And there came an angel of the LORD, and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abiezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites. And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.(Judges 6:11-12) KJV
A prediction of Einstein’s theory of relativity may be used to prove that the soul is a gravity node because spiritual entities use gravitational lensing to project holograms.
Our discussion of gravity intersects with Biblical exposition on the second day. It seems obvious that one way to establish above and below, literally up and down, is to create gravity. This fundamentally changes how we understand gravity by making the assumption underlying modern physics since Sir Isaac Newton null and void.
Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee.(Isaiah 47:13) KJV
Newton’s basic idea, the law of gravity, is that gravity is a property of mass. The proportional relationship between mass and gravity can be confirmed experimentally but it only measures the observed effect of gravity, it doesn’t reveal its cause. Newton assumed that the mass itself was the cause of gravity. This is merely a guess at interpreting circumstantial evidence, and it’s also a cop-out, the equivalent to saying that there’s no cause.
A particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called induction.– Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
When atheist science trolls (ASTs) demand proof of God the answer is simple: the universe is proof of God. ASTs respond by saying that there’s no proof that the universe needs a cause, or something utterly pathetic along those lines. Newton’s explanation for gravity is the same thing, utterly pathetic, but it’s the assumption that lies at the very heart of physics.
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.(Ecclesiastes 1:2) KJV
Einstein built on Newton’s work, he didn’t replace it or make it obsolete although that’s what scientifically illiterate science worshipers (SISWs) believe. In Newton’s day it was sufficient to say that gravity is a property of mass, but by the time of Einstein it was clear that the situation was more complicated than that. What is mass? If mass is the sum of all of the energy of a body, then two bodies with the same weight will have different mass if one of them is moving, because the kinetic energy of its motion has to be added to the total mass.
And then there’s space and time to consider. It’s not oversimplifying to say that Einstein fudged Newton to accommodate the new knowledge of sub atomic physics, but Newtonian Physics and Relativity are basically the same thing, at least, in terms of what they regard to the cause of gravity, or lack thereof. According to Einstein (and therefore Newton), gravity has no cause, it’s a by-product of the existence of space-time.
When it came to light and what it may be it became clear that light has properties of matter because matter is energy and everything is energy when it comes right down to it. Therefore, Einstein reasoned, if gravity is inherent to matter and energy, and light is a form of energy, then light will be affected by gravity. It’s very simple stuff. Einstein buried his ideas in volumes of math that are only comprehensible to a minute set of elite intellectuals, so everyone thinks it’s much more complicated than it really is.
Matty’s Law of Quantum Gravitation
Gravity (A) is a field emitted from a created instance (a singularity) which causes a body to have attractive force (p) proportional to its mass and inversely proportional to the square of its distance from the source (pG).
G is the gravitational constant. This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by using deduction.– Matty’s Law of Quantum Gravitation
Fortunately for us the Bible contains an extensively developed theory and law of gravity which is congruent with all physical evidence and empirical observation but it means that the Bible is true and contains accurate physics. We develop it in the devotional for February.
They are of those that rebel against the light; they know not the ways thereof, nor abide in the paths thereof.(Job 24:13) KJV
If a spiritual being which is based upon a gravity node can be visible, could not this be an application of the use of gravity to affect light? Can we use relativity to prove that spiritual entities have a soul, because the soul is a gravity node therefore they can use gravitational lensing to project a hologram?
The hypothesis that if light has properties of matter then it will be affected by gravity was experimentally confirmed in 1919 by Sir Arthur Eddington. This is something we observe: the gravity of the sun causes light from nearby stars to bend. It’s called gravitational lensing. This is taken as proof of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity but what is it really?
It’s circumstantial evidence. The cause of gravity wasn’t known, and the premise used to explain it is false. It also includes a large helping of scientific sleight-of-hand. Gravitational lensing isn’t proof of relativity, it’s proof that gravity bends light. Relativity is a load of dingo’s kidneys.
Fortunately it’s not necessary to refute or deny relativity or gravitational lensing. We use it to continue building the Biblical theory of gravity. We can plug it straight into our Biblical exposition.
We can take the “confirmation of relativity,” to mean that the sun is a source of gravity, which means that it’s a heavenly entity. Entities are distinct from bodies because they’re sentient. We have an extensive trail of deductive breadcrumbs which allow us to conclude that gravity nodes are equivalent to the soul.
Now we can use “relativity” to prove it. Yesterday we saw that an angel appeared to Manoah and his wife. This was a spiritual entity. Our careful deduction has lead us to conclude that the existence of a spiritual entity is made possible because they’re based on a gravity node. Gravity bends light, or in these cases, is used to manipulate it.
Here’s how we can use “relativity”: If Spiritual entities can project a visible image then they’re using gravitational lensing to project a hologram, therefore they have a soul (gravity node).
Induction vs. Deduction
Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.– Inductive Reasoning, definition (Wikipedia)
We realize that all this may seem far-fetched but it’s exactly what Einstein did: Inductive rationalization of circumstantial evidence. However, we have an great advantage over Einstein. We’re not using induction, we’re using deduction.
Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical deduction or, informally, “top-down” logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. It differs from inductive reasoning or abductive reasoning.– Deductive Reasoning, definition (Wikipedia)
We have submitted ourselves to the will of God and take as our premise that God cannot lie, therefore the Bible is true. It turns out that this is a principle which may be deduced from axioms, it’s not a Bible quote. With this starting point we’re using deduction to find out what’s possible in reconciling physical evidence, empirical observations and common sense with the Bible. We’re being ruthlessly Biblical and incredibly practical.
We want to be ruthlessly Biblical but incredibly practical.– Pastor Kyle Mercer, Prayers, Plans, and Priorities
Einstein began by rejecting the Word of God (regardless of what he may have said about the possible existence of God) and so he had to use induction to force-fit evidence and observations into a false paradigm. That’s physics folks!