christians who try to claim that logic presupposes their worldview are tossing out a giant red herring to distract from the fact that they believe people walk on water, that common diseases can be cured by casting out demons, and that a bunch of people rose from the dead 2000 years ago because someone wrote it in a book.
ME  Comment 6 People saw a guy cast out demons and walk on water. You say their senses are wrong. Congratulations you have destroyed your empirical assumptions.





#2  comment:Stating the inductive fallacy doesn't really disprove venaloid's point though. And it's not a fallacy, but a problem. And with more information, we update our models. Using the marble example, if we take a larger sample size, we can find a closer estimate of the entire population. This isn't bad, it's how statistics work. Without it, we couldn't make any predictions. Unless you can think of a different method that can explain the universe better than the inductive method, we are stuck with it.
 #2 2nd comment Also assumptions are not gamples. If you look at mathematical proofs, assumptions are necessary to completing them. If it's easier to understand, it's more like a premise.

Me: f you consider our knowledge of the universe, we are trying to statistically find out about the pacific ocean with a pool full of water using a spoon.  Even if we were accurate about the pool being mostly blue.  it doesn't stop the rest of the ocean from being red.   Right now we can not even accurately scale the universe.
Me: 2nd comment: A simple proof of the fallacy in math is finding the answer to this 1+1+x=

#2 3rd comment:I'm sorry, I found it difficult to follow what your trying to say when it comes to inane knowledge.  Could you re-explain it without as many examples? Maybe just bring it to its bare bone arguement?
me: 3rd comment   Simply, we make assumptions which commit the inductive fallacy and over the years this poisons what we think we know.  So that we are deluded by assumptions which we assumed were factual.



#2Also you asked why scientific theories change. Scientific theories change based on whether or not they can accurately explain the universe. We adopt a new theory or model if it explains everything the previous theory can explain + something else it couldn't. In example, the atomic model was originally the plum pudding model, where electrons and protons and neutrons were in a soup. Then, Rutherford did his famous Gold foil expirement. This expirement found that there needed to be a small center of mass in each atom. This changed the atomic model to the nuclear model.
 This then evolved again once we started asking about the nature of electrons. We found that the nuclear model could not explain why electrons act the way they do, but the Bohr model could. Please note the Bohr model also used features of the Nuclear model, and added to it. Finally there was I'd the quantum model, which once again answered more questions that the Bohr model could not. Each new theory or model improves on the last. We use the one that explains what we see the most accurately. We don't flip back and forth between models, we advance them.

me: The problem is that you have failed to preserve the idea of the atom. The atom philosophically was meant to be indivisible.  Why?  Because if the universe is materialistic, then it has to eventually break down to something infinite.  The atom is still named the atom because matter/elements are no longer such if divided further.  However it has to be "made". this leads to a "first cause" and an unmoved mover.  Everything is not made of matter because matter is made of something else. Is it energy?  Energy is an effect.  There has to be a first cause.  Science is by definition "knowledge".  The laws of science is the dominion of knowledge.  The fact that matter runs by science means that the first cause must have knowledge. Now, I don't prove God by this.  But how can you come up with an alternative from what we know?



The problem with the secularist is that they want to be right.  But who can they appeal to to say that they are right?  If they Don't believe in God; there is no authority to give them their victory.  Their is no truth to desire, much as Nietzsche point out.  Their is only a will to power with no point to it at the end of this life.

Saturday, January 17, 2015

JESUS... WASN'T... COOL!!!!!!!!!!







[pictures here are to represent poor representations of the Lord Jesus Christ in rebuke.  This ministry in no way encourages iconography and any form of image worship.  1 john 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. Colossians 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,]




Isaiah 53:For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,
and as a root out of a dry ground:
he hath no form nor comeliness;
and when we shall see him,
there is no beauty that we should desire him.
He is despised and rejected of men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:
and we hid as it were our faces from him;
he was despised, and we esteemed him not."  


Is this the real face of Jesus?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186


Too many Christians are "cool" these days. They think that "cool" is cool!   But this isn't the case.   Cool is cold.  But not even cold; cool is more Lukewarm.
Revelation 3: 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.





Not getting to be born in the inn, is not cool 
Luke 2:And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."


 Being teased as a bas*%8 is not cool.
John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father.Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.


 Having to provide healthcare to thousands of people only to have them stick you with the cost of food is not cool

john 6: When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do. Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little. One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, saith unto him, There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?"    How lame is That !?!?  Think about this.... 6,000 men and no has any food but a little boy??  These dudes are scrubs!!!
 
Being deserted by those same people is definitely not cool!

john 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 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. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."


Having to wash dirty feet is not cool.
john 13: After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. 
 
Being whipped nearly to death is not cool
matthew 27:27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. 28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. 29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! 30 And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. 31 And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.

Being betrayed by your community is not cool!

Matthew 27:39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, 40 and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. 41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. Being taunted and spat upon is not cool!


Hanging naked in front of your community and being crucified is definitely not cool.

matthew 27:28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. 27:30 And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. 31 And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him. 


Today we have a cult of popular ministers.(yes, this includes conservative preachers!)  These preachers want to be cool.   When it comes to the most basic examples of christian lifestyle and discipleship they have to beg and plead with their own congregation.  When ever the slightest hint of meanness is observed they are quick to explain and reexplain themselves.  They may give you lip service.  But at the end of the day, They are important people and how dare you disturb them!  They hoodwink the whole congregation into follow them around hoping to get love and attention.  But ultimately this is a seductive way to control the hearts of people.

Luke 6:25 Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. 26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

Cool people will be judged!

Acts 12:21 And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. 22 And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. 23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost."
  Herod sure looked cool in his new duds!  As a "cool guy" he had been involved in persecuting the Christian Church.

That's Right our Lord was not cool.  He was humble.
Phillipiansc 2:Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Further study in New Years cosmology



proverbs 3:Trust in the Lord with all thine heart;
and lean not unto thine own understanding."

 This paper is a continuation of my studies supporting my "new years cosmology" hypothesis.
You are encouraged at this point to read the previous literature building up to this paper.  The paper builds a case on it's own but is part of the greater whole of these which may answer questions un addressed in this piece.
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/12/a-summary-of-new-years-cosmology.html

http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/09/singletons-new-years-cosmology.html

http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-scientific-exposition-of-literal.html

As research continues the traditional "big bang" cosmology has less to do empirical observation.  Currently proponents have made several fudge factors which fundamentally alter our understanding of the universe.  Most notably the lack of evidence for dark energy and dark matter.
http://www.insidescience.org/content/date-particle-supercollider-detects-no-evidence-dark-matter/1545
"Dark matter is currently one of the greatest mysteries in the universe. Now, scientists reveal that the most powerful particle collider in the world has unearthed no signs of the hypothesized dark matter, placing new limits on what it could be."
 Occam's razor would demand that we abandon such a major concept from our cosmology since it is not observed.  So I developed an alternative cosmology.
[Occam's razor ""Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."]
here is more Research.



 theone


 Everything we call real
is made of things
that cannot be regarded as real

~Niels Bohr

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2012/12/24/unreal-truths-the-bohr-model-of-the-atom/
       A force that combines the effects of electrical charge and magnetism. The electromagnetic force can either attract or repel the particles on which it acts. Oppositely charged particles attract each other, while like particles repel one another. ·       Electrons are kept in the orbit around the nucleus by the electromagnetic force, because the nucleus in the center of the atom is positively charged and attracts the negatively charged electrons."
http://www.ric.edu/faculty/ptiskus/atomic_force/ (Rhode Island College)
  As we can see the boundaries or borders of matter are electrons.  The electron is a manifestation of electromagnetic force.  So electromagnetic energy holds matter together in the universe.

Perhaps this is a time for us to meditate upon the nature of the atom.
"For Democritus therefore two principles explain everything:atoms and empty space.  The atoms are infinite in number., they differ in size and shape, but qualitatively they are all alike.  Or, it would be more accurate to say that the atoms individually have no qualities: their characteristics are strictly mechanical or geometrical.  In the first place, each atom is indivisible; it was for this reason that democritus invented the term atom and applied it to his elements.  Atoms cannot be split for the simple reason that anything that can be split is not an atom.  Recent nuclear physics has not succeeded in splitting an atom; it has only shown that what the nineteenth century chemists thought were atoms, were not atoms at all.  The little bits of lead or gold or hydrogen, until recently thought indivisible are in reality compounds. For only compounds can be split."Gordon Clark, "Thales to Dewey"pg. 35
 Democritus establishes the foundation of the materialistic worldview.  The atom must be indivisible for the world to be material.  There has to be an indivisible atom form which all substances are made.  So the chemist of the 1800's pointed out what appears today as the scientific atom.  But the materialistic atom should have been the same as the scientific atom!  Our scientific atom makes all things. Our scientific atoms are the basis for our elements.  But scientific atoms are divisible and therefore not essentially matter!  Atoms are energy, not solid. so matter is not ultimate. So it is at this point that we see the whole materialistic cosmology falls apart!
 http://www.giglig.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/atoms.jpg

Missing strings!! String theory is empty.
"String theory is the most ambitious attempt of theoretical physicists to explain the laws of nature. Based on the idea that elementary particles have an extended structure that resembles tiny loops of string, it has the potential to unify all the forces in nature, including the elusive quantum theory of gravity."Leonard Susskind: "A Universe Like No Other" New Scientist (Volume 180, No. 2419; November 1, 2003),p. 36.
"Something was discovered in 1996 that brought cosmologists kicking and screaming back to the Anthropic Principle: the universe is not only expanding, it's accelerating. The acceleration parameter, or cosmological constant, appears so finely tuned (nearly zero, but slightly positive) that almost any larger value would prohibit the formation of stars and galaxies. Theoretical predictions are off by 120 orders of magnitude.
Some hoped that superstring theory would come to the rescue, but its champions found that their equations permit 10500 different sets of initial conditionsmost of them life-prohibiting. The only way our universe could be explained, therefore, was either by a Designer who chose the right values or by luck among untold numbers of alternate universes with random values."http://www.icr.org/article/theres-only-one-universe by David F. Coppedge
Acts 17:6
And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;"  

