The stars fell down to the earth, like unripe figs falling from the tree when a strong wind shakes it. The sky disappeared like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved from its place.(Revelation 6:13-14) Good News Translation
Impossible, that is, except for the fact that mathematical models of the cosmos show that %90 of the mass of the universe is missing. Oh, and don’t forget that the Voyagers and New Horizons space missions have detected a brightly shining wall on the edge of space.
We all have the same evidence. Our choice of paradigm determines what we think it’s evidence of.– Matty’s Razor
Something which has terrified star gazers throughout history is pondering the question, why don’t the stars fall to Earth? That’s what astronomy is for: to make this appear to be a ridiculous impossibility.
Astronomy is: the body of knowledge generated by applying the Hawking Effect to the Star Trek Episodes. It’s been expanded to include most space-based SciFi (except Babylon 5); it’s synonymous with Astrology (where observations of the stars are used to predict outcomes) given that it’s used to deny the possibility of the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy; It’s a minor deity in the Atheist pantheon.– Astronomy, definition
The firmament is massive, which is to say, it has mass. The mass is acted upon by the gravitational field emitted from the center of the Earth such that it also has an attractive force. The gravitational interaction of the firmament holds the cosmos in its apparently stable state. When the end of the age comes the firmament will roll up like a scroll, there will be no source of gravity to hold the stars in space, and they will fall to Earth as prophesied.
The induced narrative that you call modern astronomy is designed for the express purpose of making you believe that the fulfillment of this prophecy is impossible. Here’s what SciPop has to say:
The gravitational force inside a hollow sphere shell of uniform areal mass density is everywhere equal to zero.– a load of dingo’s kidneys
We (that’s me and the Holy spirit) were presented with math which has been developed for the purpose of being able to say that there can’t be a rigid shell surrounding the observable universe. Well, well, well. It’s as if they saw us coming.
Wow, I mean, like, WOW, right? Who even knew that there was such a thing? Thank God for Twitter. Supposedly this math proves that there can’t be a hollow sphere shell enclosing the cosmos. Here’s how it’s supposed to work:
- There’s no firmament because redshift proves that the universe is expanding,
- except that redshift is due to gravitational time dilation.
- There’s no firmament because the gravitation inside a uniform hollow sphere shell of uniform areal mass density is everywhere equal to zero,
- so long as the mainstream science theory of gravitation is true (SciPop),
- which it isn’t.
This may be logical and arithmetically accurate but it’s conceptual. It only exists in the imagination. It’s not a testable hypothesis. There’s no way to conduct an experiment that could either support or falsify this statement. It’s pseudoscience. People believe it because it’s math. They worship it because its Algebra. Newton’s magic spell.
Here’s the problem: The space inside the firmament doesn’t have uniform areal mass density ρ (kg/m2) . That’s theoretical baggage from the SciPop paradigm. Gravity isn’t a property of matter, gravity is a field emitted from the center of the Earth. Oops.
To those of you who would like to point out that “the gravitational force inside a hollow sphere shell of uniform areal mass density is everywhere equal to zero” that’s algebra: theoretical gibberish based on an untestable, and therefore unscientific, application of the false Newtonian concept of gravity. In other words, it’s a load of dingo’s kidneys.
We need your financial help but Mattymatica isn’t a religious organization, charity or new age cult.
If you need to belong somewhere, find a local church. If you’d like to help, please consider donating.