Time and space is impossible without God
"Then too, space, in which the atoms are and move, is an impossible.  If there must be a space for the atoms to exist in, then, if space exists, it too must exist in something- a space prime; and there comes another of these long stories.  The best method of shortening such long stories as these is never to begin.  Therefore space does not exist.
  And lastly, the concept of a pluralistic universe is self-contradictory.  If Being were many, it would have to be both infinitely small and and infinitely great.  It would have to be infinitely small because every plurality is a collection of unities; but true unity is indivisible has no magnitude; therefore a plurality of indivisible or unextended particles, when added together, would produce a world of no extension.  But if the world and it's parts are to have extension, each part must be separated from the next part; but the part that does the separating must itself be separated by another part and so on, with the result that the world is infinitely great.  In fact, since this argument can be applied to each atom, each atom is both infinitely small and infinitely great.  And what more absurd conclusion could be derived from any theory."  Gordon Clark Thales to Dewey pg. 43


"..turns out that gravitational energy of every galaxy moving away from us is zero. And that is strongly suggestive that we actually.. that the universe actually came from nothing in fact every measurement that we can make about the universe is really consistent with the universe that came from nothing."
Lawrence Kraus Physicist at Arizona State University minute 43
from the movie "The Principle"
   Now my point in this quote has nothing to do with His statement as evidence per`se.  It is the fact that secular cosmologists have no real problem with the idea of something coming from Nothing.  God spontaneously generated our universe over a period of 6days, from nothing.  How is it that they have any rational right to presuppose that an imagined universe or an imagined forced of Nature, or multitudes of all the above producing a chaos, would be more valid than our ethereal realm being created and guided by our all-knowing God?

Colossians 1:16 for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Luke 21:26 men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken."
Ephesians 3:10to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,"
 Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
job 38:7 when the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
   As we look at what the scripture teaches concerning powers and the spiritual realm. It is apparent to me that the pervading energy which we will investigate (electromagnetic forces) is likely the gateway to the spiritual realm.  Now though the spiritual realm is not material,  it is a creation of the Logos(christ).  As such electromagnetic energy is likely of the scriptural "powers of Heavenly",  maybe not exhaustively.  Yet of that essence.  But notice the unity of the starry choir as it was originally intended. Truly He is the LORD of Host.


Electromagnetism should be consider the primary force of motion over gravity
"Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. The gravitational force is approximately 10−38 times the strength of the strong force (i.e., gravity is 38 orders of magnitude weaker), 10−36 times the strength of the electromagnetic force, and 10−29 times the strength of the weak force. As a consequence, gravity has a negligible influence on the behavior of sub-atomic particles, and plays no role in determining the internal
properties of everyday matter."
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
  Now obviously I don't want to discount "strong force" but the external nature of electromagnetic energy would dictate that it has an appeal to the external energies of the cosmos.  typically we understand the energy controlling the universe to be gravitational.  However gravity is incredibly weaker than the other forces.  Remember when we discuss the exponents that those 30-40 exponential values are the amount of zero's in laymen s terms!  But discussing nature and gravity begs the question.. "What is Gravity?"

 "On the most recent edition of his “Star Talk” radio show and podcast, astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson answered the question, “What is gravity?”
“I have no idea,” he joked. “Okay, next question.”
Then, he went on to explain, “Here’s the difference. We can describe gravity, we can say what it does to other things."
“We can measure it, we can predict with it,” he continued, “but when you start asking, like, what it is? I don’t know.” http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/neil-degrasse-tyson-i-have-no-idea-what-gravity-is-only-what-it-does/
  So if the nature of Gravity is a mystery, even to a popular secular astrophysicist like Tyson;  Could we be wrong in how we interpret gravity?  Now the idea of gravity, and the fact of gravity are acceptable by the vast majority including myself.  But in other parts of the cosmos, can we really always rely on interpreting all movement as gravitational force?

" Tesla said he had fully developed his Dynamic Theory of Gravity and "worked it out in all the details". This aether-based theory, which initially was developed between 1893-94, explained gravity and directly linked it to electromagnetic phenomena, explaining also that the sun and all stars emit "primary solar rays" which in turn produce secondary radiations. Tesla's theory states that the phenomena produced by electromagnetic forces is the most important phenomenon in the universe. According to portions from his theory, mechanical motions are universally a result of electromagnetic force acting upon and through media. Unfortunately, no mathematical details of the theory have officially surfaced."
http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Tesla%27s_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity
  So here the intellectual giant Nikola Tesla had decided a different route where gravity is linked to electromagnetic phenomena.  Since matter is encased in electromagnetic energy; what would be wrong in assuming that the gravitation forces from masses of matter is in fact electromagnetic in nature?  That gravity is a lower bi-product of electromagnetic force?
"As an alternative to Einstein's general relativity (the original relativity theory came from R. Boscovich, [1711-1787]), the Dynamic Theory of Gravity explained the fields of gravity through electrodynamics. Tesla stated that there was no energy in matter other than that received from its environment: he did not accept the mass-energy equivalence as delineated by special relativity. Tesla rejected this concept from Einstein, as the special relativity theory's principles ignored gravitional effects." ibid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory

Here is evidence that Black holes are not actually real,  simply explanations instead
 "By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it."


"But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole."
By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.
The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp
By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.
The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp

  Super massive black holes found!
The European Southern Observatory, using its VLT (Very Large Telescope) in Chile, finished measuring the positions and rotations of 93 quasars and found something weird. These powerhouses of light, with powerful jets streaming out their poles, show unexpected traits in common. An ESO press release titled “Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years” states:

New observations with ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile have revealed alignments over the largest structures ever discovered in the Universe. A European research team has found that the rotation axes of the central supermassive black holes in a sample of quasars are parallel to each other over distances of billions of light-years. The team has also found that the rotation axes of these quasars tend to be aligned with the vast structures in the cosmic web in which they reside.
The large-scale structure of the universe looks like a web or network of filaments, with large voids between them. This new clue to the quasars’ orientations in the filaments will require new models to explain how they got that way. One of the team astronomers says, “The alignments in the new data, on scales even bigger than current predictions from simulations, may be a hint that there is a missing ingredient in our current models of the cosmos.
- See more at: http://crev.info/2014/11/quasar-alignment-spooky/#sthash.V7IdvVHJ.dpuf
 http://crev.info/2014/11/quasar-alignment-spooky/

      .....Wait!  What......??

How can we find Giant black holes, when science is simultaneously having problems accepting their existence?  Because Black Holes are not observed, they are an explanation of what is observed.  The problem is that gravity doesn't fully explain black Holes and now that we are finding black holes that are even more massive, it is obvious that something else is going on.  This is where the electric universe types of explanations come in handy.


The European Southern Observatory, using its VLT (Very Large Telescope) in Chile, finished measuring the positions and rotations of 93 quasars and found something weird.  These powerhouses of light, with powerful jets streaming out their poles, show unexpected traits in common.  An ESO press release titled “Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years” states:
New observations with ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile have revealed alignments over the largest structures ever discovered in the Universe. A European research team has found that the rotation axes of the central supermassive black holes in a sample of quasars are parallel to each other over distances of billions of light-years. The team has also found that the rotation axes of these quasars tend to be aligned with the vast structures in the cosmic web in which they reside.
The large-scale structure of the universe looks like a web or network of filaments, with large voids between them.  This new clue to the quasars’ orientations in the filaments will require new models to explain how they got that way.  One of the team astronomers says, “The alignments in the new data, on scales even bigger than current predictions from simulations, may be a hint that there is a missing ingredient in our current models of the cosmos.”
- See more at: http://crev.info/2014/11/quasar-alignment-spooky/#sthash.V7IdvVHJ.dpuf
By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp
By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.
The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp
By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp
The universe is not expanding?
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
" In the space around us, on Earth, in the Solar System and our Milky Way Galaxy, as similar objects get farther away, they look fainter and smaller. Their surface brightness, that is the brightness per unit area, remains constant.
In contrast, the Big Bang theory tells us that in an expanding Universe objects actually should appear fainter but bigger. Thus in this theory, the surface brightness decreases with the distance. In addition, the light is stretched as the Universe expanded, further dimming the light.
So in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times dimmer surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.
But that is not what observations show, as demonstrated by this new study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D.
The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.
Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.
These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis."http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.000-axis-of-evil-a-cause-for-cosmic-concern.html
   This article alone demands a new cosmology.  If the universe is not expanding there was no big bang!!  Yes there is rapid movement, which NYC explains.  But a non-expanding universe changes everything.

Other explanations for red shift
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Redshift
This is a selection of redshift theories that have been published over the years, that claim a cause that is not due to either Cosmological redshift (Friedmann), Doppler redshift, nor Gravitational redshift (Schwarzschild).
1909 John Evershed's "Evershed Effect"[7] in the penumbra of sunspots [8] [9].
1923 Compton scattering is Arthur Compton's Nobel Prize-winning theory which causes spectral shifts. However, critics note that it also causes blurring which is not seen in the redshifts of distant objects. [10] [11] [12] [13].
1929 Tired light is Fritz Zwicky's theory that as photons move through space, they lose energy [14]. Critics note several problems with tired light models in explaining the Hubble Law. It is not accepted by mainstream cosmologists as a mechanism. [15]
1955 M. A. Melvin's photon radiation density and path length [16]
1972 Dror Sadeh et al, "Effect of Mass on Frequency" [17]
1972 Daniel M. Greenberger's theory of "variable mass particles" which proposes a "decay redshift" [18]
1972 D.K. Ross's "New Red-Shift Mechanism for Quasars" using the variation of particle rest mass [19]
1972 J.C. Pecker, et al photon-photon interaction (in Pecker, J. C., Roberts, A. P., and Vigier, J. P., 1972, Non-velocity redshifts and photon-photon interactions: Nature, v. 237, p. 227-229). But see also [20]
1972 S. Urbanovich's "external influences" [21]
1974 Halton Arp suggests that the redshift of some quasars and galaxies may be non-velocity [22], and non-cosmological [23] (see also 1997 below).
1974 P. Merat et al, "Interaction between incident transverse photons and light neutral bosons" [24]
1976 Z. Maric et al, Photon-boson scattering [25]
1976 X.-Q. Li's photon motion in the discrete space-time under the photon's own force field [26]
1977 J. V. Narlikar's variable mass version of general relativity [27] [28]
1977 Susan M. Simkin's "Simkin effect" [29] [30] which is a description of one of the effects of light pollution.
1979 E. Schatzman's "Ageing of photons by collisions with a hypothetical particle" [31]
1979 E. R. Harrison and T. W. Noonan's "Interpretation of extragalactic redshifts" as ""Corrected" redshifts" [32]
1984 William G Tifft et al, "Global redshift quantization" [33] [34] [35]
1987 Emil Wolf's "Wolf effect" [36] , confirmed in the laboratory by Dean Faklis and George Morris in 1988 [37]. The frequency shift is generally not disortion free. However, in 1996, Wolf and Daniel F. V James reported that "under certain circumstances the changes in the spectrum of light scattered on random media may imitate the Doppler effect" [38] [39]
1990 Paul Marmet's inelastic transmission of photons in gases [40]
1997 Halton Arp suggests that redshift is a measure of age, rather than distance [41], based on Narlikar's variable mass version of general relativity [42] (resulting in Arp's book, Seeing Red).
2000 Ari Brynjolfsson's "Plasma redshift", that the interaction of photons with hot sparse electron plasma may produce a redshift [43] [44] [45]
2003 CREIL (Coherent Raman Effect on Incoherent Light) has been proposed by Jacques Moret-Bailly [46] [47]
2004 Charles Gallo's "Neutrino redshifts" [48] (not a new theory, but a proposal to look for redshifts in neutrino spectra)



   Red shift is not an area where this author is an expert.  However, from the stand point of this model, the acceleration we observe in the universe is not based upon cosmic expansion.  Instead it is based upon the cycle of the aether.  The acceleration of our rotating universe makes microwaves, providing us the cosmic black body radiation.  Thus the crime of all the speed and rotation of the outer universe is evidenced by the heat of the universal red shift.
"The hypothetical Unruh effect (or sometimes Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect) is the prediction that an accelerating observer will observe black-body radiation where an inertial observer would observe none. In other words, the background appears to be warm from an accelerating reference frame; in layman's terms, a thermometer waved around in empty space, subtracting any other contribution to its temperature, will record a non-zero temperature. The ground state for an inertial observer is seen as in thermodynamic equilibrium with a non-zero temperature by the uniformly accelerated observer."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect


An international team of astrophysicists has identified the most metal-poor stars in the Milky Way bulge. They present their findings in a paper published on Oct. 2. The scientists describe the discovery and analysis of four bulge giants - the lowest metallicity bulge stars studied with high-resolution spectroscopy to date

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-metal-poor-stars-galactic-bulge.html#jCp


Axis of evil

"In cosmology, the axis of evil is the pattern that is left imprinted on the radiation left behind by the Big Bang.[19] The pattern itself is an alignment of hot and cold spots in the Cosmic Microwave Background that seemingly defies the standard isotropic model of the Universe. Discovered and named in 2005 by Kate Land and João Magueijo of Imperial College, London, the pattern is controversial and disputed amongst scientists, though two independent studies have confirmed its existence."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

 
 Image from "The Principle", copywrite 2014 Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC Used by Permission

 
 Image from "The Principle", copywrite 2014 Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC Used by Permission
   Much like a map of the world,the universal map looks different flattened out,  the 3d universe turns into a globe.
 
 Image from "The Principle", copywrite 2014 Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC Used by Permission
 This globe has the a universal equatorial line in the form of Cosmic Background radiation.
"Some believe it is just a figment of overactive imaginations. But evidence is growing that the so-called "axis of evil" - a pattern apparently imprinted on the radiation left behind by the big bang - may be real, posing a threat to standard cosmology.
According to the standard model, the universe is isotropic, or much the same everywhere. However, in 2005, Kate Land and João Magueijo of Imperial College London noticed a curious pattern in the map of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) created by NASA's WMAP satellite. It seemed to show that some hot and cold spots in the CMB are not distributed randomly, as expected, but are aligned along what Magueijo dubbed the axis of evil."http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.000-axis-of-evil-a-cause-for-cosmic-concern.html
  Here we see the Cosmic background radiation wraps around the universe and earth causing a consistent pattern where no pattern in naturalistic universe could be.



An international team of astrophysicists has identified the most metal-poor stars in the Milky Way bulge. They present their findings in a paper published on Oct. 2. The scientists describe the discovery and analysis of four bulge giants - the lowest metallicity bulge stars studied with high-resolution spectroscopy to date

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-metal-poor-stars-galactic-bulge.html#jCp
 Image from "The Principle", copywrite 2014 Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC Used by Permission
This plane is in harmony with the earths equater.


" One observation that will leave many particle physicists disappointed is the lack of any evidence for a fourth variety of neutrino. We know there are three kinds of these ghostly particles, which barely interact with ordinary matter – the electron, muon and tau neutrinos. Measurements from WMAP allowed for the existence of either three or four types of neutrinos, but Planck's more detailed data places the number firmly in the three camp."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos--plus-axis-of-evil.html#.VHM-GGdSlGR
 More explanations fall by the wayside.  As our earth shows more connection special in it's place in the universe.
An international team of astrophysicists has identified the most metal-poor stars in the Milky Way bulge. They present their findings in a paper published on Oct. 2. The scientists describe the discovery and analysis of four bulge giants - the lowest metallicity bulge stars studied with high-resolution spectroscopy to date.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-metal-poor-stars-galactic-bulge.html#jCp

Misbehaving galaxies
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-metal-poor-stars-galactic-bulge.html
 "The first stars in the Universe (referred to as Population III stars) have been extensively searched for, both in the local Universe and at high redshift, but despite massive efforts no true Population III star has yet been found."
An international team of astrophysicists has identified the most metal-poor stars in the Milky Way bulge. They present their findings in a paper published on Oct. 2. The scientists describe the discovery and analysis of four bulge giants - the lowest metallicity bulge stars studied with high-resolution spectroscopy to date.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-metal-poor-stars-galactic-bulge.html#jCp

An international team of astrophysicists has identified the most metal-poor stars in the Milky Way bulge. They present their findings in a paper published on Oct. 2. The scientists describe the discovery and analysis of four bulge giants - the lowest metallicity bulge stars studied with high-resolution spectroscopy to date.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-metal-poor-stars-galactic-bulge.html#jCp
An international team of astrophysicists has identified the most metal-poor stars in the Milky Way bulge. They present their findings in a paper published on Oct. 2. The scientists describe the discovery and analysis of four bulge giants - the lowest metallicity bulge stars studied with high-resolution spectroscopy to date.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-metal-poor-stars-galactic-bulge.html#j
The most metal-poor stars in the galactic bulge found
""Bulgeless" galaxies are "wildly unexpected in the standard
model," according to Peebles.3 He wrote in Nature, "A challenge for the advancing power of theoretical methods is to understand this inward migration of matter, and why it preferentially fed the pseudobulge [concentration of stars within the galaxy's plane] in some galaxies and the black hole in others."4 In other words, why would matter have bulged beyond the plane of some spiral or disc galaxies, while in otherwise similarly shaped galaxies it remained confined within the flat plane of the galaxy?"http://www.icr.org/article/wildly-unexpected-galaxies-defy-simple
 The incredible way in which Galaxies operate really frustrates Cosmologist attempting to fit the world in a naturalists system only dependent upon Scientific laws.




"According to a paper in the journal Nature, astronomers are now looking for a whole new theory to explain how planets form. The standard model of planet formation says that planets and stars form gravitationally in a contracting disk of gas and dust called the core accretion theory. Since astronomers believe that this model explains our solar system, they expected that exo-planet systems would play by the same rules. However, they have now observed countless baffling systems that cannot be explained by conventional reasoning. Wal Thornhill explains the Electric Universe thoughts on planetary formation." http://youtu.be/YypyHEgEYzw
   If the planets evolved from the sun,  why are the giant "gas planets" on the outside of the solar system; while the "rocky planets" are on the inside of the solar system? You may have seen a fire produce smoke and ash, but when did you see a fire make rocks? The gas planets should be closest to the sun.

Sloan Digital Sky Survey

 A picture is worth a thousand words,
Here is the data that we have scene from the earth and all the stars and galaxies observed.

 
 Image from "The Principle", copywrite 2014 Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC Used by Permission

 Starting from the earth we see layers of conscentric shells, arrangments of these stars.
 
 Image from "The Principle", copywrite 2014 Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC Used by Permission

 This is fairly consistent the wider the scope is.
 
 Image from "The Principle", copywrite 2014 Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC Used by Permission

 We must rememeber that this is observed not only 2 dimensionally.
 
 Image from "The Principle", copywrite 2014 Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC Used by Permission

But as a fully orbbed layer.




Image from "The Principle", copywrite 2014 Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC Used by Permission


Christendom historically geo-centric
Martin Luther:There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth [Josh. 10:12].”iiMartin Luther, Luther’s Works. Vol 54. Table Talk, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 358–9.
"The Christian is not to compromise so as to obscure the distinction between good and evil, and is to avoid the errors of] those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and prevent the order of
nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds we must indeed confess that the devil posses them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence. When they are told: “That is hot,” they will reply: “No, it is plainly cold.” When they are shown an object that is black, they will say that it is white, or vice versa. Just like the man who said that snow is black; for although it is perceived and known by all to be white, yet he clearly wished to contradict the fact. And so it is that they are madmen who would try to change the natural order, and even to dazzle eyes and benumb their senses."
—John Calvin, "Sermon on 1 Corinthians 10:19-24", Calvini Opera Selecta, Corpus Refomatorum, Vol 49, 677, trans. by Robert White in "Calvin and Copernicus: the Problem Reconsidered", Calvin Theological Journal 15 (1980), p233-243, at 236-237
As we search church history we find a uniform interpretation of church leaders espousing Geo-centrism.  Not only is this the case with Catholicism.  But two giants in the protestant Church rejected the heliocentric model as it was first proposed.



  Image from "The Principle", copywrite 2014 Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC Used by Permission
  Here we see the geocentric nature of Stone Henge as it shows the revolutions of the Sun around the earth.

Coriolis effect
"The Earth rotates fairly slowly, compared with other planets. The slow rotation of the Earth means the Coriolis effect is not strong enough to be seen in small movements, such as the draining of water in a bathtub."http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/coriolis-effect/?ar_a=1
Here we see that the Coriolis effect is not strong enough to actually be detected when it comes to the spinning movement of the earth.  But could it be enough if applied to our universe instead?



Maybe the universe is spinning!
"Physicists and astronomers have long believed that the universe has mirror symmetry, like a basketball. But recent findings from the University of Michigan suggest that the shape of the Big Bang might be more complicated than previously thought, and that the early universe spun on an axis.
To test for the assumed mirror symmetry, physics professor Michael Longo and a team of five undergraduates catalogued the rotation direction of tens of thousands of spiral galaxies photographed in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.The mirror image of a counter-clockwise rotating galaxy would have clockwise rotation. More of one type than the other would be evidence for a breakdown of symmetry, or, in physics speak, a parity violation on cosmic scales, Longo said.The researchers found evidence that galaxies tend to rotate in a preferred direction. They uncovered an excess of left-handed, or counter-clockwise rotating, spirals in the part of the sky toward the north pole of the Milky Way. The effect extended beyond 600 million light years away."The excess is small, about 7 percent, but the chance that it could be a cosmic accident is something like one in a million," Longo said. "These results are extremely important because they appear to contradict the almost universally accepted notion that on sufficiently large scales the universe is isotropic, with no special direction."
"http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/07/-is-the-universe-spinning-new-research-says-yes.html
"On the face of it, the claim of a spin axis would seem anti-Copernican. In other words, the universe has a preferred axis, which means there is indeed a special direction in space."
"What is very curious to me is that the Milky Way’s own spin axis roughly aligns to the universe’s purported spin axis within just a few degrees, as deduced from the two galaxy surveys. That seems very anti-Copernican too. It has also been used to bolster biblical creationist arguments that we are at the “center” of the universe.
Invoking a familiar phrase from Carl Sagan, one cosmologist reminded me that: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
http://news.discovery.com/space/do-we-live-in-a-spinning-universe-110708.htm

Are the stars then interconnected?
"Wormholes are shortcuts in space time, throat-like links between otherwise distant parts of the Universe. There’s no evidence that they exist but they do arise mathematically as stable solutions to the equations of relativity, just like other exotic objects such as black holes."
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423123/stars-could-have-wormholes-at-their-cores-say-astrophysicists/?ref=rss
  Now here we have to translate somethings into the NYC cosmology the gravity of black holes is translated to electromagnetic energy. Space/time is translated to ether.

But wouldn't Occam's razor apply to the complexity of the geocentric universe?
"Of course, it would be an overestimation to interpret Mach’s ideas as the
completion of the synthesis. When Mach replied to Newton that centrifugal forces must be explained by means of relative motion alone, he did not formulate a physical theory, but only the beginning of a program for a physical theory which must eventually deal with all mechanical phenomena, not only centrifugal force. Above all it must explain relativistically the phenomena of motion in a gravitational field, e.g., the motion of the planets. The greatest achievement of Newtonian mechanics was that it gave a dynamic foundation to the Copernican worldview. While from the point of view of kinematics there existed no difference between the universes of Ptolemy and Copernicus, Newton decided in favor of Copernicus from the point of view of dynamics. It was only for this particular world description that his theory of gravitation offered a mechanical explanation. The complicated planetary orbits of Ptolemy, on the other hand, did not fit into any explanation. If we wish to establish the equivalence of both world conceptions, we must find a theory of gravitation sufficiently general to explain the Copernican and also the Ptolemaic planetary motion as a gravitational phenomenon. Herein lies the great achievement of Einstein, compared to which the ideas of Mach appear only as preliminary suggestions: Einstein has indeed found such a comprehensive theory of gravitation; and it is with this discovery, which places him on the same plane as Copernicus and Newton, that the problem of the relativity of motion has been brought to a conclusion…
…It is for this reason that the idea of simplicity cannot be used to decide between the Ptolemaic and Copernican conceptions. The Copernican conception is indeed simpler, but this does not make it any "truer," since this simplicity is descriptive. The simplicity is due to the fact that one of the conceptions employs more expedient definitions. But the objective state of affairs is independent of the choice of definitions; this choice can result in a simpler description, but it cannot yield a "truer" picture of the world. That these definitions, e.g., the definition of rest according to Copernicus, lead to a simpler description, of course expresses a feature of reality and is therefore an objective statement. The choice of the simplest description is thus possible only with the advance of knowledge and can in general be carried through only within certain limits. One description may be simplest for some phenomena while a different description may be simplest for others; but no simplest description is distinguished from other descriptions with regard to truth. The concept of truth does not apply here, since we are dealing with definitions…" Extracts from “The Philosophy of Space and Time”
by Hans Reichenbach   http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/113104/jewish/Appendix-3-Relativity-and-Geocentrism.htm#footnote4a113104

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/#.VB16pldSlGQ

Image from "The Principle", copyright 2014 Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC. Used by permission.

  1. Owen Gingerich, The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus, Penguin, ISBN 0-14-303476-6
  2. Ramasubramanian, K. (1994). "Modification of the earlier Indian planetary theory by the Kerala astronomers (c. 1500 AD) and the implied heliocentric picture of planetary motion". Current Science 66: 784–90.
  3. Joseph, George G. (2000), The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics, p. 408, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-00659-8    
  4.           http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/16/time-passes-slowly-flies-study   
  5. [DEAR READER: PLEASE DISREGARD NUMBER SEQUENCE; AN ERROR HAS OCCURRED IN THE PRODUCTION OF THIS MANUSCRIPTS WHICH THE AUTHOR FAILED TO ALLEVIATE]
  6.    Teno Groppi discussing the reproduction of the michelson-morrely experiments.."Several of them have been recreated and got the same results. Here is a paraphrase/quote an email I recently received from a creationist speaking of a book by Barnes:He mentions experiments more precise than Michelson-Morley have also failed to detect any relative motion of the medium with respect to the earth. J.D. Jackson describes some of those experiments that yield a null effect; two employed the Mosbauer effect, which gives much greater precision. (J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd edition, (Wiley and Sons, 1975) pgs.508-512; Champeney, Isaak and Kahn, Phys. Letters, Vol.7, 1963, pg.241; and G.R. Isaac, Phy. Bul. Vol.21, 1970, pg.255). In those two experiments the null result was observed to a precision of better than one part in 6000 and one part in 10,000, respectively. There is little doubt that the medium in the vicinity of the earth moves with the earth. (TG: Or neither of them move at all!)
  7. Image from "The Principle", copyright 2014 Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC. Used by permission.
    http://newsroom.gsfc.nasa.gov/sdptoolkit/primer/csc_overview.html#Introduction  

    Earth Centered Inertial (ECI)

    "Inertial frame centered on earth, with Z axis along the rotational axis, and X axis directed toward vernal equinox. Epoch for all ECS data is J2000. Earth-centered inertial (ECI) coordinate frames have their origins at the center of mass of the Earth.[1] ECI frames are called inertial in contrast to the Earth-centered, Earth-fixed (ECEF) frames which rotate in inertial space in order to remain fixed with respect to the surface of the Earth. It is convenient to represent the positions and velocities of terrestrial objects in ECEF coordinates or with latitude, longitude, and altitude. However, for objects in space, the equations of motion that describe orbital motion are simpler in a non-rotating frame such as ECI. The ECI frame is also useful for specifying the direction toward celestial objects."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial  http://arxiv.org/pdf/math-ph/0611086
       Long story short, ECI is simply navigation from a geo-centric view point.   If ship leaves the earth and it's frame of gravity, it is not surprising that the  device will switch framework and point of reference. Geo-centricity and Helio-centricity agree as to the the stellar motions. Only Geo-centricity contains the concept of a stationary point.  It doesn't matter if the earth is spinning or the universe is spinning.  Why?  Because from here to the moon there is not  major current of ether.  So NASA has no problem using ECI  and the current will still guide the satellite regardless of whether it is rotation based or ether based.  Because the stellar objects are going with the current and not against it. 

     

    Geocentric moon.

     
     "Look at the moon at any time and -- aside from the constantly changing phases that are caused by changing relative positions of the Earth, the moon and sun -- it does indeed show us the same face, constantly. Perhaps surprisingly, it's 'non-rotation' (from our perspective) comes from its interaction with the Earth." http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/why-doesnt-moon-spin-tides-locked-130327.htm
      Now this fact, in and of itself, is easily explained by heliocentrism.  I am not contending that it does not.  But it does support a geocentric earth, while it doesn't positively contribute to  heliocentrism.  While we could say that the moon spins after a full rotation around the earth.  In reality it is a more clearer statement that the moon spins around the earth as it rotates around the earth.  The moon is effectively then geocentric.

      Isaiah 38:And this shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that he hath spoken; behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down."

    Does the Sun spin? 

      Image from "The Principle", copywrite 2014 Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC Used by Permission

    "Yes, the Sun does spin, or rotate. Because it is a gas, it does not rotate like a solid. The Sun actually spins faster at its equator than at its poles. The Sun rotates once every 27 days at its equator, but only once every 31 days at its poles. We know this by watching the motion of sunspots and other solar features move across the Sun. The giant gas planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, also spin faster at their equators than at their poles." http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/9-Does-the-Sun-spin-

     The speed of the sun

     ____________________________________________________
    Bibliographic Entry Result
    (w/surrounding text)
    Standardized
    Result
    Chaisson, Eric, & McMillan, Steve. Astronomy Today.New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1993: 533. "Measurements of gas velocities in the solar neighborhood show that the sun, and everything in its vicinity, orbits the galactic center at a speed of about 220 km/s …." 220 km/s
    "Milky Way Galaxy. " The New Encyclopedia Britannica.15th ed. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1998: 131. "The Sun, which is located relatively far from the nucleus, moves at an estimated speed of about 225 km per second (140 miles per second) in a nearly circular orbit." 225 km/s
    Goldsmith, Donald. The Astronomers.New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991: 39. "If the solar system … were not moving in orbit around the center, we would fall straight in toward it, arriving a hundred million years from now. But because we do move (at about 150 miles per second) along a nearly circular path …." 240 km/s
    Norton, Arthur P. Norton's Star Atlas.New York: Longman Scientific & Technical, 1978: 92. "… the sun's neighborhood, including the Sun itself, are moving around the centre of our Galaxy in approximately circular orbits with velocities of the order of 250 km/s." 250 km/s
    Recer, Paul (Associated Press). Radio Astronomers Measure Sun's Orbit Around Milky Way. Houston Chronicle. 1 June 1990. "Using a radio telescope system that measures celestial distances 500 times more accurately than the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers plotted the motion of the Milky Way and found that the sun and its family of planets were orbiting the galaxy at about 135 miles per second."

    "The sun circles the Milky Way at a speed of about 486,000 miles per hour."
    217km/s
     http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/AngelaChan.shtml
       Now this illustrates some very important points. First, we have calculations which bring us to the sun moving at 135-155 miles per second.  This leaves a margin of error of 20 miles per second.  Or 1,200 miles per minute.  Or 1,728,000miles per day.  Remember this is the margin of error.
    The maximum speed is about 13,392,000miles per day.  The minimum speed would be 11,664,000 miles per day.
    So we have a large margin of error. But also consider the diameter of the earth's rotation around the sun(or vice versa) is roughly 186,864,938 miles.  Which roughly estimated means that the sun would have to have 14 times as much speed as is currently estimated.  Because in a geocentric model the sun would not revolve around the milky way galaxy, only the earth.  To multiply the sun's speed is not unattainable.
    An interesting comparisonThis is either a giant  exo-planet or a dwarf star.
     "DENIS-P J082303.1-491201 b is located 20.77 pc (about 67.7 light years or 642 trillion km or 399 trillion miles) from Earth. At 28.5+1.9
    −1.9
    Jupiter masses,[2] it is listed as the most massive planet in the NASA Exoplanet Archive, although, according to most definitions of planet, this object is too massive to be a planet and is more properly classified as a brown dwarf instead."
    Orbital
    DENIS-P J082303.1-491201 b orbits a nearby L1.5-type brown dwarf DENIS-P J082303.1-491201 (having 7.5+0.7
    −0.7
     % of the Sun's mass),[1] with a period of about 246 days.[1][2]"
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DENIS-P_J082303.1-491201_b
     It is not uncanny for a star to orbit. So it is not an impossible proposition for the sun to be in orbit.  But remember that the difference between geo-centrism  and helio-centrism is not a stable sun vs. a spinning sun.  It is a faster Sun vs. a slower sun.  Also the sun is not running independently in this scenario, it is carried as a part of the larger ether.

     

    Luke 21:25And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

    http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=v060372

              Space is full of dust. You probably know intuitively that ... 

      We assume these to be super massive Stars and galaxies.

    Scene during the Kentucky Derby Festival Thunder Over Louisville in Louisville, KY. April 12, 2014

            But if gravity were not in effect upon these flares and we saw no background bridge.  Couldn't these flaming firework dust particles be mistaken for a picture of stars and galaxies found on a Hubble telescope photo?  Once distance is left inconclusive these backdrops could easily be explained by space dust. 

      Scene during the Kentucky Derby Festival Thunder Over Louisville in Louisville, KY. April 12, 2014

     " …scientists have announced tantalizing hints that the universe is actually relatively small, with a hall-of-mirrors illusion tricking us into thinking that space stretches on forever….Weeks and his colleagues, a team of astrophysicists in France, say the WMAP results suggest that the universe is not only small, but that space wraps back on itself in a bizarre way (Nature, vol. 425, p. 593)…. Effectively, the universe would be like a hall of mirrors, with the wraparound effect producing multiple images of everything inside.” [Spergel adds]: “If we could prove that the universe was finite and small, that would be Earth-shattering. It would really change our view of the universe” (Hazel Muir, “Does the Universe Go On Forever,” New Scientist, October 11, 2003, p. 6).
                                                                                                                          https://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/universe-scale-topic/big-bang-expansion-topic/v/a-universe-smaller-than-the-observable                                            http://youtu.be/0w9R_foNLrg   
  8.   As this video demonstrates.  What we have observed might not be the same as what is out there.   If you have 5,000 ft of rope wrapped and winded around you, How far away is it? The distance of the photon  may be billions of light years in length and yet in a straight it may only be a few hundred.  And so we don't have an absolute certainty of our conceptions of the scale of the universe.
  9.                                                                                                               
    "Several decades ago, we found a problem, a problem so great that it was brushed under the carpet for many a decade. And this is the fact that galaxies spin too fast; we believe in the work of Isaac Newton at least on planetary scales.  But when you apply Newton's laws of motion to the galaxy, the galaxy spins too fast in fact 10 times too fast!  By rights the galaxies should fly apart. Therefore scientist said that we have to have dark matter a halo of matter that surrounds the galaxy and holds the galaxies together."  Dr. Michio Kaku Theoretical Physicist minute 41 from the movie "The Principle"

     

                                    https://catalyst.uw.edu/workspace/idp/40208/285081

      "You don’t see a universe that is blurred. If you take any Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field image you see sharp images, which is enough to tell us that the light has not been distorted or perturbed by fluctuations in space-time from the source to the observer. (Robert Roy Britt, Space.com, April 2, 2003 interviewing Roberto Ragazzoni concerning the article “The Lack of Observational Evidence for the Quantum Structure of Space time at Planck Scales,” The Astrophysical Journal, April 10, 2003, co-authored by Massimo Turatto and Wolfgang Gaessler).

      http://aetherforce.com/how-far-can-the-hubble-see/

     When the human eye is compared to a telescope, it is evident
    that the eye has its own objective lens that collects light. In a dark
    place, the pupil of the eye becomes wide open, so that it can collect
    maximum light. The circle of an open pupil in the average human
    eye has a diameter of about 0.7 cm and a surface area of 0.38465
    cm2. In comparison with the lens of the eye, the light-collecting
    surface of the Hubble telescope‟s objective has a diameter 357.14
    times larger than that of the eye.
    Its surface area is about 127,551
    times larger than that of the eye. This means that the Hubble
    telescope collects 127,551 times more light than the human eye. If all
    this light were used to create brighter rather than larger images than
    the naked eye sees, then the light of those images must be 127,551
    times brighter than the images the naked eye sees. For this reason,
    the telescope can make a star appear 127,551 times brighter.
    "
                                                    Assuming that a star is so far away that it is barely visible to
    the naked eye, we know that the Hubble telescope can make the star
    appear 127,551 times brighter. Does this mean that the Hubble
    telescope enables observer to see the star if it were 127,551 times
    farther away? The answer is no.
    The Inverse Square Law3 says that
    the light that we receive from a star is inversely proportional to the
    square of its distance. According to this law, at that distance, the light of the star becomes 1275512 or 16,269,262,700, times dimmer, far too dim for us to see with the telescope.

    An amazing piece of machinery... but just how far can it really see? Has anyone ever asked and investigated it?
    An amazing piece of machinery... but just how far can it really see? Has anyone ever asked and investigated it?
    This raises the question: What is the maximum distance an
    object can be seen through the Hubble telescope? The answer is
    357.14 times the distance that the naked eye can see. The reason is
    that an object 357.14 times farther away, its light becomes 127,551
    times dimmer. Since the Hubble telescope can make a star appear
    1,270,551 times brighter, then looking through the telescope the star
    would be barely visible.
    Figure 1 shows an object located at A, that is barely visible to
    an observer. Therefore, the distance d shown in the figure is the
    maximum distance that the object is visible to the naked eye.
    If the object were at location B, a distance 357.14 times
    greater than d (Figure 2), then its light, according to the Inverse
    Square Law of light, would be 357.142, or 127,551 times dimmer.
    Although the object at B is invisible to the naked eye, it would be
    barely visible through the Hubble telescope because the telescope
    makes the light of the object appear 127,551 times stronger. Here we
    see that a very large telescope, such as the Hubble, enables us to see
    only 357.14 times farther than the naked eye can see.

    The object at A is barely visible to the naked eye (see Fig. 1). The light of the same object at B, 357.14 times father away, would be 357.142, or 127,551.02 dimmer. Since the Hubble telescope collects 127,551.02 times more light, the object is barely visible. If the object were farther away, its light would be too dim to appear in the telescope.
    The object at A is barely visible to the naked eye (see Fig. 1). The light of the
    same object at B, 357.14 times father away, would be 357.142, or 127,551.02
    dimmer. Since the Hubble telescope collects 127,551.02 times more light, the
    object is barely visible. If the object were farther away, its light would be too
    dim to appear in the telescope.
    The calculation does not account for the magnification of the size of
    the object by the telescope, for any magnification causes the object to
    appear dimmer because the light must be dispersed over a wider area.
    (Magnification does not help to increase the viewing range of the
    telescope beyond 357.14 times the range of the human eye.) Further,
    the calculation assumes that the apparent size of the object remains
    the same, but in reality, when an object is farther away, its apparent
    size becomes smaller. However, this does not reduce the range of the
    telescope because what we are primarily concerned with is the
    amount of light that reaches the eye. Finally, the calculation assumes
    that no light from the object has been blocked by dust or dissipated in
    its passage through space. Otherwise, the telescope‟s range of view
    would be further reduced.
    The calculation did not include photography or digital cameras or
    concentrating the light of stars on film, for a long period of time. In
    that case, the viewing range of the telescope would be several times
    greater. Recently, by using digital cameras, astronomers are able to
    further increase the viewing range of a telescope.

    Just how far away are these beautiful space bodies?
    Just how far away are these beautiful space bodies?
    In this chapter, we investigated some of the facts about telescopes
    and their capacities. It was demonstrated that the capacity of a large
    telescope to see the distant stars has been overestimated.
    The result of this calculation indicates that a very large
    telescope (such as the Hubble) enable observers to see only 357.14
    times farther than the naked eye, pointing to wide-ranging
    implications regarding many theories related to size and distances of
    stars and galaxies
    ."                                                                                                                          

  10. http://www.universetoday.com/8487/distant-and-fast-moving-object-discovered/
    " A team of astronomers from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena presented images today of a rare Hyper Extremely Red Object (Hero). This dim object, located near a galaxy 10 billion light years away is traveling away from us at almost the speed of light. In fact, it’s so far, and moving so fast, it has gone way past being red-shifted – it’s only visible in infrared light.
    Heroes are usually confined to comic books and movies, but as the saying goes, we all need one. So astronomers have turned to the deep, dark cosmos to find their heroic figure — the “Hyper Extremely Red Object,” or “Hero.”
    At the American Astronomical Society winter meeting in Seattle today, an astronomer from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena reports the discovery of a Hero near the radio galaxy 53W002, more than 10 billion light years away. This marks the first time a Hero has been found near a radio galaxy, suggesting that radio galaxies — which are optically dim but have strong radio emissions — may provide a guidepost for scouting out other Hero objects.
    “Hero objects are intriguing. Like comic book heroes, they travel really fast — almost at the speed of light. They are virtually invisible to our eyes and they are very mysterious. Most importantly, this type of Hero may hold a key for understanding how the first galaxies formed and evolved in the universe,” said Dr. Myungshin Im, a staff research scientist at the Space Infrared Telescope Facility Science Center, located at Caltech.
    So far, the astronomical version of a hero has taken on the unassuming guise of a small, glowing, red patch in deep space. More advanced infrared telescopes like NASA’s Space Infrared Telescope Facility, managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and launching in spring 2003, may, among other things, lift this red veil and reveal these remote objects for what they really are — quite possibly the universe’s earliest stars and galaxies."

    Here is a link to an interesting article discussing the distance and sight using telescopes.
    http://aetherforce.com/the-sailors-experiment/
    We never consider the limitations of optics concerning distance But at a certain point the telescope will naturally stop covering distance and just do magnification.  We need to make ourselves aware of the limits of scientific investigation.
    (in using this illustration, I am not saying that the water in the canopy was necessarily vapr for however. I subscribe to an ice canopy.  But the illustrations helps in understanding the protection of a canopy model.)


      http://aetherforce.com/the-structure-of-water-and-its-interaction-with-light/    
     http://youtu.be/kd614bK3WZc
  11.  http://aetherforce.com/dr-gerald-pollacks-mission-to-unlock-the-secrets-of-water-fundraiser/

    When we consider the issue of a canopy of water over the earth.  We have to remember that the state of the water may not be in the current state which we imagine.   As can be seen from Gerald Pollacks research water can form very complex molecules different from simply H2O.  These different combinations have not been very deeply researched.  So it is not impossible that they provide a more easy explanation for the formation of the ancient canopy. 
    Here is amazing applications shown to us from NASA as the astronauts blow water bubbles in anti-gravity!  https://rumble.com/v2ze3j-space-station-astronauts-grow-a-water-bubble.html

    Luther on the canopy:
    "We Christians must be different from the philosophers [i.e. scientists] in the way we think about the causes of these things. And if some are beyond our comprehension (like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens), we must believe them and admit our lack of knowledge rather than either wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.vi"Martin Luther, Luther’s Works. Vol 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), pg. 42
    When dealing with the canopy theory, many creationist rejected the original canopy explanation because it was assuming all the water of the great flood to be upheld within the canopy.  however later theories like the Hovind theory have not argue that. but instead assumed the flood water's to be subterranean.  However the mainstream of creationism threw out the baby with the bath water.  The canopy is a historical fact the ancient cultures all record a solid sky canopy.  We can not altar historical facts only interpret them.  For further research I recommend these articles.. http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2012/11/lets-put-canopy-back-up-defense-of.html

      http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2012/11/on-facebook-debating-canopy-theory.html   [pay attention to the comment section which has added research]
  12.  
  13.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuKgnDWDbpE&feature=player_detailpage
    illustration of the northstar in the universe.

    Below a star trail illustrates the centrality of the north star.  As well as the cycle of the universe around the earth.
  14.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V3rmDG5J8A

     
    E.W. Bullinger gives credence to a tenet of my NYC hypothesis.
    "When these constellations were formed the dragon possessed this important point, and the star 'a', in Draco, marked this central point. But by it's gradual recession, that point is recubba, in the lesser sheep fold for it to be what is called 'The Polar Star.'" The Witness of the Stars page 153
    And so Lucifer "draco" once guarded the throne of God and has fallen from grace. I believe this stellar sign points to a galactic catastrophe.                                                                                                                     
    http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=by2r22xg
    http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm
"If the Sun is essentially an electrical phenomenon, as seems to be the case, and it is also a fairly typical star, then all stars should exhibit properties that are consistent with the Electric Sun (ES) model. Do they? Let us extrapolate the ES model and compare it to what we have observed about stars.
In 1911 Ejnar Hertzspung constructed a plot of the absolute brightness vs. spectral class (temperature) of the stars whose distances we could then accurately measure by the parallax method.  In 1913 Henry Norris Russell independently repeated this exercise.  This plot is therefore named the  Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram, and is one of the first topics presented in introductory astronomy courses.  It is clear that the HR diagram is a plot of actual observations – not something deduced from theory. So, any viable model of the workings of a star must be consistent with it.  Is the Electric Sun (ES) model of how a star is powered consistent with the HR diagram?  If it is not, then this would disprove the ES hypothesis. "
 https://www.thunderbolts.info/.../050527variablexray.htm
May 27, 2005
Variable Stars

The brightness fluctuations of “variable stars” have long puzzled astronomers. Perhaps the similarity of their brightness curves to those of lightning is the best indicator of the cause.

What makes a variable star vary? The conventional astronomer and the plasma astronomer will give different answers, because a conventional star and an electrically driven star are not at all alike.
Variable stars, such as Mira (photo above), fit well in the theory of electric stars. Most have a brightness curve similar to that of lightning, with a sudden rise time followed by a slower exponential decay. You can see this curve in the charts of two variables, Mira and of Delta Cephei above.
The brightness curve of Mira (upper diagram) follows the same sudden onset and slow decay as lightning . The star varies over a period of just under a year (the missing part of the brightness curves are the times of the year when the star is not seen at night.) The lower brightness curve is for Delta Cepheus, the flagship star of the Cepheid variables. Cepheid variables have a much shorter period than Mira variables, but 90% of them have the lightning signature of a fast rise and slow decay.
Some variable stars are regular and others are irregular. The irregular ones seem to average  power over the bursts. When the bursts are more frequent, the energy per burst is less. This is to be expected from an electric circuit where the trigger level is variable and the power input is constant.
Don Scott, plasma cosmologist and retired professor of electrical engineering, suggests that most, maybe all, variable stars are binaries. Their variability is caused by electric discharge between the two stars.
Scott says: “As I see it, [variable] binaries operate generally as follows: Each of the stars has an electrical capacitance. These two capacitances are permanently connected by a plasma (cloud). This plasma exhibits (as do all plasmas) a nonlinear resistance.  If one of the stars charges up to a high enough voltage ... , then the plasma will go into the arc mode and emit brilliant light, perhaps x-rays and gamma-rays. Electrical energy will be transferred from the first capacitor (star) to the other. It doesn't make any difference which star is bigger.
“The "bridge" between the two stars probably doesn't go away.  After the arc discharge is over (the voltage difference between the two capacitors is dissipated), the plasma bridge goes back into its normal glow or dark current mode and waits for the next discharge.”                    
Like a relaxation oscillation circuit, some variable stars reduce their variability and eventually come to equilibrium. We see this happening to the north star, Polaris. Polaris is a binary Cepheid variable whose brightness has increased over the course of the last century, while the level of variability has decreased and the length of time over which it varies has became longer.
The interactions between a star and its companion also apply to close-orbiting planets, as discovered  recently in the tau Bootes system. Here the “microvariability” of the star has been correlated to the orbit of a close-orbiting planet. Mainstream astronomers explain it as tidal interactions – the planet pulls the star’s bright atmosphere around with it. But observations show that starspots (sunspots on other stars) and  magnetic fields on the star are also related to the planet’s positions. For a plasma cosmologist, that is an indication that electrical interactions should be considered.
Even our own Sun is a variable star (see Wal Thornhill’s link below). It varies over about an eleven-year period known as the sunspot cycle. And, as shown in the 1950’s, that variability is connected to the orbits of the largest planets in the system, Jupiter and Saturn.
For plasma cosmologists, the study of variable stars is an opportunity to better understand the way electrical circuits behave in space.
Links:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=by2r22xg
The thermonuclear model of stars is a product of its time — the early 1900’s. That it remains essentially unchanged into the new millennium is a measure of the rigidity of the peer structure and narrow focus within academia. We have since discovered that space is full of charged particles (plasma) and magnetic fields. The Sun is a ball of plasma and its behavior more complex than was dreamt a century ago. Eddington, who gave us the standard solar model, did so using gravity and ideal gas laws. He did not know that space is threaded with magnetic fields and flows of charged particles (electric currents), with the Sun as a focus. A beneficiary of Eddington”s model, George Gamow, was moved to write effusively:
According to a Greek legend, Prometheus flew all the way to the Sun in order to bring back to mortals some of the heavenly fire. But even Prometheus would not risk diving into the Sun’s photosphere to see what was under it. However, this feat was carried out by the British astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington, who was able to find out everything about the interior of the Sun and other stars without leaving his comfortable study at Cambridge University. “It should not be too difficult,” Sir Arthur used to say, ”to understand such a simple thing as a star.” And he had very good reasons for that statement. Indeed, while geophysicists are still unable to agree on the exact value of the temperature in the center of the Earth, which is only about four thousand miles below our feet, astronomers can tell the temperature of the central regions of the Sun and of many other stars within a few percentage points and be quite sure about the figures they quote. [A Star Called the Sun, George Gamow, p.93.]
I included Gamow’s comments as an example of the hubris of mathematical physicists and as a warning. It can be argued that astrophysics is in worse shape than geophysics. There is absolutely no way that anyone can be sure about the temperature of the center of the Sun. Yet confident statements like this are reported daily in the media as fact. It has resulted in the science fiction cosmology of today. More caution would be welcome. The visible activity on the surface of the Sun remains a puzzle. Sunspots are an enigma. When we look through the centers of dark sunspots it is thousands of degrees cooler beneath the bright photosphere.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm
See also:
Sep 22, 2004  Electric Stars
Jan 10, 2005  Electric Stars in Action
Sep 20, 2004  Vela Pulsar


 

Isaiah 27:1 "In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword
shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent,
even leviathan that crooked serpent;
and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."

 What are Gamma Ray Bursters?

Gamma ray bursters (GRBs) appear as bursts of gamma rays coming from points randomly scattered in the sky.  These bursts are very brief, lasting between a few milliseconds to a few hundred seconds.  For a long time there were hundreds of theories about what caused them, but very little evidence for any of these theories, since nothing was ever seen at the location where one of these bursts occurred.  Their random distribution eventually made a convincing case that they occurred not within our solar system or within our galaxy, but much farther away.  Given this, it was clear that they must be extraordinarily powerful. Starting in the late 1990s, astronomers made a concerted effort to catch gamma ray bursters in the act, focusing powerful telescopes to observe them in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum moments after a burst was detected.  These efforts paid off in 1999 when one was seen to emit visible light for as long as a day after the burst occurred.  A redshift measurement of z = 1.6 indicated that the gamma ray burster was about 10,000 million light years away.  If the burst of gamma rays was omnidirectional, this would mean that its power was about 1016 times that of our sun—for a very short time.  For details on this discovery, see:
  1. Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE), GOTCHA!  The Big One That Didn't Get Away, Gamma Ray Burst Headlines, January 27, 1999.
A more detailed observation of a burst on March 3, 2003 convinced many astrophysicists that at least some gamma-ray bursters are so-called "hypernovae".  A hypernova is an exceptionally large supernova formed by the nearly instantaneous collapse of the core of a very large star, at least 10 times the mass of the sun, which has already blown off most of its hydrogen.  Such stars are called Wolf-Rayet stars.  The collapse of such a star need not be spherically symmetric, so the gamma ray burst could be directional, reducing the total power needed to explain the brightness we see here (if the burst happened to point towards us).  For more, try:
It's hard to resist quoting the theory described here:
Here is the complete story about GRB 030329, as the astronomers now read it. Thousands of years prior to this explosion, a very massive star, running out of hydrogen fuel, let loose much of its outer envelope, transforming itself into a bluish Wolf-Rayet star.  The remains of the star contained about 10 solar masses worth of helium, oxygen and heavier elements.
In the years before the explosion, the Wolf-Rayet star rapidly depleted its remaining fuel.  At some moment, this suddenly triggered the hypernova/gamma-ray burst event.  The core collapsed, without the outer part of the star knowing.  A black hole formed inside, surrounded by a disk of accreting matter.  Within a few seconds, a jet of matter was launched away from that black hole.
The jet passed through the outer shell of the star and, in conjunction with vigorous winds of newly formed radioactive nickel-56 blowing off the disk inside, shattered the star.  This shattering, the hypernova, shines brightly because of the presence of nickel.  Meanwhile, the jet plowed into material in the vicinity of the star, and created the gamma-ray burst which was recorded some 2,650 million years later by the astronomers on Earth.  The detailed mechanism for the production of gamma rays is still a matter of debate but it is either linked to interactions between the jet and matter previously ejected from the star, or to internal collisions inside the jet itself.
This scenario represents the "collapsar" model, introduced by American astronomer Stan Woosley (University of California, Santa Cruz) in 1993 and a member of the current team, and best explains the observations of GRB 030329.
"This does not mean that the gamma-ray burst mystery is now solved", says Woosley.  "We are confident now that long bursts involve a core collapse and a hypernova, likely creating a black hole.  We have convinced most skeptics.  We cannot reach any conclusion yet, however, on what causes the short gamma-ray bursts, those under two seconds long."
Indeed, there seem to be at least two kinds of gamma-ray bursters, the "long" and "short" ones.  Nobody has caught the short ones in time to see their afterglows, so they are more mysterious.  For more information, try these:
At the time this was written, NASA was scheduled to launch a satellite called "Swift", specially devoted to gamma-ray burst detection, in September 2004. "
Could it be that a hyper nova caused a gamma ray burster tp strike the earth and boil the subterranean water's igniting the explosion found in the hydroplate theory?  It would seem fantastic in an atheist model but if it fits the evidence it must be seriously considered. We have historic record of the flood.  We see here a scenario that wouldn't destroy the laws of science but yet would uphold the literal record of scripture and also force us to acknowledge God's Providence.


The major wobble can be noted in our milky way galaxy
" 22 October 2013. Astronomers have discovered that our Galaxy wobbles. An international team of astronomers around Mary Williams from the Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP) detected and examined this phenomenon with the Radial Velocity Experiment (RAVE), a survey of almost half a million stars around the Sun. In addition to the regular Galactic rotation the scientists found the Milky Way moving perpendicular to the Galactic plane."
http://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-discover-milky-way-wobbles/
 In the NYC model this could the after affects of an intergalactic explosion within the swirling universe.

Gamma ray burst igniting the flood?
scientist are already thinking this way!!!

Published on Jan 12, 2014
"Every few seconds, a supernova emits jets of deadly gamma rays somewhere in the universe. If one of these gamma ray bursts should happen sufficiently close to the solar system, all life would perish.

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are flashes of gamma rays associated with extremely energetic explosions that have been observed in distant galaxies. They are the brightest electromagnetic events known to occur in the universe. Bursts can last from ten milliseconds to several minutes. The initial burst is usually followed by a longer-lived "afterglow" emitted at longer wavelengths (X-ray, ultraviolet, optical, infrared, microwave and radio).

Most observed GRBs are believed to consist of a narrow beam of intense radiation released during a supernova or hypernova as a rapidly rotating, high-mass star collapses to form a neutron star, quark star, or black hole. A subclass of GRBs (the "short" bursts) appear to originate from a different process - this may be due to the merger of binary neutron stars. The cause of the precursor burst observed in some of these short events may be due to the development of a resonance between the crust and core of such stars as a result of the massive tidal forces experienced in the seconds leading up to their collision, causing the entire crust of the star to shatter.

The sources of most GRBs are billions of light years away from Earth, implying that the explosions are both extremely energetic (a typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime) and extremely rare (a few per galaxy per million years). All observed GRBs have originated from outside the Milky Way galaxy, although a related class of phenomena, soft gamma repeater flares, are associated with magnetars within the Milky Way. It has been hypothesized that a gamma-ray burst in the Milky Way, pointing directly towards the Earth, could cause a mass extinction event.

GRBs were first detected in 1967 by the Vela satellites, a series of satellites designed to detect covert nuclear weapons tests. Hundreds of theoretical models were proposed to explain these bursts in the years following their discovery, such as collisions between comets and neutron stars. Little information was available to verify these models until the 1997 detection of the first X-ray and optical afterglows and direct measurement of their redshifts using optical spectroscopy, and thus their distances and energy outputs. These discoveries, and subsequent studies of the galaxies and supernovae associated with the bursts, clarified the distance and luminosity of GRBs. These facts definitively placed them in distant galaxies and also connected long GRBs with the explosion of massive stars, the only possible source for the energy outputs observed.

On November 21, 2013, NASA released"
more evidence that comets came from planets.(this agrees with the hydroplate theory.)



"An investigation into the precise structure of the Milky Way has ongoing, perhaps, for as long as we’ve known we live inside a galaxy, one of billions of islands of stars in space. That awareness hasn’t been around as long as you might think, less than a century. We can’t
step outside the Milky Way to get perspective. Every picture you’ve ever seen of it has been an artist’s concept."http://earthsky.org/space/our-milky-way-does-have-four-arms-astronomers-say
  So if  we are uncertain as to the shape of our own galaxy.  then how do we know that other "galaxies"  are equivalent size shape and number? 

http://www.icrar.org/home/monster-galaxies-gain-weight-by-eating-smaller-neighbours

 Images of galaxy mergers
 "Astronomers looked at more than 22,000 galaxies and found that while smaller galaxies were very efficient at creating stars from gas, the most massive galaxies were much less efficient at star formation, producing hardly any new stars themselves, and instead grew by eating other galaxies."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140919083847.htm
http://www.cosmotography.com/images/galaxy_cannibalism.html
If there are smaller scaled galaxies this behavior seems more natural. Also we have yet to see stars actually being born.  So if we are seeing stars being eaten it really cuts on stellar evolution.



http://spacetelescope.org/news/heic1419/
"Astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope have found a monster lurking in a very unlikely place. New observations of the ultracompact dwarf galaxy M60-UCD1 have revealed a supermassive black hole at its heart, making this tiny galaxy the smallest ever found to host a supermassive black hole. This suggests that there may be many more supermassive black holes that we have missed, and tells us more about the formation of these incredibly dense galaxies. The results will be published in the journal Nature on 18 September 2014."

More problems with the evolutionary conception of the solar system
 http://creation.com/revelations-in-the-solar-system
One scientist summarized these by saying ‘The clouds are too hot, too magnetic, and they rotate too rapidly.’8 The contraction produces effects that tend to make the formation of planets impossible.9
Reeves, H., ‘The Origin of the Solar System’, The Origin of the Solar System, S.F. Dermott, editor, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1978, p. 9
"Another problem with the general Nebular model is in the formation of the gaseous planets. As the gas would pull together into the planets, the young Sun would pass through what is called the T-Tauri phase. In this phase the Sun would give off an intense solar wind, far more intense than the present. This solar wind would have an effect of driving excess gas and dust out of the still forming solar system and thus there would no longer be enough of the light gases left to form Jupiter and the other three giant gas planets. This would leave the four gas planets smaller than we find them today."
"The moons of Jupiter, studied by the Galileo mission, display a surprising mix of ‘old’ and ‘young’ features. Using the assumption of uniformity (i.e. that cratering rates have always been more or less the same) older objects should be more heavily cratered than young ones. Yet here we find the moon Callisto, which is the most heavily cratered object known in the solar system, and its sister moon Europa, with the smoothest surface of all.7 Although Europa’s craters may have been filled with ice, the heavier cratering on Callisto could be the result of regional catastrophic events, with both moons the same age."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrYaM9Q-mCM&index=10&list=PLwOAYhBuU3UeYFyfm2LilZldjJd48t6IY


http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/narrated-animation-of-mms-launch-and-deploy/#.VHNYs2dSlGQ
In March of 2015, an unprecedented NASA mission will launch to study a process so mysterious that no one has ever directly measured in space. To create the first-ever 3-dimensional maps of this process, a process called magnetic reconnection, which occurs all over the universe, the Magnetospheric Multiscale, or MMS, mission uses four separate spacecraft equipped with ultra high speed instruments.
Launching four satellites into space simultaneously is a complicated process. In addition, each spacecraft has several booms that will unfold and extend in space once on orbit. A launch and deployment with so many moving parts is meticulously planned.
Watch the video to get a sneak preview of how MMS will make this journey: The four spacecraft are housed in a single rocket on their trip into space. One by one, each ejects out, before moving into a giant pyramid-shaped configuration. Next each spacecraft deploys its booms.
Once in orbit, MMS will fly through regions near Earth where this little-understood process of magnetic reconnection occurs. Magnetic reconnection happens in thin layers just miles thick, but can tap into enough power at times to create gigantic explosions many times the size of Earth.
Reconnection happens when magnetic field lines explosively realign and release massive bursts of energy, while hurling particles out at nearly the speed of light in all directions. Magnetic reconnection powers eruptions on the sun and – closer to home – it triggers the flow of material and energy from interplanetary space into near-Earth space. The MMS orbit will carry the four spacecraft through reconnection regions near Earth, using this nearby natural laboratory to better understand how reconnection occurs everywhere in space."
PREDICTION:  What is unique about (NYC) is the claim of a connection to the polestar/ North Star.  We have models that predict Geocentrism, young earth creationism and also plasma cosmology.  This hypothesis could thrive without the results of this mission, though it could need altering.  However, at least in my mind the MMS results will solidify New Years Cosmology as a theory and not simply a hypothesis if the results favor (NYC).  Mathematical models may be helpful.  Yet If the universe is too mysterious too be measured, then there is not so much of a need for that.  Perhaps a discussion what models will be more mathematically viable is worth research.  Yet this model will focus on raw evidence over speculation.

      Unfortunately, it appears this paper is more than sizable enough.  Yet there is more research to provide. In the future, I will be doing more studies on the history of astrological charts, in search of astronomical data concerning the ancient past and the astral catastrophe which took place during the flood.  I have seen plenty of confirmation of this fact.  Only interpreted from non-christian paradigm.

 As we study cosmology,  the observations of this physical world are grand an awe inspiring.  Yet in the practicality of our existence, we find ourselves needing to be a bit more down to earth.  Our understanding of the universe has been built on shaky ground.
  As we delve into mysteries we start to feel insecurity.  What happens when we are not in control?  It is so depressing that all of our hopes and dreams can eventually be found to be only that, hopes and dreams.As we started this lesson off, I consider the loose nature of matter,  I think about the loose nature of reality.   Reality is always disappear before us with the passage of time.  Growing up,  I got the opportunity to play for a successful football team.  We became regional champions and broke many of our school's records and the state record of offensive points in a season.   A few years later, I was recording a political event in that gym.  I got to speak for a moment with an optometrist who was an underdog running for the US Senate.  I told him the story of my HS football team.  Then I complained that they forgot to post our Championship flag up that year.  A couple of years later they tore down the gym and relocated it.  The optometrist is a US. Senator and there is rumor of him running for president.  However the reality of that moment is but a memory.  All matter is nothing more than an expression of energy.
This energy pervades the cosmos.  But where does this energy come from?
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 
When I consider the earth to actually be stationary  While it is the universe runs around me.  I feel centered, no longer in a chaotic state. God has placed my feet upon a rock.
Deut. 32: He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."  
Just as I will not move this planet.  I will not move the Sovereign LORD.
Yet our Lord is the foundation which we have left.
Deut. 32:16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods,
with abominations provoked they him to anger.17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God;
to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee."
   When I consider the damage of the universe, I consider the damage of a fallen World.
Job 25:5 Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight."
We consider the physical reality of the electromagnetic energy connecting all the universe to our world.  We must consider.  Has God placed of the universe in the actions of mortals?
Isaiah 13:Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger,
to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible."
   Consider this that all of creation has suffered due to the sin of man.  
Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now."

Why this judgement?  How quickly do we forget...
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;"


First, we have forsaken our God Jehovah.
Deuteronomy32:30 How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight,
except their Rock had sold them,and the Lord had shut them up?
31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
32 For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah:
their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:
33 their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.
34 Is not this laid up in store with me, and sealed up among my treasures?
35 To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time:
for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.
36 For the Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants,
when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left.
37 And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted,
38 which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings?
let them rise up and help you, and be your protection.
39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal:
neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. 40 For I lift up my hand to heal"
   Yet it is man that has done evil. 
 Romans 1:21 because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
 1 Corinthians 6:Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 

Look at your life.  How many hearts have been broken by adultery and divorce?  How many dreams have been shattered through thievery? How many lives have been wasted in idolatry and covetousness?  How many murders have tasted blood on our earth? God never liked any of this.  He never approved of it.  But we needed to satisfy ourselves.
James 4:From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. 10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up."

Perhaps you may be worried.  Does God know your sins?  Is there any way around judgement? Hebrews 9::27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Hebrews 10: 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."  By the fact that we know that death is inevitable, we know that Judgement would naturally be inevitable as well.

What are you waiting for? Are you searching for a sign in heaven?  (constellation crux)


Or maybe you want a smaller sign (like in our DNA).


                                                                    
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

This is God's promise which does not change. 
hebrews 6: :12 that ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. 13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, 14 saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. 15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. 16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: 19 which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;"

Trust in Him and you shall be saved. 
Acts 8:Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 
Acts 16: 29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 

In Christ,
Matt